Obama & Judges: Do gun bans have enough empathy?

Sarah Moore dug up an atrocious quotation from Barry about the methodology by which he'll be selecting judges by his divine hand:

“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand 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.”

Cannot wait for that. I believe that will entail, literally, a heart bleeding empathy all over the bench, like the jumping heart in Airplane! I wonder if those judges will be empathetic to those who don't want legislation from the bench.

Comments

[weirdone]

During the Roberts nomination debate, he argued that most Supreme Court cases involve no real controversy, "so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of cases."

In the other 5 percent, he argued, the determining factor is not what the law in question says, or what the Constitution says, but the emotional disposition that the justices deciding the case have toward the parties disputing it. "In those difficult cases," Obama said, "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." Roberts and Alito were bad judges, he decided, because their hearts weren't in the right place.

"The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak," Obama said in a floor speech on Sept. 22, 2005.

"When I examine the philosophy, ideology and record of Samuel Alito, I am deeply troubled," Obama said in another floor speech on Jan. 26, 2006. "There is no indication that he is not a man of fine character. But when you look at his record, when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I found that in almost every case he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless."

Barak Obama, “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand 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.”

So what is Obama saying? Is he saying the Constitution and the body of law should be interpreted according to who they are applied to? Is he saying that there needs to be one brand of justice for the rich and powerful and another for the weak, poor or disadvantaged? I seem to remember something in the founding documents about equal justice under law. But then when I read them I paid particular attention to the definition of the words and phrases that they contained and paid no attention to what I thought should be there. Assuming Obama has read it, as a liberal he seems to find in the Constitution what ever he HOPES to find there and is willing to CHANGE the meaning to suit what ever he FEELS is appropriate. But even as he champions the cause of the weak and powerless he makes an exception in the case of the weakest of all; the soon to be born and the newly born have no champion on the left and Barak Obama twice voted against their most basic right to life while in the Illinois Senate. (The Illinois bill that Obama refused to support had language identical to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that passed the U.S. Senate 98-0, with such senators as Barbara Boxer voting in favor.) Liberals FEELINGS change from moment to moment, however, that is why they define the Constitution as a “Living Document.” And that is why Obama was described as “Very Flexible” by a prominent PBS correspondent on Special report with Britt Hume 6/27/08.; Flexible to the point that he can support two diametrically opposing views at the same time. “I have always supported individuals 2nd Amending Rights,” and at the same time “I find the DC gun ban to be constitutional.” There is no lie or contradictions involved in these positions, or any rational thought either.