The Next President is virtually certain to be called upon to appoint at least two Supreme Court Justices. Barack Obama has dramatically contradicted himself on the type of Justices he would appoint.
The Doctrinaire Senator Obama has often criticized Supreme Court Justices Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito as “the wrong kind of judges for the Supreme Court.” When asked about judges he would appoint, he said he considers Justices Bryer, Ginzberg and Souter to be “very sensible judges.”
Yet, after two recent Supreme Court Decisions a right leaning, poll tested Obama suddenly appeared.
The Death Penalty Case
The court ruled decades ago that the death penalty does not violate the Constitution. But in June the Supreme court ruled that Louisiana law violation of the Constitution in allowing the death penalty for a convicted child rapist . How could it be unconstitutional to execute a child rapist? The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy said in part,
A review of the authorities informed by contemporary norms, including the history of the death penalty for this and other nonhomicide crimes, current state statutes and new enactments, and the number of executions since 1964, demonstrates a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.
The legitimate, Constitutional role of The Court is to interpret the written Constitution and the written law. The court’s role is NOT to sense a dubious, unverifiable “consensus” in order to justify a decision that contradicts the Constitution.
In our political system the people express consensus NOT through the courts, but through their elected representatives, in this case the Louisiana Legislature. But, five arrogant Justices stepped out of their legitimate Constitutional role, to overrule the Legislature and The People of Louisiana, based not on an interpretation of the US Constitution or of the law, but on an imaginary “consensus.”
Did Barack Obama agree with this decision to spare a child rapist based on “consensus”? Here’s his reaction to the Court’s ruling:
“I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution.”
So, with lots of qualifiers, Obama sort of supports a death penalty for child rape.
But, which Justices voted to strike down the death penalty for for a child rapist? Justices Kennedy and Stephens, and the three that Senator Obama held out as “sensible” examples of the kind of judges he would appoint to the court: Justices Bryer, Ginzberg and Souter.
Which Justices voted to uphold the death penalty for this child rapist? The four Senator Obama says are the wrong kind of judges: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.
So which Obama should we believe? The Obama who said he would appoint more Justices like Bryer, Ginzberg and Souter? Or the Obama who said the death penalty should be permitted for child rapists?
The Second Amendment Case
A second case decided by the Court in June exposes Obama as once again being duplicitous and deceptive. This one was about the Second Amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
For nearly a century The Left has been selling a specious legal interpretation of the Second Amendment, holding that the Amendment did not protect an individual’s right to own a gun. Rather, it conferred on government a so-called “collective right” to issue guns to on-duty National Guardsmen.
Of course it’s obvious from even a casual study of the history of the times that the founders were not the least bit concerned with governments having the power to arm their troops. The founders’ fundamental mission, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and throughout the drafting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was to protect individual liberty from the inevitable tendency of governments to become too powerful and oppressive.
The notion that the founders intended for the Bill of Rights, a list of protected individual rights, to include an assurance that government troops could be armed, is preposterous.
In June, the Supreme Court struck down a thirty-two-year-old Washington D.C. law forbidding individual ownership of firearms. In a major, historic ruling, the court affirmed the intent of the authors of the Second Amendment to protect a preexisting right of individuals to own guns.
The Justices in the minority put enormous effort into rehashing all the specious arguments of the past 100 years to defend the tortured “collective right” interpretation. Here are a couple of excerpts from the minority’s dissenting opinion that summarize their thinking:
“…nothing in the Constitution protected the use of arms outside the context of a militia authorized by law and organized by the State or Federal Government.”
“In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating the National Guard of the several States.”
Senator Obama’s reaction to this historic Supreme Court Decision:
I have said consistently that I believe the second amendment is an individual right. And that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on.
Which Justices voted to deny us the right to own a gun and supported the outrageous “collective rights” theory? Justice Stevens and the three that Senator Obama held out as examples of the kind of “sensible” judges he would appoint to the court: Justices Bryer, Ginzberg and Souter.
Which Justices voted to uphold the Second Amendment’s protection of free people’s individual rights to own firearms? Justice Kennedy and the four Senator Obama says are the wrong kind of judges: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.