Analysis: Court's course in next president's hands

[Saguaro]

WASHINGTON - In a campaign dominated by the economy and the Iraq War, the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling Thursday on detainees at Guantanamo marks a forceful reminder that John McCain promises one course and Barack Obama pledges another in picking future justices.

In the current controversy, McCain quickly expressed his disapproval of the opinion, while Obama issued a statement of support. It fell to outsiders to point out the broader implications in the race for the White House.

"With the replacement of a single justice from the majority ... today's four dissenters could become tomorrow's majority," said Nan Aron of the Alliance For Justice. The group supported the court's decision, which said detainees in the war on terror held at Guantanamo have the constitutional right to challenge their incarceration in the federal courts.

Security must exist "in fidelity to freedom's first principles," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for a majority seeking to balance the nation's security needs with individual rights enshrined in the Constitution. He went on to criticize the Bush administration and Congress for yielding too much to the former at the expense of the latter.

Of the five justices who created a majority in the case of the Guantanamo detainees, Justice John Paul Stevens is 88, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75, and David Souter and Stephen Breyer are each 69. Kennedy is 71.

The generally younger dissenters were Chief Justice John Roberts, 53, and Justices Samuel Alito, 55, Clarence Thomas, 59 and Antonin Scalia, 72.

Since Supreme Court seats are lifetime appointments, vacancies do not always occur in the four years allotted to a presidential term. That makes any discussion about the impact of a campaign on the high court inherently speculative.

But hardly pointless.

In the last 80 years, Jimmy Carter, a one-term president, was the only chief executive who did not have an opportunity to make a Supreme Court appointment. George W. Bush has filled two seats, and in the process strengthened a conservative shift that began four decades ago with Richard Nixon, ran through the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and managed to outlive Bill Clinton's two terms in office.

Based purely on the ages of the current justices, the nation's 44th president can reasonably expect to fill at least one vacancy.

By their votes in the Senate and their comments as candidates, Obama and McCain signal supporters of their intentions without saying they would apply the type of litmus test that might infringe on the independence of the judiciary.

Often, but not always, these comments are addressed largely to supporters and opponents of abortion rights.

"I would not appoint somebody who doesn't believe in the right to privacy," the underpinning to abortion rights, Obama said in a campaign debate in Las Vegas in November 2007. Pointing out that he once taught constitutional law, he added, "Part of the role of the courts is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don't have a lot of clout."

McCain offered a different view in a Republican debate in May 2007.

"One of our greatest problems in America today is justices that legislate from the bench, activist judges," he said.

He elaborated seven months later in another debate. "The judges I would appoint are along the lines of Justices Roberts and Alito, who have a proven record of strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States," a commitment he has repeated often.

McCain voted to confirm both Roberts and Alito, while Obama opposed both.

McCain sought political advantage in that this spring in Winston-Salem, N.C., saying his rival "went right along with the partisan crowd" with his opposition, despite claims that he works across party lines.

Both men also describe their intentions by reacting to other controversial rulings.

When the court handed down an opinion that upheld a ban on so-called "partial birth" abortions, Obama said he worried that "conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade," the landmark ruling that granted abortion rights to women.

Last year, Obama complained about a different 5-4 decision, one that ruled against Lilly Ledbetter, a longtime manager for Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., who claimed job discrimination because of her gender.

McCain, seeing the case through a different lens, defended the decision and called it a defeat for trial lawyers who sought to sue companies.

Whatever the particulars of the case — and both Obama and McCain have called for Guantanamo to be closed — it's a debate likely to reverberate through the campaign.

And then resume in earnest when one of the two rivals wins the White House and wields the power of Supreme Court appointment.

"Both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time," Obama said during the Roberts confirmation hearings. "What matters at the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. ... That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."

McCain answered derisively in a recent speech recalling Obama's reference to a judge's "deepest values" and "empathy."

