Video: Obama on judges who “only believe in the strict letter of the Constitution”

posted at 8:12 pm on October 30, 2008 by Allahpundit

Nothing really exciting here — every liberal in America believes in judge-crafted unenumerated rights (unless it’s a conservative judge finding a right to freedom of contract) — but with the “redistribution of wealth” audio zeroing in on Obama’s feelings about activism and the Warren Court, the RNC’s sending it around. You’ll find him here once again paying tribute to the D.C. Second Amendment ruling, which must be his most shameless flip-flop of the entire campaign. I’m more interested, though, in the example he chooses to illustrate the right of privacy: “The right to marry who you please.” The One supports civil unions but opposes gay marriage, and predictably has gotten little grief about it from the nutroots stalwarts on his side who loathe Palin for opposing it too. Williams could have pinned him by asking why the right to marry “who you please” should carry some sort of implicit gender distinction in his mind, and whether the arbitrariness of his answer isn’t the whole problem with letting unelected judges weave unwritten rights. What might have been.

Update: The follow-up question that wasn’t: “If a Supreme Court candidate believed in a federal constitutional right to gay marriage, would that disqualify them in your eyes?” No good answer for The One to that one, given the constituencies he’s trying to straddle.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


The man is starting to give me a bad case of the creeps.

petefrt on October 30, 2008

Starting to?
Well, as John McClain would say, “welcome to the party, pal”.

SKYFOX on October 31, 2008 at 5:02 AM

Did he ” If Sen. McCain ends up being the nominee…”?

What is talking about?
Is he saying that if elected President he’s going to nominate John McCain for the Supreme Court?

terryannonline on October 30, 2008 at 8:26 PM

No, it just demonstrates that he was nervous about his bold faced lie on the 2nd amendment and that was what he was thinking about after he said it…again.

jerrytbg on October 31, 2008 at 6:57 AM

He taught for 10 years Con Law? Really? Where?

jawbone on October 30, 2008 at 8:23 PM

Der Führer was never a PROFESSOR, regardless of what he and his media whores like to claim. He was a teaching ass’t/lecturer.

JiangxiDad on October 30, 2008 at 8:41 PM


University of Chicago 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.

Just sayin’.
Let’s be factual.

mofo on October 31, 2008 at 8:39 AM

A President Obama would be pushing amendments, if not a constitutional convention, ASAP to get those “positive rights” enshrined. Something like, “The right of the people not to get shot at shall not be infringed,” and the 2nd Amendment would hang in the balance.

Akzed on October 31, 2008 at 8:59 AM

Double speak is lying, and that is all I’ve been hearing lately from the lips of Obombem. I would not buy a car from a guy who double speaks, why would anyone think I would vote for him too?

MSGTAS on October 31, 2008 at 10:18 AM

Liberals alway talk about the “Living” Constitution and they are right, the Constitution is not dead, its still the Law of the Land. BUT that doesn’t mean that its meaning changes.

The Constitution isn’t a list of suggestions, its the law exactly as it is written, judges have no authority to change it. Nevertheless, liberals want judges that ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution and replace its clear requirements with their own whims. Liberals hate the Constitution because it prevents them from usurping all the power.

Maxx on October 31, 2008 at 10:55 AM

He keeps saying the right to privacy. Would that encompass citizens not having the state rifle through their records for political purposes?

@[email protected] on October 31, 2008 at 12:12 PM