Constitutional Law
Obama’s Statement Against Roberts’ Confirmation Shows Constitutional Views
Posted Oct 8, 2008 6:38 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Barack Obama voted against the confirmation of John G. Roberts Jr. for chief justice and issued a statement that shows his strong convictions on constitutional law.
A former law professor, Obama said precedents and statutes can provide a just outcome in 95 percent of the cases, the Wall Street Journal reports. But for the “truly difficult” cases, he said the "last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."
The story says Obama’s views show he rejects the philosophy of strict constructionists and sides with the views of the court’s more liberal justices. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama noted the philosophy of Justice Stephen G. Breyer. “I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document," Obama wrote.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
kgg
Oct 8, 2008 9:07 AM CST
The problem with the liberal approach is that it puts no power into the hands of the people.Under a strict constructionist approach, the legislature is responsible for the words chosen, and are in turn subject to election, loss of election or recall if the people disagree. Under the liberal approach, with regard to appointed Judges, the people are stuck with the opinions of from one to five people, i. e. humans who make mistakes.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Oct 8, 2008 10:13 AM CST
Now, now, KGG. We should all bow down to the greatness of unelected judges who have the power to make up the law as they see fit. The Constitution means nothing to Breyer and Obama—their personal preferences are superior and we must abide by them. In fact, we should just follow Obama’s lead and dispose of the Constitution altogether. If there is ever a dispute, King Obama can resolve it for us!
Flag this comment
Alejandro A. Cabrera
Oct 8, 2008 12:13 PM CST
I agree with Obama, as well as Justice Breyer. The Constitution is a living document and I believe the rights laid out in it are ABSOLUTE!!! And Bush’s patriot act shows utter disregard for the highest law in this great nation. Of course the supreme court won’t overturn it due to the outstanding number of bigots who support the president… including Chief Justice Roberts. Free speech, right?
Flag this comment
TM
Oct 8, 2008 12:15 PM CST
The idea that the Constitution and Federal Statutes will work justice without the practicality of Justices guiding hands somewhat dismays me. It is clear when looking at out-dated policies and practices created by the very words of the Constitution and Federal Statutes that words alone do not bring justice. Under this theoretical framework, justice would mean that blacks and other minorities would be still slaves and women would continue to get less pay for equal work. Is this really justice?????????
Flag this comment
J.D.
Oct 8, 2008 12:51 PM CST
^ Wrong on all counts. Slavery was outlawed via the 13th Amendment, something passed through the POLITICAL PROCESS.
By thinking about the Constitution as a “living document” you assure that individual justices’ personal opinions decide important issues. If we move in that direction, justices can just say “Sorry, we don’t believe in the 13th Amend.” and then slavery returns.
No, the Constitution is a static document. This assures that the amendments never disappear via political ideology of the few.
Flag this comment
Alejandro A. Cabrera
Oct 8, 2008 1:02 PM CST
I strongly disagree. Thats precisely why the founding fathers left a provision to amend this document. Making it a LIVING document. As for personal opinions being filtered into it, I think the only one to try to infringe on Americans rights to there faces is George Bush. Anyone who would even propose reinstating slavery would be an outkast. By the way, most of you blogging are attorneys and scholars… I am a pre law college freshman and I will and can win this debate over you.
Flag this comment
Alejandro A. Cabrera
Oct 8, 2008 1:22 PM CST
Back to the issue that the Constitution could be amended for political ideology, I think thats iffy. The provision to amend or fix the Constitution is to allow slight changes as the majority of societies views changes. This is necessary in order for the Constitution to be tailored to the needs of our day.
Flag this comment
TM
Oct 8, 2008 1:28 PM CST
J.D., although you are correct that the 13th amendment abolished slavery, this process took entirely too long by most accounts. As a matter of fact, before slavery was abolished in the United States, every industrialized European nation had already given up on the practice. Moreover, the 13th amendment formally abolished slavery, but the slave culture had already begun to change before its formal abolishment. If slavery does not compel you on the issue of justice and judges being able to interpret the constitution let me suggest JIM CROW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Flag this comment
associate
Oct 8, 2008 1:45 PM CST
Alejandro A. Cabrera,
You have already lost the debate you seek.
“Thats precisely why the founding fathers left a provision to amend this document. Making it a LIVING document. As for personal opinions being filtered into it, I think the only one to try to infringe on Americans rights to there faces is George Bush.”
The mechanism built in for amendments is for legislators to change the wording of the Constitution, not judges. Likewise, the Executive, Bush, cannot change the words of the constitution.
The role of the Court is to apply those words to the case at hand and in light of the intentions of Congress expressed at the time of drafting and/or amendment. If the Court is not bound by the words of the Constiution (or statutes for that matter), then what binds the authority of the Court?
Flag this comment
A.CABRERA
Oct 8, 2008 1:53 PM CST
Maybe you should read the Patriot Act. The executive doesnt need to change the words of the Constitution to alter or abolish its intentions. And the courts are bound by the constitution, they can only interpret it, which most of the time is a mistake. We should be governed by how it is laid out for us in the constitution. Just on a 21 century level. Who ever said the rights in the Constitution weren’t absolute should have said that to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison’s faces. We do have absolute rights, but we as lazy, uncaring Americans just go with the flow of our government instead of inciting thought provoking debates to come up with logical, moral, and ethical solutions. This is no longer a government for the people, by the people. It is a government for Washington insiders, by Washington insiders.
Flag this comment
associate
Oct 8, 2008 4:19 PM CST
The Court is selected and confirmed by the other two branches of the govn’t “for Washington insiders, by Washington insiders.” All the more reason that the Court must be required to stick to the language of the Constitution in order to prevent each branch of govn’t from overstepping their boundaries as defined in the Constitution.
I have read the Patriot Act. What particular provisions are you asserting to be unconstitutional, or are you just repeating some talking points you read on a blog somewhere? I’m guessing the latter.
Flag this comment
A.Cabrera
Oct 8, 2008 4:36 PM CST
Thank you for insulting me. Not all young adults are oblivious to the political system around them. Specifically sections 213, 214, and my favorite 218 are violations of the constitution.(fourth amendment) so called “terrorist”, which the president has the power to deemed anyone a terrorist just on suspicion, dont have the right to due process of law. the geneva convention states that all P.O.W.‘s be treated with certain rights during imprisonment. It only excludes two groups, al queda and the taliban. most prisoners at gitmo have no ties to either group. if you have read the memorandum by district court judge Joyce Green, you will see that this is accurate. over 300 men have been detained and held for 7 years because of 9/11. none had ties to al queda, and some not even to the middle east. so much for getting that from a blog. good try though…thanks i enjoy this. you have good points and are opening my mind to examine them. i hope your no so haughty as to pass mine of as absurd garbage. but you probably do.
Flag this comment
associate
Oct 9, 2008 8:06 AM CST
The Geneva Convention only applies to uniformed soldiers captured on a recognized battlefield. What uniforms were these “soldiers” wearing?
The Constitution limits the powers of govn’t and gives rights to US citizens. It has no effect in other countries on citizens of other countries. That’s the hole in your analysis.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.