"These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism," he said. "Come to think, they sound like an activist judge wrote them."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_courts;_ylt=AqWiovj9DR6E3PBiTi0p4c2s0NUE

Hmm .....who is more qualified to choose, a lawyer with a constitutional law background ,or a fighter pilot ???

[Yellowdogtexan]

Ginsburg and Stevens both want to retire. The next POTUS will get 2 to 4 SCOTUS selections that could change the court and for example lead to the overturn of Roe. v Wade

[Ringo]

Ginsburg and Stevens both want to retire. The next POTUS will get 2 to 4 SCOTUS selections that could change the court and for example lead to the overturn of Roe. v Wade

Ginsburg should NEVER have been appointed in the first place, as she is just a 5th rate ACLU muff diver and friend of Hillrod!! Hell she is probably almost as bad a legal scholar as say someone like You!! Oh don't get into to big a hurry for the Odummy Coronation, as I think to many AMERICANS will Vote and see the TRUTH behind this JIHADIST Sympathizer and Black Muslim charter member!!!

Try running an American next time!!!:sheep:theman:devil

[Yellowdogtexan]

Ginsburg should NEVER have been appointed in the first place, as she is just a 5th rate ACLU muff diver and friend of Hillrod!!Do you tire of being wrong?? I know that facts and the real world are scary to you but let me educate you. It was Orrin Hatch who suggested Ginsburg to President Clinton http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/01/how-clinton-treated-hatch/When President Clinton made his two judicial nominations to the Supreme Court, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The following is an excerpt from Hatch’s autobiography:

[It] was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the appointment and what he was thinking of doing.

President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, a name that had been bouncing around in the press. Bruce, a well-known western Democrat, had been the governor of Arizona and a candidate for president in 1988. Although he had been a state attorney general back during the 1970s, he was known far more for his activities as a politician than as a jurist. Clinton asked for my reaction.

I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.

Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer’s name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.

I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.I hope that Ringo is aware of the fact that Hatch is a republican (I have learned not to assume anything with respect to ringo's knowledge of what is happening in the real world)

[Yellowdogtexan]

This editorial from the NYT makes clear why the next election is so important. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/opinion/13fri1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=sloginIt was disturbing that four justices dissented from this eminently reasonable decision. The lead dissent, by Chief Justice John Roberts, dismisses habeas as “most fundamentally a procedural right.” Chief Justice Roberts thinks the detainees receive such “generous” protections at their hearings that the majority should not have worried about whether they had habeas rights.

There is an enormous gulf between the substance and tone of the majority opinion, with its rich appreciation of the liberties that the founders wrote into the Constitution, and the what-is-all-the-fuss-about dissent. It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States — a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties — but a timely reminder of how fragile they are.
The next POTUS will select two to four SCOTUS justices who will be making some important decisions including the fate of Roe v. Wade and whether Habeas is a fundamental right.

[AYFR]

Looks like McCain with have his hands full with these appointments,

[Judge Smails]

Ginsburg should NEVER have been appointed in the first place, as she is just a 5th rate ACLU muff diver and friend of Hillrod!! Hell she is probably almost as bad a legal scholar as say someone like You!! Oh don't get into to big a hurry for the Odummy Coronation, as I think to many AMERICANS will Vote and see the TRUTH behind this JIHADIST Sympathizer and Black Muslim charter member!!!

Try running an American next time!!!:sheep:theman:devil

5 more votes!

Thanks ringo!

[Ringo]

Do you tire of being wrong?? I know that facts and the real world are scary to you but let me educate you. It was Orrin Hatch who suggested Ginsburg to President Clinton http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/01/how-clinton-treated-hatch/I hope that Ringo is aware of the fact that Hatch is a republican (I have learned not to assume anything with respect to ringo's knowledge of what is happening in the real world)

Listen to the COWARD who backs up and runs like a chickenshit from Debate, because he wants it carried on like a fucking Trial, instead of discussion, as he is to ignorant to use his own words!! Take away the Polls, the Curt & Pastes, and Doggie is an idiot??

