President Obama and the bench
By Carl Tobias
One responsibility the Constitution assigns the president is the nomination of life-tenured federal judges. President Barack Obama ably discharged this duty by cooperating with Virginia Democratic Sens.Jim Webb and Mark Warner and nominating and confirming excellent jurists. All the Virginia judgeships are currently filled. Now that Obama has won re-election and Democrats have retained the Senate, Virginia provides a model for promptly filling the 83 lower court vacancies.
At Obama’s inauguration, Virginia experienced one Fourth Circuit vacancy and one in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Eastern and Western districts each later encountered one more. When Obama assumed office, the new administration expeditiously invoked measures to fill openings. The White House worked closely with Webb and Warner. The senators requested that numerous Virginia bar groups swiftly evaluate applicants and make recommendations. Webb and Warner in turn rapidly suggested intelligent, ethical, independent and diligent candidates who have even temperaments.
Tobias holds the Williams Chair in Law, University of Richmond.
November 9, 2012 - 6:13 AM
How interesting it is that Carl Tobias uses such terms as “ethical” and “excellent” regarding the judges Obama nominated. One solution Judge Urbanski proposed to resolve the Ten Commandments issue in Giles County was to separate the last six Commandments from their Eternal Referent, the very personification of “good”, in the first four Commandments. This is as brilliant as a teenager running around shouting, “I got a 75!” Our immediate question is, “What game were you playing?” If the teen were playing golf, 75 is a good score, because we measure it against par. On the other hand, if he were bowling, it is a poor score, because we compare it to the perfect game score of 300.
Thus, it makes no sense to claim that something is excellent, ethical or moral when the judge proposed severing the latter commandments from the Ultimate Moral Standard. This is significant, because it is precisely this kind of “thinking” that the political Left uses. This is postmodernism. Having given up on the idea of absolute Truth and Morality, the only thing left is the self and language, and language is merely a tool to help the self get what it wants. It is what enables Obama, himself, to be able to make lofty speeches and then turn right around and belie everything he said by his actions. What he says really doesn’t matter, because it has no real meaning beyond helping him get what he thinks he wants. And, there are no constraints on what he wants, because Absolute Morality is dead.
Rather than Obama working with Warner and Webb, it is more like they were working for him, as dutiful clones. They have rubber-stamped everything Obama has wanted to do. So, it is no surprise that they picked out judges that they knew would advance his social agendas.
Thus, rather than being reassuring, it is actually terrifying that Obama has that many federal judgeships, and possibly more Supreme Court seats, to fill. Judicial activism is yet one more tactic the left uses to advance its agenda. For several decades now the Left has used the court system to do end runs around the constitutionally prescribed legislative process, knowing the legislation they wish to pass would be unpopular with the voting public. Activist judges routinely find rights where there are none prescribed by the Constitution. Conversely they often abrogate rights that are defined by the Constitution. An example of this activism is the so-called “right to privacy”, which essentially makes every individual an island into which the law cannot penetrate. This is nothing more than a cleverly disguised form of lawlessness.
On the other hand the recent decision by HHS Sec. Kathleen Sibelius to force religious institutions to provide abortion and contraception against the tenets of their faith is clearly a violation of the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Indeed one wonders what all the bother about laws is anyway. In his individual decisions not to enforce legislation duly enacted by both houses of Congress and signed into law by earlier presidents, Pres. Obama has demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the rule of law in general and United States Constitution in particular. Specifically, he has unilaterally decided not to enforce DOMA, the “don’t ask don’t tell” law regarding homosexuals in the military and civil-rights law involving voter intimidation. So doing he has arrogated to himself prerogatives not given the president by the Constitution.
Conceptually, the Left’s view of law is inherently nonsensical and its practical outworking in our culture has been devastating. It has left us without a moral compass, and the result is societal chaos. Thus, the prospect of Obama filling multiple federal judgeships and even Supreme Court positions is alarming rather than comforting!
America is a nation of many and “out of many, one”. We are not a Theocracy and yes, the most “ethical” and “excellent” among us recognize and uphold this truth.
To YOU “it makes no sense to claim that something is excellent, ethical or moral” when anyone or anything deviates from YOUR “Ultimate Moral Standard”. What is IMO “completely illogical” is for you “to say that one thing is “better” than another” and condemn someone else for saying so. Which is precisely what you have done here.
Of course we have every “idea what “good” is”. We do not need a Theocracy to know it either. Free will was given to us all.
You condemn the “thinking” that the political left uses”, even as your own would insult and demean millions of Americans. No one has “given up on the idea of absolute Truth and Morality”, they have merely rejected your thinking as being the fount of it. And you confirm why.
You have determined that what Obama “says really doesn’t matter, because it has no real meaning” to you or for you. It has real meaning for 60+ million Americans however who know that what you offer is not what this nation needs.
Whining about anyone else’s judicial picks is just sour grapes as we have plenty and then some right wing Plutocratic and Theocratic judges foisted upon us by the right wing still sitting in OT style judgement on us.
