11-24-2013, 02:44 PM
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
11-24-2013, 04:01 PM
But to answer your question, no, everybody who voted Republican in 2010 was not conservative.
11-24-2013, 04:47 PM
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
The very useful lesson of Obama’s judicial power grab
It’s no secret that President Obama was behind the push to end the filibuster as a means of blocking nominees for U.S. appeals court judgeships. At a fundraiser earlier this month, he told liberal donors that he is “remaking the courts.”
Recognizing that the filibuster stood in the way of a full radical makeover, Obama personally lobbied three Democratic Senators who were undecided about whether to eliminate it. Obama reportedly told them “how important this was to him and our ability to get anything done for the rest of the term.”
The White House stressed the need to confirm three new judges for the D.C. Circuit, which rules on a wide swath of regulatory issues. Stymied by Congress, Obama plans to push his left-wing agenda through regulatory overreach. He needs liberal judges to prevent the resulting rules from being overturned.
Now he will have three of them on the D.C. Circuit. Obama’s mission for Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pollard, and Robert Wilkins could not be more clear. No one should doubt that they will carry it out. The left never screws up this sort of thing.
One consequence of ending the filibuster under these circumstances is to demonstrate just how much law has become politics by other means. And a consequence of that demonstration is to further undermine the public’s trust in the judiciary and, ultimately, the law.
On balance, I consider this a good thing. Why? Because much of the important stuff that federal appeals courts do is, indeed, politics by other means, and the public needs to understand this. The more that federal judges lose their mystique, the more that realism is enhanced. The more that judicial decisions in important controversial cases are understood as ideologically driven, the better....
11-24-2013, 04:49 PM
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Obama Admits He's 'Remaking the Courts'
President Barack Obama has made it official: he’s “remaking the courts.”
At a private fundraiser for liberal Democratic donors at a DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) event on Nov. 6, Obama said, “we are remaking the courts.”
Only presidents nominate judges to the three levels of the federal judiciary: 94 district courts (for trials), the 13 circuit courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court. Thus, every president makes a very significant impact on the third branch of government, and those appointments—most especially to the Supreme Court—are a defining aspect of each president’s legacy.
There are serious implications in choosing to say he’s “remaking the courts.” That indicates the President is not just replacing retiring judges with new judges; he is instead fundamentally changing the philosophical balance of the courts.
It’s Obama’s right and prerogative to try to remake the courts. At least he understands the importance of the courts and takes seriously the constitutional power to make judicial appointments. Not all presidents have been as focused on this constitutional duty to staff the entire third branch of the federal government.
Obama is seeking to use that power to advance his far-left vision of what America should be, one in which government plays a central role in people’s lives; with a centrally-planned economy; strict and comprehensive government regulation; the redistribution of wealth through massive economic entitlements; and a militantly secular culture where government dictates truth, defines moral values, and is a pivotal influence on raising the next generation.
President Obama understands that so much of what he wants to accomplish runs afoul of the historical understanding of the limits on federal power and the proper meaning of the Bill of Rights that he can only achieve that agenda if a critical mass of federal judges agree with his idea that the words of the Constitution can be completely redefined (i.e., effectively ignored) to grant such sweeping and transformational power to the federal government. He is seeking to remake the courts to share his philosophy of what the Constitution means to enact his agenda for the entire nation....
11-24-2013, 10:35 PMThe difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.
It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.
A man is but a product of his thoughts. What he thinks, he becomes. Gandhi
Originally Posted by Carol
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
11-25-2013, 04:24 AM
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|