Let me get this straight, YOU want us all to believe that CLINTON consulted a dumbass Legal Aid from TX on a SC appointment?? Good fucking god and yet you are on a Podunk Talk Forum trying to impress a bunch of average people?? Don't compute Doggie?

Now lets use LIBERAL DNC SOCIALIST HATE reasoning for a moment!!

WE CAN'T ELECT MCCAIN, HE IS TO OLD, TO SENILE, HAS SKIN CANCER, HES CORRUPT, BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!

BUT WAIT, WE CAN KEEP AND "OLD PRICK AND A SENILE OLD WITCH WHO ARE FAR OLDER THAN MCCAIN ON THE SC, WHERE THEY HAVE UNDERMINED THE CONSTITUTION IN A MAJOR WAY "TWICE" NOW!!! EMINENT DOMAIN AND TERRORIST CONSTITUIONAL RIGHTS!!!

Defend that FLAP JAW or try to LIE and say it didn't happen!!:sheep:devil:sheep:devil

[Ringo]

Do you tire of being wrong?? I know that facts and the real world are scary to you but let me educate you. It was Orrin Hatch who suggested Ginsburg to President Clinton http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/01/how-clinton-treated-hatch/I hope that Ringo is aware of the fact that Hatch is a republican (I have learned not to assume anything with respect to ringo's knowledge of what is happening in the real world)

No stupid ass I didn't Oren was from Utah, or that he is an accomplished musician, came up Blue Collar tough, is a member of the AFL-CIO Machinist Union, and has a squeaky clean record, UNTIL your slimeballs portray him as a supporter and participant in a Mormom cult or some fucking lie from your Traitor Media pals!!

I hear Obama has culture too, he can Tap Dance, play basketball, and balance a Boom Box on his shoulder, while doing an abbreviated Break Dance! I guess Clinton could play Sax, while Monica played with his little Flute, ever hear anything about that, means you and Billy were close??:mw:nerd:godzilla

[issac the dragon]

Orrin Hatch is a decent human being who has to a large extent sold his soul to stay effective in a Senate that became neo-con, and non-human. But once in a while, the human still pops up.

One problem with the neo-cons is that they regard the Constitution like the Bible. Full of nice ideas, but unworkable in the real world. Their total disregard for it is judicial activism and a violation of the oath they took.

[Judge Smails]

Listen to the COWARD who backs up and runs like a chickenshit from Debate, because he wants it carried on like a fucking Trial, instead of discussion, as he is to ignorant to use his own words!! Take away the Polls, the Curt & Pastes, and Doggie is an idiot??

Let me get this straight, YOU want us all to believe that CLINTON consulted a dumbass Legal Aid from TX on a SC appointment?? Good fucking god and yet you are on a Podunk Talk Forum trying to impress a bunch of average people?? Don't compute Doggie?

Now lets use LIBERAL DNC SOCIALIST HATE reasoning for a moment!!

WE CAN'T ELECT MCCAIN, HE IS TO OLD, TO SENILE, HAS SKIN CANCER, HES CORRUPT, BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!

BUT WAIT, WE CAN KEEP AND "OLD PRICK AND A SENILE OLD WITCH WHO ARE FAR OLDER THAN MCCAIN ON THE SC, WHERE THEY HAVE UNDERMINED THE CONSTITUTION IN A MAJOR WAY "TWICE" NOW!!! EMINENT DOMAIN AND TERRORIST CONSTITUIONAL RIGHTS!!!

Defend that FLAP JAW or try to LIE and say it didn't happen!!:sheep:devil:sheep:devil

ringo...the very last thing you do is debate. What you do best is act like a 2year old having a temper tantrum. No offense man...but no one here takes you seriously.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Another 5-4 decision today-this time on child rape and the death penalty. The court is narrowly divided and the next president is going to get two to four SCOTUS nominations and these justices will affect the court for a long time.

The Heller v. DC case (DC gun control laws) is suppose to come down tomorrow and Scalia is rumored to be the author of the majority opinion.

[Matt]

ringo...the very last thing you do is debate. What you do best is act like a 2year old having a temper tantrum. No offense man...but no one here takes you seriously.

