Supreme Court Judge Selections (coming soon to a ballot near you)

With under a week to go, some lesser discussed issues may play an important part of our future....

On July 17, 2007 Obama in speaking at a Planned Parenthood conference…
We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom…what it’s like to be poor, or African-american, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.

McCain has said...
"The moral authority of our judiciary depends on judicial self-restraint, but this authority quickly vanishes when a court presumes to make law instead of apply it. A court is hardly competent to check the abuses of other branches of government when it cannot even control itself.
"

Am I to understand Obama is saying we need MERCIFUL judges? So there justice AND mercy? Its amazing that Obama managed to accomplish what God couldn't with one person. Justice Vs. Mercy. ooohh, I see, we should let drug dealers and murderers go free if they are Gay, Single moms, Black or poor?

Are McCain's ideas much better?
Thoughts?

As a side note, here is a funny clip from Howard Sterns show... (excuse the foul language please)

5 comments:

The Faithful Dissident said...

I agree with McCain's statement and I also agree with Obama's. I think they're both right. The reason why I think Obama's statement is relevant is that a good judge is able to uphold justice while being able to extend mercy, if he thinks it may do some good.

Let's say a teenage mom gets arrested for stealing clothes for her baby from a store because she can't afford to buy them. Some would say the judge's job is to throw her in juvenile detention. But a judge who is able to empathize with her circumstances may see that simply throwing her in the juvy slammer in order to fulfill justice is perhaps not always in the best interest of the girl and her baby. Each case is unique and many circumstances have to be taken into consideration.

Let's say a young African American man gets arrested for assaulting a white man that hung nooses from a tree in order to intimidate the black man. Justice may dictate that he is guilty of bodily harm and therefore should be locked up for a very long time. But an empathetic judge may understand that he felt threatened by such a horrible form of racist intimidation, so therefore maybe doesn't really deserve the harshest sentence.

Maybe a poor homeless woman gets arrested -- again -- for turning tricks to supply her drug habit. Justice may demand that she get a long sentence, but a wise, empathetic judge may see in her a potential for reform if given the opportunity. In some cases, that could mean the difference between years behind bars and getting sobered up enough to return to being a productive member of society.

I also think that what he meant by his statement is that we need judges who understand people. And people come from all different walks of life, such as the examples he gave. Just as he said, judges need to have empathy. Yes, they have a job to do and laws to uphold, but they need to have a heart. That can be the difference between a judge and a great judge.

Joel said...

Look, we all know the type of Justices that each candidate would select. Obama will go with more Stevens's and Ginsberg's while McCain would go with more Thomas's and Robert's.

Nothing is really going to change on the Supreme Court if Obama is elected. The people interested in getting out (Stevens cause he's ancient and Ginsberg cause she's not as healthy as she used to be) are waiting until after the election and hoping for an Obama victory.

A McCain presidency will cause a sharp turn to the "right" in the court, as the same Justices are going to leave, but they will be replaced by far more conservative ones.

The question you should have asked was this: Is it better to have a more unified court that leans to one side (seeing as it is a court and they are supposed to be interpreting the law, a more unified stance should be more decisive) or is it better to have a court where all the "important" cases are decided in large part by ONE Justice (as Kennedy is the swing vote, his is the only vote that I believe is actually in question when a case is brought before the court)?

Stephanie said...

That is a really good question, Joel. I don't like option 1. Of course it would be great to have the court all lean one way if it is your way, but if it is not, then it would be a nightmare (and frustrating). I don't like option 2 because that concentrates too much power in one person. I think I would prefer to have non-partisan judges who apply the law equally. Is it possible? I don't think so with Obama. His quote indicates partisanship to me.

It's interesting to look at the issues on each candidate's website. Click on "issues" and see what they cover. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I can't find anything about justices in Obama's issues. Obama has a lot more issues than McCain (like he's being all things to all people - there's even a section for hunters under additional issues). McCain's list is shorter and it does include "Judicial philosophy". Here is what McCain says:

"Our freedom is curtailed no less by an act of arbitrary judicial power as it is by an act of an arbitrary executive, or legislative, or state power. For that reason, a judge's decisions must rest on more than his subjective conviction that he is right, or his eagerness to address a perceived social ill" . . .

As President, John McCain will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat . . .

When applying the law, the role of judges is not to impose their own view as to the best policy choices for society but to faithfully and accurately determine the policy choices already made by the people and embodied in the law.


I have more confidence in McCain to choose impartial judges than I do in Obama - mostly because he identifies that judicial activism is a problem at all and pledges that this is how he will choose judicial nominees:

John McCain Will Look For Accomplished Men And Women With A Proven Record Of Excellence In The Law And A Proven Commitment To Judicial Restraint. John McCain's judicial nominees will be men and women of experience, wisdom and humility who do their work with impartiality and honor. They will have an alert conscience but be immune to flattery and fashionable theory. They will be faithful in all things to the Constitution and understand there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power and federal power.

The Wizzle said...

I think it's important to keep the Supreme Court very balanced. I personally lean left, but I don't want a Court (or a Congress) that heavily favors one side. I want people who are smart AND wise, thoughtful and deliberate, kind and fair. So I guess neither Obama's nor McCain's comments upset me - they both sound like important qualities in Supreme Court judges. But as Joel said, if McCain is elected the Court stands to swing significantly right. I don't think that would be in the best interests of the country, and not because I lean left but because I think balance in this area is very important and healthy.

big.bald.dave said...

One interesting and potentially very impactful aspect of Obama's experience is that he is a Constitutional scholar - he was a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago for 10 years. We probably haven't had a president since the early 19th century with as deep a grasp of Constitutional issues. I would bet that Obama will take a much larger personal role in his judicial selections than many of his predecessors, and at the very least we can trust that he won't repeat the Harriet Miers debacle.

I'm with the Wizzle on this - balance on the court is extremely important. If McCain were to be elected, we would have a conservative court for a generation, which could drastically reshape the landscape on many issues. In Alito and Roberts, Bush recently appointed a couple very conservative judges, I am grateful Obama will likely be able to appoint a couple liberal justices to replace the liberals who will be retiring.