The Case Against Obama, part 1 – Judges and the Law

“A judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case. The judge's only obligation - and it's a solemn obligation - is to the rule of law.” – Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

Amid the rock star hype given to Senator Barack Obama, people of various political stripes have had great difficulty explaining exactly what Senator Obama would change. People have made the connection that “Obama=change,” but virtually nobody has entertained the specifics of Obama and change. That is okay with Mr. Obama, because his type of change falls in 1 of 2 categories: 1) style, or 2) collectivist, statist. Let me explain three ways in which Mr. Obama’s proposed “changes” will be bad for the country.

First, Mr. Obama has a view of the role of Supreme Court justices that would be tantamount to spotting an underdog team in basketball ten points to start the game. From the New York Times and a Democratic Presidential debate on November 15, 2007, Mr. Obama is quoted as saying:

I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and I -- when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it's not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it's their conception of the court. And part of the role of the court 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. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/politics/15debate-transcript.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=39&oref=slogin)

Let’s delve deeper into this quote. Mr. Obama feels that the court should “protect people who may be vulnerable…those who don’t have a lot of clout.” Article III of the United States Constitution states, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority…” (my emphasis) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html). The Constitution defines the role of justices as ruling on “cases or controversies” according to The Constitution and the Laws of the United States. In other words, nowhere in The Constitution is there any mention of “protecting people who may be vulnerable.” The role of judges is to rule according to the law, regardless of the status, race, gender, or other circumstances of those involved in a case. If it so happens that a vulnerable person or minority is in the right, the Court must rule in its favor—but the Court does not rule in their favor out of a feeling of sorrow.

I’ll relate this to sports: the best analogy of a judge is to that of a referee or official. Could you imagine a head of referees or Conference saying that role of referees is to provide a “level playing field” for those who may not have the most talented team? Could you imagine an officiating crew “giving points” to smaller schools because they would be “vulnerable” in playing a team such as Duke, North Carolina, or UCLA?

Let me make this personal, too. What if you had to go to court and your opponent was “vulnerable,” according to Mr. Obama’s determination of “vulnerable?” Moreover, what if you were in the right in your case—but the courts ruled to help or assuage the “vulnerable” person or group. Would you want a court to determine cases based on a preconceived notion or “handicap” of the parties? Or would you want an impartial, “just the facts” Court?