I think he is good for our cause ~ returning the presidency to the Democrats.
Anyone who just reads Ringo's posts in this thread would know that is not a person who deals in reality ~ somewhat like the vp who says "so -o-oo" and McCain who isn't concerned about a few deaths a month in Iraq.

He sends 'em rushing to the Dems come voting time. :)

[John Gault]

WASHINGTON - In a campaign dominated by the economy and the Iraq War, the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling Thursday on detainees at Guantanamo marks a forceful reminder that John McCain promises one course and Barack Obama pledges another in picking future justices.

In the current controversy, McCain quickly expressed his disapproval of the opinion, while Obama issued a statement of support. It fell to outsiders to point out the broader implications in the race for the White House.

"With the replacement of a single justice from the majority ... today's four dissenters could become tomorrow's majority," said Nan Aron of the Alliance For Justice. The group supported the court's decision, which said detainees in the war on terror held at Guantanamo have the constitutional right to challenge their incarceration in the federal courts.

Security must exist "in fidelity to freedom's first principles," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for a majority seeking to balance the nation's security needs with individual rights enshrined in the Constitution. He went on to criticize the Bush administration and Congress for yielding too much to the former at the expense of the latter.

Of the five justices who created a majority in the case of the Guantanamo detainees, Justice John Paul Stevens is 88, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75, and David Souter and Stephen Breyer are each 69. Kennedy is 71.

The generally younger dissenters were Chief Justice John Roberts, 53, and Justices Samuel Alito, 55, Clarence Thomas, 59 and Antonin Scalia, 72.

Since Supreme Court seats are lifetime appointments, vacancies do not always occur in the four years allotted to a presidential term. That makes any discussion about the impact of a campaign on the high court inherently speculative.

But hardly pointless.

In the last 80 years, Jimmy Carter, a one-term president, was the only chief executive who did not have an opportunity to make a Supreme Court appointment. George W. Bush has filled two seats, and in the process strengthened a conservative shift that began four decades ago with Richard Nixon, ran through the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and managed to outlive Bill Clinton's two terms in office.

Based purely on the ages of the current justices, the nation's 44th president can reasonably expect to fill at least one vacancy.

By their votes in the Senate and their comments as candidates, Obama and McCain signal supporters of their intentions without saying they would apply the type of litmus test that might infringe on the independence of the judiciary.

Often, but not always, these comments are addressed largely to supporters and opponents of abortion rights.

"I would not appoint somebody who doesn't believe in the right to privacy," the underpinning to abortion rights, Obama said in a campaign debate in Las Vegas in November 2007. Pointing out that he once taught constitutional law, he added, "Part of the role of the courts is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don't have a lot of clout."

McCain offered a different view in a Republican debate in May 2007.

"One of our greatest problems in America today is justices that legislate from the bench, activist judges," he said.

He elaborated seven months later in another debate. "The judges I would appoint are along the lines of Justices Roberts and Alito, who have a proven record of strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States," a commitment he has repeated often.

McCain voted to confirm both Roberts and Alito, while Obama opposed both.

McCain sought political advantage in that this spring in Winston-Salem, N.C., saying his rival "went right along with the partisan crowd" with his opposition, despite claims that he works across party lines.

Both men also describe their intentions by reacting to other controversial rulings.

When the court handed down an opinion that upheld a ban on so-called "partial birth" abortions, Obama said he worried that "conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade," the landmark ruling that granted abortion rights to women.

Last year, Obama complained about a different 5-4 decision, one that ruled against Lilly Ledbetter, a longtime manager for Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., who claimed job discrimination because of her gender.

McCain, seeing the case through a different lens, defended the decision and called it a defeat for trial lawyers who sought to sue companies.

Whatever the particulars of the case — and both Obama and McCain have called for Guantanamo to be closed — it's a debate likely to reverberate through the campaign.

And then resume in earnest when one of the two rivals wins the White House and wields the power of Supreme Court appointment.

"Both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time," Obama said during the Roberts confirmation hearings. "What matters at the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. ... That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."

McCain answered derisively in a recent speech recalling Obama's reference to a judge's "deepest values" and "empathy."

"These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism," he said. "Come to think, they sound like an activist judge wrote them."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_courts;_ylt=AqWiovj9DR6E3PBiTi0p4c2s0NUE

Hmm .....who is more qualified to choose, a lawyer with a constitutional law background ,or a fighter pilot ???


Which is the biggest reason Obama should never be elected president.

[Saguaro]

That makes no sense at all

[John Gault]

Is this a valid criteria for judges that have a constitutional mandate to interpret laws based on the constitution?

"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."


You got to be kidding me???!!!

Gee I thought we needed constitutional scholars who would faithfully interpret the constitution, silly me.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/17/274143.aspx

[John Gault]

That makes no sense at all

Makes no sense unless you know what Obama's criteria are.

[Saguaro]

Q: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?
When I was in law school, I addressed all of my course instructors as "professors," regardless of their rank or formal position in the school academic hierarchy (tenured professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, lecturer, etc.). Was Obama exaggerating or factually wrong in referring to himself as a "constitutional law professor" at the University of Chicago Law School even though his official title was lecturer?
A: His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.
Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."

Recently, Hillary Clinton's campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:

Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.

The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)." The Sun-Times said, "In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that "professors have tenure while lecturers do not."

We agree that details matter, and also that the formal title of "professor" is not lightly given by academic institutions. However, on this matter the University of Chicago Law School itself is not standing on formality, and is siding with Obama.

Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be "a professor."

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Contrary to what the Clinton campaign claimed, not all professors have tenure. For instance, academics with the title of "assistant professor" typically work for between five and seven years before being reviewed for tenure.

Furthermore, Obama was not merely an "instructor" as Phil Singer stated. As a "senior lecturer," Obama was in good company: The six other faculty members with the title include the associate dean of the law school and Judge Richard Posner, who is widely considered to be one of the nation's top legal theorists.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

[John Gault]

Q: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?
When I was in law school, I addressed all of my course instructors as "professors," regardless of their rank or formal position in the school academic hierarchy (tenured professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, lecturer, etc.). Was Obama exaggerating or factually wrong in referring to himself as a "constitutional law professor" at the University of Chicago Law School even though his official title was lecturer?
A: His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.
Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."

Recently, Hillary Clinton's campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:

Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.

The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)." The Sun-Times said, "In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that "professors have tenure while lecturers do not."

We agree that details matter, and also that the formal title of "professor" is not lightly given by academic institutions. However, on this matter the University of Chicago Law School itself is not standing on formality, and is siding with Obama.

Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be "a professor."

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Contrary to what the Clinton campaign claimed, not all professors have tenure. For instance, academics with the title of "assistant professor" typically work for between five and seven years before being reviewed for tenure.

Furthermore, Obama was not merely an "instructor" as Phil Singer stated. As a "senior lecturer," Obama was in good company: The six other faculty members with the title include the associate dean of the law school and Judge Richard Posner, who is widely considered to be one of the nation's top legal theorists.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

My god, if you have to go to those lengths to parse it then who really cares.

But you did not address this :

"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."

Is that a valid criteria to select judges?

[Yellowdogtexan]

mc :cane would be a disaster as president and his SCOTUS picks would be disasters. Rove v. Wade would be subject to being overturned if mc :cane was president and got some of his picks on the bench.

I trust a constitutional law professor who understands the law far more on this issue than mc :cane

[Yellowdogtexan]

Hmm .....who is more qualified to choose, a lawyer with a constitutional law background ,or a fighter pilot ???Remember that mc :cane was a bad pilot at that who crashed more than his quota of planes.

Again, I prefer a constitutional law professor over a failed pilot like mc :cane any day of the week

[Trueblue]

My god, if you have to go to those lengths to parse it then who really cares.

But you did not address this :



Is that a valid criteria to select judges?

