Posted by: iam0nly1 | June 13, 2008

Obama on SCOTUS: Not as Progressive as You Think

On a daily basis PUMAs and Just Say No Dealers are harassed by Obots with threats of the conservative Supreme Court (ooooo, I’m shaking in my boots), even going so far as to post pictures of hangers, making direct threats to our wombs. 

News Flash: Your threats are hollow and won’t work. 

First and foremost, your threats are empirically denied. The Court has had a conservative majority for a while now and if they wanted they could overturn Roe at any minute. But, if you’re really passionate about it, please note that the battle over choice will be fought in the states, so get out and vote for your Democratic judges and elect Democratic governors if you’re so worried. I plan to.

Second, learn a bit about your beloved messiah before you start claiming that only he can save us from the oh-so-horrible conservative Supreme Court. 

1) Obama was against the filibuster of Judge Alito


“We need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that, if we’re going to oppose a nominee that we’ve got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake,” Obama said. 

“There is an over-reliance on the part of Democrats for procedural maneuvers,” he told ABC’s “This Week.”


“There’s one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values. And that’s to win elections,” Obama said.

In short he doesn’t want to fight if he can’t win. He rather run for office even though he’s admittedly not qualified. Point blank, that fight was winnable, and even if it wasn’t, at least put in the damn effort. As Pucci at Hire Heels says:

if the democratic-controlled congress will grow a pair and make abortion a litmus test during the confirmation hearings, then this becomes a non-issue. next

2) As for Chief Justice Roberts, Senator Obama  wrote a defense of Democrats who voted for Roberts in which he argued:

It’s this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts’ confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don’t think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn’t swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.


…attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn’t become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution’s design.

I’m with Obama on this one. I’m willing to give Senator McCain the “benefit of the doubt” when he starts appointing his Justices. After all, having won a landslide victory, he will have earned at least that much.

3) It’s not surprising that Obama offered up a passionate defense of Democrats who voted for Roberts, since, according to an article on his own website, he also seriously considered voting for Roberts and expressed that if he were President he wouldn’t want his appointees “opposed simply on ideological grounds.”  

In short, he only voted against Roberts because his insider friend told him the obvious: should he ever get to the point where he is now, having voted for a conservative Justice would dampen the support of his crazed legions seeking to beat nay-sayers (particularly women) over the head with “SCOTUS, SCOTUS, SCOTUS, ABORTION, ABORTION, ABORTION!!”

Obots may scream and holler now, but if he were to get elected and nominate a centrist, right-leaning Justice, they would be swooning over his “non-partisan” and “unifying” efforts. 

To put it mildly, Obots, your messiah doesn’t have the credentials to warrant using SCOTUS appointees as a bludgeon against Democrats for McCain. Perhaps these individuals happen to know the Senator McCain voted for Bill Clinton’s appointees, Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsberg.

Besides, it’s time for the Democratic Senate to toughen up, dig in their heels and make the Republicans bend a little. If they want us to put in the effort of voting for them, they should at least put up a fight once elected. Obama couldn’t and wouldn’t even do that. Thus, he doesn’t deserve the ultimate vote of confidence now. 



  1. Thank you. It is also worth nothing that the President doesn’t appoint the nominee, he merely nominates them. Congress appoints them, and it is Congress’s responsibility to stop unacceptable nominees, a responsibility Democrats in Congress apparently fail to take seriously. If you are worried about SCOTUS, vote for down ballot Democrats and demand they man up to their responsibility.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: