Obama’s view on how judges should interpret the Constitution is freighting. He believes that judges should be biased and use their emotions such as empathy to rule on cases. Keep in mind, Obama has a law degree from Harvard. His view for example, is that the courts should rule in favor of the poor or the handicap against corporations, doctors, or the wealthy. That is not a problem, if they win the case based on law. However, if they won the case based solely on the fact they are poor and handicap, well that is different story. This view is not only absurd, but it will increase litigation on frivolous lawsuits and will result in more financial payouts. Keep in mind, the increase in financial settlements to plaintiffs with questionable cases will have a direct bearing on ALL Americans. Our auto and medical insurance premiums will go up, the price for other goods and services will go up as well as people, doctors, and corporations are sued. If you think there is a lot of “ambulance chasing” and “sleazy” attorneys today, that number will go up exponentially if Obama changes how the law is interpreted. Also, keep in mind, the leftist radicals that support his view of the law that he appoints to the Supreme Court, will be there for their lifetime. We cannot have this. Face it, not interpreting the Constitution correctly is Unconstitutional, and against the law. Do not get me wrong, judges can have empathy for plaintiffs or defendants. That is not against the law. However, if their emotion gets the best of them and they rule in their favor only because they feel sorry for someone, which is a crime. We do not need judges making new legislation and policy, which is not their job. We need judges to interpret the law and that is it. Thomas Jefferson feared the power grab that is happening today in the judicial branch. Jefferson said that “judges should be withdrawn from the bench whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or fortune, but it saves the Republic”.
Obama’s liberal interpretation of the law has already started as he is urging Congress to reduce mandatory prison sentences for crack cocaine possession. I read this is in response to an 82% incarceration rate for blacks for this offense. During the campaign Obama insisted that male African-Americans need become more responsible. I do not understand how liberal “enabling” laws and programs are going to solve this problem. My brother is an alcoholic, but when my family helps him with money and a place to stay it only made him get worse. In other words we were enabling him. When we turned our backs on him (tough love) he finally showed signs of getting better. A law to reduce crack possession prison sentences is only enabling not only blacks, but whites to use the drug. After all, if a longer sentence did not deter them, how is a shorter sentence going to work? The same can be said of any entitlement program, it enables bad behavior. Welfare instead of workfare is a huge mistake. People qualifying for welfare should at least have to pass a drug test and show they are bettering themselves. People get welfare checks and nothing is expected in return, so it enables laziness and could enable drug and alcohol addictions. When are the Democrats going to figure this out? It is not rocket science. I am not against helping the poor, but it must be done in a way so they have the opportunity to better themselves. Throwing money at the poor and expecting nothing in return does not solve the problem.
More Blogs from pbohan can be found at: http://patrickbohan.blogtownhall.com/ This blog “The Theory of Mediocrity” is the number 1 conservative blog for the Denver Metro Townhall site.