No one is parsing it, John. They are explaining something to you, not parsing.

Yes, empathy is a necessary component in being a judge. One of several necessary components.

[issac the dragon]

As a member of a Nation who were subjected to genocide that was legal, I am not the biggest fan of the "law." But Alioto, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas would be quite comfortable as judges in the Inquisition. Compassion had no place there either.

[John Gault]

No one is parsing it, John. They are explaining something to you, not parsing.

Yes, empathy is a necessary component in being a judge. One of several necessary components.

Obama said this:

"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."

He did not say one of the criteria the said That's the Criteria.....

Care to explain why you think that should not be questioned?

[Trueblue]

Obama said this:



He did not say one of the criteria the said That's the Criteria.....

Care to explain why you think that should not be questioned?

You're getting hysterical over nothing. Of course he will have other criteria, you are looking at a single word.

[Ringo]

mc :cane would be a disaster as president and his SCOTUS picks would be disasters. Rove v. Wade would be subject to being overturned if mc :cane was president and got some of his picks on the bench.

I trust a constitutional law professor who understands the law far more on this issue than mc :cane

Yeah, I am sure this GUY is your hero, or hell maybe he works for YOUR Firm? He is a Law Professer I spect??:nerd:godzilla

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2008/06/27/todd.child.rape.rant.cnn

[Yellowdogtexan]

mc :cane would be a disaster as president and would push a bad court even further to the right. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/28/AR2008062802078.html?hpid=topnews A victory by the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, would probably mean preserving the uneasy but roughly balanced status quo, since the justices who are considered most likely to retire are liberal. A win for his Republican counterpart, John McCain, could mean a fundamental shift to a consistently conservative majority ready to take on past court rulings on abortion rights, affirmative action and other issues important to the right.

"If there's one thing you can see about this court, it is that it still sits on a knife's edge," said Jeffrey L. Fisher, a Stanford University law professor who argued three cases before the justices this year.

That was readily apparent in the court's closing days, as it whipsawed from left to right and back again on the constitutional rights of terrorism suspects, individual gun ownership and the ability of government to restrict it, and the increasingly narrow view of who is eligible for the death penalty.

Each case pitted the court's four consistent conservatives against its four slightly less consistent liberals, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy returning to his role of last term as the deciding vote.

"The blockbuster cases, the really big cases, have now brought into very sharp focus how closely divided the court is on the really large and philosophically charged issues before the court," said Charles J. Cooper, a Washington lawyer who was an official in President Ronald Reagan's office of legal counsel.

It has cast "the sharpest possible focus how important the court is going to be, I should think and should hope, in the upcoming election debate," Cooper added.

The next appointment to the court will almost surely fill the seat now held by one of the court's liberals, whose average age at the beginning of next October's term will be 75. For Obama, any initial appointment would likely replace one liberal with another, albeit with a younger and perhaps more outgoing advocate for his views of the court's role.

But a McCain victory could give the conservative bloc a clear-cut majority for years to come. President Bush has provided the model with his nominations of Roberts, to continue the conservative legacy of former chief justice William H. Rehnquist, and Samuel A. Alito Jr., to replace the former justice found most frequently in the middle, Sandra Day O'Connor. This race is really about the future of fundamental rights such as Roe v. Wade.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Here is another good analysis as to why mc :cane would be a disaster. mc :cane wants to pick judges like Alito and Roberts who have proven to be poor judges. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/supreme_court.htmlSadly, after nearly two terms together on the Supreme Court, it is clear that the Senate’s fears about Roberts and Alito are being realized, their hopes dashed. Last term, Roberts and Alito voted together in 88 percent of non-unanimous cases—more than any other two justices. So far this term, Roberts and Alito have voted together in 18 of the 20 cases that have divided the Court by five to four margins. Together with Justices Thomas and Scalia, Alito and Roberts have formed a solid conservative bloc of four justices in every major case, splitting the court along ideological lines.

