What Obama’s Supreme Court would look like

Voters awake from their quadrennial slumber about this time every fourth year to prepare themselves for the business of electing a president. We cast all our cares and concerns on a man or woman we think can save us from our excesses, our personal responsibilities, our enemies here and abroad.

By the time the election rolls around, most know very little about the man or woman who gets their vote. We simply don’t care enough to reach beyond the rhetoric. We pick the one who looks, sounds or acts more like the Superman (or Superwoman) we would like him to become.

Is it any wonder our country is in such a mess?

Frankly, this year, I would rather cast a vote for NOTA (none of the above). However, the consequences of doing that are much too grave.

The truth is, the most important job of a head of state is his or her judicial selections, who will be at their posts serving justice or wrecking havoc long after the next president leaves office.

Our Founding Fathers wisely created three coequal branches of government, each with important checks against the other two. This little wrinkle in our experiment with democracy is the primary reason that our Constitution has stood the test of time.

What would happen, if two of those branches become one and the same? It would be the death knell of the United States of America.

Our Constitution guarantees that everyone receives “equal protection” under the law, whether he or she is poor or (horrors) rich, minority or (horrors) just an average white male.

Barack Obama and liberals – like the Clintons – want to change that. In their view, the Constitution is like Play-Doh (they refer to it as a “living instrument”) that can be shaped and pounded into any form in order to serve the idea du jour of social justice.

Truth is most of the problems in our country can be directly traced to activists judges who effectively made laws that never could have been approved by a congress directly responsible to the people

While I disagree with John McCain on many issues, he puts his judicial philosophy on his website: In appointing judges, McCain would not only insist on

persons who were faithful to the Constitution, but persons who had a record that demonstrated that fidelity.

Barack Obama is not that forthcoming. There is no mention on his website of the important role of the judiciary or how he would go about filling vacancies on the bench. However, he issued this statement through spokesman Tommy Vietor,

Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.

Did you get that?

Judges are to melt out “social and economic justice.” In this economy, it’s not who is right or wrong. A jurist should consider a person’s bank balance, race or gender, or perhaps the size of a person’s house; then rule in favor of the little guy or a member of a minority group.

When CNN’s Wolf Blitzer tried to pin Obama down on his “vision” for the Supreme Court, Obama admitted that, in cases where the law is not crystal clear, he would apply the Play-Doh principle.

(T)he judge has to, then, bring in his or her own perspectives, his ethics, his or her moral bearings.


Obama has given us a clue as to the type of justices he would appoint. He admires Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter – three of the biggest activists on the high court. On Monday, the latter two were the only dissenters in U.S. v. Williams, a case that upheld a law that punishes people who promote child pornography on the Internet.

Yes, liberals are fond of saying they do it all “for the children,” but when it comes to protecting them from pedophiles, their activist judges are always willing to throw the kids under the train in the name of “free speech.”

All of us have issues we consider important, but justice is not about picking jurists we think will rule in our favor on those issues. It is about upholding the Constitution! When there is a doubt about whether some law passes constitutional muster, strict constructionists attempt to abide by the original intent of the framers.

Our forefathers made it possible to amend the Constitution but it was never meant to be easy. When activist judges apply the Play-Doh principle, the end result is more like Silly Putty.

11 thoughts on “What Obama’s Supreme Court would look like

  1. Jane,

    You have much better instincts than those conservatives who are advocating that conservatives should sit out the 08 elections. To use a football analogy, I believe that the Republicans will never get the ball back if the Democrats sweep everything in 08 as the Democrats would then hang on to the football indefinitely with them then literally running out the clock until the rest of the end time Biblical prophesies are fulfilled. I believe that McCain will win, however, and that he will actually do a pretty good job in nominating justices to the Supreme Court and judges to the federal courts as well. It will be a struggle to get them confirmed in the Senate if the Democrats add to or simply maintain their majority there, but one battle at a time. I’m not giving up hope that the Republicans can turn things around in the Congressional elections in 08, however, George W. has truly hurt the Republican Party.



