firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/17/274143.aspx
Web MSNBC First Read Search ABOUT FIRST READ First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.
Speaking at the Planned Parenthood conference in DC this afternoon, Barack Obama leveled harsh words at conservative Supreme Court justices, and he offered his own intention to appoint justices with "empathy." Obama hinted that the court's recent decision in Gonzales v Carhart -- which upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion -- was part of "a concerted effort to steadily roll back" access to abortions. And he ridiculed Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote that case's majority opinion. "Justice Kennedy knows many things," he declared, "but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor." Obama also won a laugh at the expense of Chief Justice John Roberts, saying that judgments of Roberts' character during his confirmation hearings were largely superficial. He's good to his dog," he joked, adding that judicial philosophy should be weighted more seriously than such evaluations. "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
HMT (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:31 PM) Yes we need more Liberal judges that will take private property away from people and give it to richer private property owners who can develop it for higher taxes. Wonder if any African-American, gay, or disabled, old people lost out on that deal? Dave, Tn (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:35 PM) Obama leaves no stone unturned to cast Hillary as unfashionable, huh? I agree with him that the culture war is over and Hilary won, though. Boo hoo--- HMT (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:53 PM) Dave, Tn / relax, throw down the top on the beamer and take a soothing drive, better hurry though the evil dems are coming fast, and unfortunately there is nothing you can do to stop them MK,MO (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:56 PM) Dave are you Africcan American, gay, disabled or old? Ricardo in California (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:58 PM) Do you really want judges to have "empathy"? If a law lacks empathy, shouldn't it be up to the legislative branch to change the law? Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:02 PM) Dave, does that make His Honor, Judge John Roberts, an 'activist' judge? Quick, someone- consult Rush Screwbaugh, and see what's going on here with this POS! net (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:04 PM) Judges should indeed have empathy. Without empathy, there would be no insanity charges, we'd convict the mentaly retarded and we certainly wouldn't take into consideration age; I really hope Obama gets elected, for your sake, and mine. Billea, Tulsa, OK (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:14 PM) Dave, the SC recently upheld the right of government entities to use eminent domain type laws to take away citizen's private property and to allow developers to have it. THIS WAS DONE WHILE BUSH WAS IN OFFICE, with approval of at least one of his SC appointees. If it happens under the next CIC, it will be more of the same ole' thing! Lisa - Fort Worth TX (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:18 PM) Grimey, it isn't the law that lacks empathy, it is the judges (currently) interpreting it. Also, just because a judge has empathy doesn't mean that he or she has to decide on that basis when the law is clear. Maybe you should get to work on a supercomputer to replace the Supreme Court, then we could get rid of empathy completely! n popp (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:19 PM) Richardo what difference does it make? Since when are legal decisions suppose to side with one of those groups no matter what? Dave, Tn (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:21 PM) Dave, TN, Got a ruling to reference in you absurd post? Greg R, Spokane, EA (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:21 PM) By the actual definition the partial birth judgement is "legislation from the bench" and the Supreme Court should be more adamant in leaving those decisions to individual states. CJ (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:23 PM) More empathy from judges? Steve Seattle WA (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:37 PM) I agree that our judges should have empathy. They have great responsibility in their positions and to carry out this responsiblity without empathy would be hazardous to us as citizens. I also believe that they showed tremendous empathy in their decision on partial-birth abortion. Their empathy was directed to hundreds of helpless children and the thought of those little babies having their bodies literally ripped apart. I have a teenage daughter and would hate for her to get pregnant. But I could NEVER condone the murder of a baby in order to make my daughter's life easier.
The current crowd on the Supreme Court has lots of empathy for Bush's wealthy campaign donors and his base of religious radicals at the expense of the public and the common good. If a law lacks empathy, shouldn't it be up to the legislative branch to change the law? I sometimes wonder why Congress bothers making laws at all. Bush just issues signing statements and then ignores the laws he doesn't like. And that's most of the laws coming out of Congress these days, since the rubber-stamp Republican Congress was tossed out by the voters in disgrace. Apparently, he would prefer activist judges who constantly override the wishes of the people in order to satisfy his own agenda. JT, Dallas, TX (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:44 PM) Dave-Obviously you have no concept of jurisprudence and equal protection under the law which is slowly being eroded under this pathetic regime. I am so sick of indivivuals who have no idea of what discrimination is about because they are too busy being narrow minded and judgmental and resort to using the L WORD. Us so called progressive liberals are the true compassionate people. what if giving birth would cause the death of your daughter? Or if complications involved with that birth would cause your daughter to be disabled the rest of her life? If I remember correctly, it was for that last part they were trying to overturn the ruling. Robb, STL (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:10 PM) Dear Obama, what does empathy have to do with the constitution? Bruce, Las Vegas, NV (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:20 PM) The definition of an activist judge seems to be "any judge that rules against what I personally believe in" around here. I tend to have alot of respect for SCOTUS judges even when I don't agree with them (FYI - John Paul Stevens was one of the first people to be affected by his own majority ruling when the town where he has his summer house used eminent domain to build a hotel =D). What concerns me is the partial birth abortion ruling that does not allow for exception for the health of the mother. As it stands now, if you or your wife is pregnent into the third trimester and complications arrise that make a cescarian impossible while at the same time making carrying the child to term a severe risk to the mothers life... The woman will be forced to risk her life no matter how many doctors assert that an abortion is a safer move for her. But I don't think they have any business telling doctors how to deal with late stage complications to pregnencies. And I think that is what Obama was talking about when he says that justices should "have more heart". John Doe, The Peanut Gallery (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:23 PM) +++ you have no concept of jurisprudence and equal protection That would be the 14th Amendment, Section 1, for you little leaguers playing along at home. That amendment is in place so "progressive" liberals (who are anything but progressive) like juan here don't get the idea that someone is special just because they are a certain race and/or gender. That throws the entire Affirmitive Action debate (which is anything but Affirmitive) into the air. Progressive doesn't mean "make crap up because it makes you feel good" juan. It is YOU juan that don't have any concept of jurisprudence and equal protection...
|
http://csua.com/feed/