In reaching a conservative political outcome in these cases, Justices Roberts and Alito have run roughshod over many of the critical rule of law principles that limit the role politics can play in judicial decision-making, including respect for equal access to the courts, respect for the democratic process, and respect for precedent.

The Supreme Court’s brace of rulings today are thoroughly emblematic of the two justice’s disrespect for all three legal principles. In Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, Roberts and Alito voted to overturn a nearly century-old decision preventing manufacturers from setting a minimum price retailers may charge for their products.

The decision by Alito and Roberts to overturn this long-established precedent is particularly remarkable because the case involves interpretation of a statute. The Court is particularly committed to stare decisis in statutory cases because Congress can amend a statute if it thinks the Court has erred in its interpretation.This disregard for precedent may be a historic first. Breyer asserts in dissent: “I am not aware of any case in which this Court has overturned so well-established a statutory precedent.”

Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion, joined by Alito in the Louisville and Seattle race cases—Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education—so perfectly illustrates the rule-of-law concerns raised by this term’s opinion that it warrants its own discussion.

As an initial matter, the opinion vividly contradicts Roberts professed preference for crafting “narrow” opinions that achieve as much consensus as possible on the Court. There were five votes on the Court for the proposition that the Seattle and Louisville plans did not meet the Court’s strict scrutiny test for race-conscious classifications. Roberts’ opinion could have ended with this conclusion.

Instead, Roberts wrote two additional sections, joined only by Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, which fully equate race-conscious efforts to promote integration with racial segregation and root this conclusion in the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. There is, in Stevens’ words, a “cruel irony” in this use of the Brown opinion, and these deeply divisive conclusions were totally unnecessary for the resolution of the case.

As Kennedy argues quite forcefully in a separate opinion, Roberts “is too dismissive of the legitimate interests government has in ensuring all people have equal opportunity regardless of their race.” This is just one of many rule-of-law concerns highlighted by Roberts’ opinion in the Seattle and Louisville cases:Roberts and Alito show an alarming lack of respect for precedent. As Breyer argues persuasively in dissent, Roberts’ opinion refuses to follow a “longstanding and unbroken line of legal authority tells us that the Equal Protection Clause permits local school boards to use race-conscious criteria to achieve positive race-related goals, even when the Constitution does not compel it.”

Roberts and Alito fail to respect the democratic process. The plurality portions of their opinion, in particular, would overturn decisions made by elected officials in communities in communities across the country. As Breyer puts it in dissent, the “Constitution allows democratically elected school boards to make up their own minds as to how best to include people of all races in one America.”

Roberts and Alito disregard constitutional history. Some conservatives, notably Scalia and Thomas, purport to be bound by the original understanding or the Constitution. But there is no evidence that anyone alive at the time the 14th Amendment was passed thought it would ban race-conscious efforts to promote integrated schools. Indeed, as Breyer demonstrates, historical research shows that the generation of Americans who enacted the Equal Protection Clause also used race-conscious measures to promote school integration. Roberts’ opinion ignores this constitutional history.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Here is more on the SCOTUS and what would happen if an idiot like mc :cane was elected http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/opinion/03thu1.html?th&emc=thIn placing these rulings in the larger context of the court after two appointments by President Bush — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both dedicated members of the conservative movement — it is important to note that the Guantánamo decision was 5 to 4. Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing justice, cast the deciding vote. In other cases, like the gun-control decision, the rulings might have been more sweeping and more damaging if the conservative bloc had not needed the moderate-conservative Justice Kennedy’s vote to form a majority. One more conservative appointment would shift the balance to the far-right bloc.

If that happens, the court can be expected to push even further in a dangerous direction. It would most likely begin stripping away civil liberties, like the habeas rights vindicated in the Guantánamo case. The constitutional protection of women’s reproductive rights could be eliminated. The court might well strike down laws that protect the environment, workers’ rights and the rights of racial and religious minorities.

The court was teetering on the brink in this term. Voters should keep that firmly in mind when they go to the polls in November.We can not afford to have the SCOTUS taken over by idiots like Roberts and Aliito