Redstate

Posted at 11:47am on Jun. 27, 2008 News Flash: Liberal Judging Not Popular

And Barack Obama Knows It. Shhhhh, Don't Tell The Voters

By Dan McLaughlin

TIME Magazine's Massimo Calabresi thinks that Barack Obama is being savvy in "moving to the center" by announcing that he sides with the conservative bloc of the Supreme Court (and at least to some extent against his own prior positions) in supporting the individual Second Amendment right to own guns and the death penalty for child rapists. Plainly, Obama is hoping for gullible reactions like that of Jay Newton-Small, who tells us:

Of course, there's little Obama would be able to do to about either ruling, even as president. So, his comments come purely as opinions that give voters an idea of where he stands on the political spectrum.

What he's hoping to avoid is the reaction of Andrew Hyman, who notes that Obama voted against Justices Roberts and Alito (who he now supposedly agrees with) and cited Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter as model Justices even though he now disavows their views on these cases. As Hyman observes, don't watch what Obama says but what his preferred judges do. Because Obama sure as heck is not going to put people like John Roberts on the Supreme Court, and as Calabresi admits, Obama won't be eager to talk about that:

Read On...

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Judicial Activism | Obamabus — Comments (1)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:24am on May 16, 2008 How Astute of You to Notice that, California Supreme Court

Value Judgments are for Voters, Hmmkay?

By Leon H Wolf

I spent a little time last night reading the California Supreme Court's opinion (.pdf) in the gay marriage case. To be honest, I didn't make it all the way through (it's quite lengthy - 172 pages, in fact), primarily because I found the money shot relatively early on. You see, one of the arguments raised by the State was, "Look, Supreme Court, the way the law is set up here in California, gay couples already get all the civil benefits of marriage. Literally the only thing they are denied is the right to use the word 'married.' Therefore, there's absolutely no potential harm that comes to gay people based on the way the law is set up." This argument elicited the following response from the court:

Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.

More below...

Posted in Culture | Judicial Activism — Comments (345)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:18pm on May 15, 2008 California Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

By Robert A. Hahn

The California Supreme Court overturned a ban on gay marriage Thursday, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

CBS 5

UPDATE (Dan McLaughlin): Howard Bashman has the breakdown of the 4-3 decision, which apparently rests on state constitutional grounds and thus can't be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, here along with links to the 172-page opinion.

Comments are open.

Posted in Culture | gay marriage — COMMENTS / Read More

Posted at 11:49am on May 9, 2008 Obama on judges

Protecting the Powerless?

By Feddie

Here is Senator Obama describing what he will look for in a judge if elected president:

[W]hat I do want is a judge who is sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can't have access to political power and as a consequence can't protect themselves from being being dealt with sometimes unfairly, that the courts become a refuge for justice. That's been its historic role. That was its role in Brown v Board of Education.

Except for unborn babies, of course.

Those, you can kill with impunity (even after they're born).

UPDATE (Dan McLaughlin): San Diego Union-Tribune cartoonist Steve Breen made this same point with a cartoon worth a thousand words during the Alito hearings:

Cartoon below the fold...

Posted in Abortion | Judicial Activism | Judicial Appointments | Life Issues — Comments (47)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:36pm on Apr. 5, 2008 "How Progressives Rewrote The Constitution"

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

As explained by Richard Epstein. A very good and very informative broadcast that is well worth a listen. Note Epstein's statements that Republicans have generally gone along with the rewriting of the Constitution and that a supposedly "conservative" Supreme Court has all too often acceded in the rewriting as well. Something to remember--and something for classical liberals to combat as well.