  2. You conservatives are always complaining
    about so-called liberal judges who are
    supposedly trying to impose their”liberal”
    agenda on America.As if conservative judges
    have never tried to impose THEIR conservative
    agenda on America. The founding fathers never
    intended that the government pry into people’s
    bedrooms. Or tell them what they may read or
    view in private. And the notion that they
    would have insisted that women be forced to
    bear children against their will is ludicrous.
    Abortion was non-issue at that time.
    If one of them had even brought up abortion
    at meeting,let alone making it illegal,
    the others would have thought he was out of
    his mind.


  3. “Obama has given us a clue as to the type of justices he would appoint. He admires Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter – three of the biggest activists on the high court.”

    Jane, McCain voted to confirm all of the above! Regardless of what his website says, it is just buying votes from conservatives. His record says otherwise.

    In 1856, a new party was formed, and in 1860, that party’s candidate won the presidency with only 39% of the popular vote. That party died some time ago, but it is still nominating candidates to carry its label. Today, Americans have an opportunity to recognize a third party that still carries the mantle of the people, but because the media won’t recognize them, they seem destined to fail. Bob Barr is seeking the Libertarian Party nomination. He is a true conservative, and a constitutionalist. He and Chuck Baldwin will be the only true constitutionalists in the race this November, but will not be as fortunate as Abe Lincoln, a no name from Illinois was in 1860.


  4. Jane,

    I agree whole-heartedly with your angle on the issue of Supreme Court justices. Unfortunately, your home run hit a steep gust from the left-field bleachers just prior to clearing the fence. You refer to our Founding Fathers as “framers”. Ish!

    This is a purely leftist term that plays right into the hand of the “Play-Doh Principle”. Please refrain in the future from using this term in regard to the Founders, unless of course you’re poking fun at liberals. The words we use do matter.

    After all, if you call them Founders, that implies a foundation, which is tougher to tinker with. Frames are much easier to play with and shape into your own ethical image.


  5. Jane,
    If you don’t like the current options for president you should join the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and help select someone most of us can agree on. There is still time to identify a write-in candidate. (See Letters to the Editor – Worldnetdaily.com 5/22 and 5/14.) Once this is done word must be spread to the Right Wing that absentee ballots must be obtained so a write-in can be accomplished (can’t do it on electronic voting machines). “None of the above” must not be an option or we hand the Left 8 years to destroy both freedom and America.


  6. One of the the roles of the Supreme Court is to protect the oppressed or vulnerable in our society-those that either because of their numbers or age or circumstances are unable to defend themselves.

    This does not mean the court is instructed to vote in favor of the person with the smaller house. That is ludicrous and saying such stupid and misleading statements only serves to invalidate your other points.
    Unfortunately with the Bush court, we’ve seen examples of justices forgetting their roles of serving justice, equality and other values to “screw” the individual in favor of big business (case decided in favor of the employer in which plaintiff sued for gender equality in wages) or in favor -of all things, of religious values (recent ruling on abortion case). This in a country where we supposedly have freedom of religion-ah, but maybe not of religious dogma infecting our government.
    In any democratic and humane society, someone must speak out for those that cannot defend themselves. A supreme court should put those values above all others.
    How do you think blacks and women ever got the right to voteF? These are the types of injustices that only the Suupreme Court can correct. APG


  7. Alberta,

    The role of the Supreme Court is to determine whether federal, state and local governments are acting ACCORDING to the Constitution of the United States.

    We are guaranteed equal protection under the law by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Under the Constitution justice is blind to race, gender or economic status. Blacks and women got the right to vote because of the 15th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution.


  8. Ms. Chastain,

    Loved the article.

    I think doing it “For the children”, really means doing it “To the children”.

    Keep up the good work.


  9. Dear Jane,

    It is so very obvious our judges (most) are totally out of control and have self-appointed themselves “God”: These judges obviously have no clue as to the content of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.

    Point in case:
    Recently the California Supreme Court took it upon themselves to bypass the will of the majority of the voters by legalizing gay marriage. How is this even possible and why do we let it continue?

