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.

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

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

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.

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.

petefrt on October 30, 2008

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

Wow. It’s refreshing to hear some thoughful analysis on how judges should approach the constitution…

mycowardice on October 31, 2008 at 12:13 AM

There is no such thing as “implication” when it involves peoples lives. Implication is alwaysaccompanied by individual perception. This country has survived upon the perception of the people, not of a single judge.

Sounds to me like Obama seeks to appoint closet dictators.

Commentary at Hot Air…….

Having just been fairly accurately described, let be say that I ended up with a Ph.D. in theoretical Physics instead.

Count to 10 on October 30, 2008 at 9:01 PM

Yes, but this is HA, where some very intelligent and hardworking people transcend the typical outcome.

Know Thyself.

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

The type is like my sister-in-law…she doesn’t understand life sentences (let alone death penalty), she is convinced that all people can be saved (no she is not religious but secular saved). Even the most heinous crimes, of rape and child incest, “oh, probable a few years of counseling and they would be all right”…terrorist don’t exist in her world.

right2bright on October 30, 2008 at 9:54 PM

I had that same problem in a college course with a person that just LOVED to spar with me. She used to always talk about her children. When the death penalty fight came up, mind you I used to live in Texas. We have an express lane and I LOVE IT, I asked her one question:

The death penalty. If a man raped and killed your daughter and executed your son, would you want him to get the death penalty?
She got silent. She was all about defending the rehabbing criminals.
I asked her again, If it was your children that this man killed, would you want him to live?
She started crying and she said, “I see your point.” She didn’t say yes, but she realized it is different when it happens to you. Best way to handle people like that.

Oh, and yes, that honor part entails torture of thy husband.

The type is like my sister-in-law…she doesn’t understand life sentences (let alone death penalty), she is convinced that all people can be saved (no she is not religious but secular saved). Even the most heinous crimes, of rape and child incest, “oh, probable a few years of counseling and they would be all right”…terrorist don’t exist in her world.

right2bright on October 30, 2008 at 9:54 PM

It seems to me that the type doesn’t really sympathize so much as imagine themselves (as they are) in the other’s position. They twist themselves in knots trying to fit the other’s actions to their own motivations, and thus imagine that the other can be quickly and easily rehabilitated.

Only a liberal could ever think our second amendment is in any way ambiguous.

Instead, we got a complicated, vague assurance from a very simple, solid, individual right that leaves great latitude in finding for a liberal activist court.

don’t you gals ever forget, let alone forgive?

right2bright on October 30, 2008 at 9:48 PM

I’m sure there is a saying that goes “Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget.”
I can’t vouch for the truth of it, but it certainly seems like the Democrats forget, but never forgive, while the Republicans forgive, but never forget.

but I still like to torture my husband for fun.

HornetSting on October 30, 2008 at 9:53 PM

It must be hidden in the marriage vows…