2006 Video: Obama On Supreme Court Nominees

According to Obama, some wrong headed rubes think that “a President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not whether the Justice is intellectually capable and is nice to his wife etc etc…”

But Obama knows better:

Video Via Naked Emperor News.

What with Justice Souter’s recent announcement that he’s retiring, and Obama’s top three contenders to replace him being far lefties, I was counting on Republicans to examine his eventual nominee’s  philosophy, ideology and record. I trust the Republicans will not be shy in  bringing any troubling concerns to the public’s attention. I’m delighted that Obama approves.

About these ads

11 thoughts on “2006 Video: Obama On Supreme Court Nominees

  1. Hopefully he will nominate someone who upholds conservative and libertarian concerns, like the second amendment, ending the wasteful and countrproductive war on drugs and someone who favors individual rights over the government in issues like wiretapping and habeus corpus. It would also be nice if the someone he picks is serious about Presidents following the law and not ordering people to torture like the last idiot did.

    Like

  2. Obama is a liar and a Communist. We know what he wants to do.

    The big story here is Souter. I can’t believe the b**** spit on everyone who helped him get on the Supreme Court like this.

    Like

  3. Tim grow a set of balls.
    Obama is saying that only those judges who he agrees with can be on the Supreme Court.

    Like

  4. Pingback: Supreme Change Coming: David H. Souter Announces Supreme Court Retirement « Frugal Café Blog Zone

  5. He probably can’t Gus, Tim sounds like a libertarian to me and they are a “pro-choice” party. Real men protect innocent, defenceless human life.

    Like

  6. Hopefully he will nominate someone who upholds conservative and libertarian concerns, like the second amendment, ending the wasteful and countrproductive war on drugs and someone who favors individual rights over the government in issues like wiretapping and habeus corpus.

    Gee Timmy, you seem to have fallen into the same trap as the left and its pet jurists. It is not the duty of the judicial branch to “end the wasteful and counterproductive war on drugs” as they are to apply the law to the facts presented, and determine which law prevails when laws are in conflict. Policy decisions are the prerogative of the legislature.

    It would also be nice if the someone he picks is serious about Presidents following the law and not ordering people to torture like the last idiot did.

    Congratulations! You win today’s sterling idiot award!
    Putting aside the incorrect definition of torture that one must employ to conclude that the quoted statement in any way reflects any semblance of reality, there is the very real issue of the fact that the Bush Administration asked its attorneys for legal opinions on the actions they comtemplated, and acted in accordance with those opinions. Whether or not you agree with those opinions, the administration was entitled to act in accordance with them without seeking your woefully underinformed opinion first.

    As for your litmus test, as much as I like the idea of appointing “conservative” judges, the correct standard is actually to employ judges who understand and employ U.S. law to cases and leave legislation to the proper branch, thus restoring some scintila of accountablity to the legislative branch by causing them to own the laws imposed, rather than sloughing difficult policy decisions of on to an unelected judiciary, or allowing said judiciary to impose laws that voters have declined.

    Like

  7. Pingback: 2006 Audio of Obama on Appointing Supreme Court Justices : Stop The ACLU

  8. Timmy, America has fallen down the well , and your hoping for lassie to save us. Make no mistake about it, America is toast. Obama sat in a church for years with “God damn America” and you expect this socialist bastard to actually help America ?

    I WANT OBAMA TOO FAIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Like

  9. BHO wants judges with empathy.

    Empathy is never supposed to be part of interpreting the law. But empathy IS part of legislating from the bench.

    Replacing Justice Souter will not change the tenor of the court much. Same goes for Ginsberg. Beyond that, we’ll have big trouble — if BHO gets the change to appoint other justices. And he just might — if he serves for 8 years.

    Like

  10. Ruth Bader Ginsburg stayed alive all this time out of pure malice, just to thwart conservtives. There’s whole lotta hate in these UberLiberal WOmen. (Sura 2:29)

    Like

  11. Pingback: It’s Not What You Know, but How Well You Kiss Up to POTUS: DHS Napolitano Considered for Supreme Court Judge David Souter’s Opening « Frugal Café Blog Zone

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s