    Another point in case:
    Terri Schivo (sp?)). A judge ordered her to die…be murdered. He referred to the “rule of law” in this decision. I am a nurse for 25 years. This woman died a inhumane and barbaric murder. I never dreamed I would see the day this happened. OK, take the NG tube out but allow her to eat! They would not so much as let her have a moist cloth to her lips! This woman hung on for days, much longer than expected, why? She wanted to live. An autopsy was performed and those in the know….medical experts, doctors, whatever…..declared her brain was shriveled up and obviously could not function normally. Any human body starved to death will have a shriveled up brain at the time of autopsy. WE WOULD NOT DO THIS TO A DOG! Can you just imagine the horror which would occur had we imposed this death sentence on an animal?

    I am a law student. One of my judge instructors on the first days said the following, these are not his exact words but enough to get the point I’m trying to make:


    Jane he was serious. My main purpose for law school is to prove that integrity can stay intact post-bar and that somehow I can be a part of changing the direction of our judicial system which has definitely become “vision anointed” believing they are the appointed few (the only) who can play God.

    Have you ever been in family court? Never in my wildest dreams would I have believed the injustice imposed daily on the family going through divorce….that is if you have a big bank account. The judges here have unbelievable power to do as they choose. Of course their decisions are based on money, whom the attorney is, evaluation after evaluation by so called specialist in the field, dragging out the proceedings month to month to month putting a lean on your home to secure funds; its all about the money. There is absolutely no concern whatsoever for the children involved whom go to school and read about our wonderful judicial system, government check and balance through the division of power, etc. Through the course of divorce these children see the reality of the situation. I firmly believe that either knowingly or unknowingly there is an agenda in our family law courts, that being the destruction of the family as we know it…the way God designed it.

    History is not being taught in schools. There is a purpose for learning history; don’t repeat the same mistakes over and over. History is being repeated again, one which ultimately leads to destruction if not corrected early on or at least prior to our destruction. Our presidential candidates seem to think we can hold hands with the rest of the world singing the little coke jingle all smiling and looking at one another with looks of true endearment. NOT. A large part of the world would like to see us blown off the face of the earth and will promise anything, sign any treaty or do whatever it takes to deceive us minute by minute as they prepare for our ultimate destruction.

    WHERE ARE OUR LEADERS? Most likely aborted.

    I believe it is high time our church leaders communicate with and educate their congregations with the facts of reality here. Christians have got to make a stand. If we don’t make a stand now, it won’t be long before it will be against the law to even say a prayer in a public place. Churches…forget the tax exempt status, there is much more at stake here, not to mention the fact we already give over 50% of our hard earned money to the government in the form of taxation whats a little more money when so much is on the line? In time they will get that money anyway so fight the battle now reduce taxes and eliminate the IRS and most government organizations when we win the battle.

    II Chronicles 7:14 …my favorite verse.

    Jane I have worried about you. I miss your three hour radio broadcast in southern California. You are responsible for awakening a passion inside me which is huge. How can we get you back on the radio? Please email me …I won’t take much of your time.

    Debbie in Murrieta


  10. Debbie,

    How wonderful to hear from you — one of the brightest listeners to call my radio show!

    Your comments on your law professor are chilling! At least he had the guts to verbalize his judicial philosophy. Yes, everyone who feels that judges or justices should be allowed to impose their will, should have to sit in a court of law and see what happens when unelected judges who feel they are not bound by law or the Constitution are not reigned in.

    I am so flattered that I had a part in your decision to study law. I can only imagine how the Lord will use you in the future.


  11. There aint a dimes worth o difference tween party a nor b…no matter who or what phant or jack…is in..we are losing our freedoms and moving to the left .The Manchurian candidate voted to confirm Ginsberg,an offical in the aclu for bubbas sake..a lovely gal to be sure.but she also wants to legalize child porn..the so called publicans vote to confirm the worst types to the supremes..the Gipper did also…we need a Sampson to clean out the stables…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s