No it is no surprise we would pick judges to uphold what we view as important to this nation’s survival. Don’t you?
Ir should be “terrifying” to theocratic folks that Obama has many federal judgeship and more Supreme Court seats to fill. You see your grip and influence waning and it scares you. Judicial activism is fine as long as it is he kind you support. The kind that keeps us divided and keeps barriers in place that make you comfortable. Obama and progressive people are breaking those ugly barriers.
And it is rather ludicrous for you to claim it is only the left that has used courts, influence and power “to do end runs” on what you claim are “constitutionally prescribed legislative process”. The hideously obstructive and destructive Congress we have endured since 2010 is rife with that “ends justify the means” mentality.
Ending slavery and the Civil Rights Act (among others) were also “unpopular with the voting public”. It did not make the “voting public” right then either.
It is not true that in reality “judges routinely find rights where there are none prescribed by the Constitution”. Equal means Equal. In every context.
Odd how the “so called “right to privacy” is so important to other causes the right holds dear and so anathema to choice and reproduction. Individuals were to be “an island into which the law cannot penetrate” on many matters according to our Founders.
You choose to misrepresent the decision by HHS Sec. Kathleen Sibelius. It “forces” employers (who might happen to be “religious institutions”) to include reproductive health care in their insurance coverage. It does not “force” anyone to have or pay for an abortion or contraception against the tenets of their faith. That is also a private and personal choice that no employer should be involved in.
No clergy is included so it is clearly NOT a violation of the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Not enforcing and defending DOMA (which is not IMO Constitutional) is also the will of the 60+ million people who support this President. Duly enacted is kinda like duly elected. Those who claim Obama will never be their president are free to say so. You want to see a ruthless power grab and destruction where none has happened. You are also free to do that.
I think it is the judgmental, theocratic and prejudicial right wing view that is and has been for a long time, “inherently nonsensical” and destructive to this nation. The rest of us have evolved and know or accept that homosexuals deserve equal rights and responsibilities in our culture and laws. Equal means Equal.
I am sorry you are “without a moral compass”, and that you see “societal chaos”. I have a very strong moral compass Jesus taught me. No man can take it away and no court can affect it. Thus, for me, the prospect of Obama filling multiple federal judgeship and Supreme Court seats is not only comforting, it is imperative!
Mrs. Saunders….there is a distinct difference between “free will” and innate knowledge. They are not necessarily mutualy exclusive, but neither are they necessarily mutual.
Your entire argument is circular & self serving.
Oh, and his isn’t?
What is this “distinct difference” and where did I claim it did not exist?
#4 “Of course we have every “idea what “good” is”. We do not need a Theocracy to know it either. Free will was given to us all.”
Your words, correct? If you’re not equating knowing “good” with free will (and assumming such “good” supports your free will & vice versa) what are you saying?
The “distinct difference” is to most, obvious. People can & do use, mis-use, abuse, mis-represent, etc., “knowledge” (including as to what constitutes “good”) routinely with their “free will”. Even if there is such innate knowledge.
I think you have it backwards. Whatever innate knowledge we gain is used in the exercise of our free will. People who have never heard of God, Jesus or the Bible are more than capable of “good” and knowing what it is.
#6 “Whatever innate knowledge we gain…”
Thank you.
(Hint; look up “innate”).
OK, I did:
“3: originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innate
Oh, that’s right Jim Lucas rules of discussion prevent the use of any other than his accepted definition of any word.
Sue me!
#8 This time the third definition, yet it still proves my point.
Explicitly not; (your #4) “Of course we have every “idea what “good” is”. We do not need a Theocracy to know it either. Free will was given to us all.”
Or; (your #6) “Whatever innate knowledge we gain….”
Keep digging Mrs. Saunders. (Mis)-using words & concepts one does not understand….but never being wrong. Tough ground.
I do not believe I am “(Mis)-using words & concepts” and I know that I understand them. You are being your usual self and denigrating for the sake of denigrating. It is par for this course but it solves nothing.
I repeat, people who have never heard of God, Jesus or the Bible are more than capable of “good” and knowing what it is. You cannot dispute that so you parse my words and decide the definitions you will accept, as per usual.
#10 Mrs. Saunders….I never mentioned “God, Jesus or the Bible” in this thread. (Very seldom in any thread).
As to learned, (indoctrinated?) “empiricle” knowledge vis-a-vis innate knowledge….I understand the difference in concept/definition.
You blurred the two to “prove” your “argument”. Instead, IMO, you made it circular & vacuous.
Then, the personal insults & IMO (sue me) childish remarks. Have a nice evening, barring a new vector I’m finished with this thread.
Now who is digging? I never said you did mention “God, Jesus or the Bible”. I was not even having the discussion with you. I made nothing “circular & vacuous”, that is just your pejorative way of trying to refute what you otherwise cannot. Should that be called any less childish? You sir, are well aware what “sue me” means.