Message #162796

[Harconen]

May 2009

 

On May 1, Obama discusses his criteria for a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter. He says, “I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation, I view quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.” Obama is completely wrong; a judge should look at justice as abstract legal theory (that is, the language of the U.S. Constitution), and empathy should have no place in his decision—justice should be blind. (As a former teacher of Constitutional law, Obama should know better.) Wendy Long, legal counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, remarks that Obama “…thinks judges should have empathy for certain litigants who come before them. Of course, if you have empathy for everybody who comes before you, there are two sides to every case. If you have empathy for both sides then that’s the same as having no empathy at all. So what he means is he wants empathy for one side, and what’s wrong with that is it is being partial instead of being impartial. A judge is supposed to have empathy for no one but simply to follow the law.” Obama wants a Supreme Court Justice who will rule in favor of someone simply because that person is a female, black, Hispanic, poor, old, fat, on welfare, or a drug addict—rather than according to the law. But applying empathy rather than the law renders the law meaningless. Following Obama’s logic, the nation could do away with all laws and simply have “empathic arbitrators” chosen by him settling all disputes and ruling according to how they “feel” about the litigants. [2711]

 

On May 1, Obama unexpectedly attends a press briefing by his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, to discuss the retirement of Justice David Souter. After Obama leaves the room, MSNBC reporter Savannah Guthrie gives anchor Norah McDonnell her reaction after “being in the same room” with Obama. “Shocked is more like it, Norah. I felt a little bit like I was having a dream sequence minus the pink unicorn. I have to say, we attend those briefings (with Gibbs) every day; they are rarely so exciting.” (Despite gushing remarks like Guthrie’s, the media continues to say its coverage is “objective.”) Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, discussing Obama’s April 30 press conference, tells Fox News’ Greta Van Susteran that the media has “…taken such a pathetic dive with this President that they ought to be part of his PR firm. I mean it's embarrassing to watch.” Gingrich notes that no reporters asked Obama any questions of merit, like “So why are you releasing these terrorists in the United States?” and “Doesn’t it worry you to have $9 trillion in debt being projected under your administration?” [2717]

 

Obama’s Presidential Approval Index drops to +1 on May 2, 2009. The figure represents the percentage of people polled who “strongly approve” of his performance (33 per cent) minus the percentage who strongly disapprove (32 per cent). [2693]

 

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) states, “I believe that this year, we can pass comprehensive, strong, fair immigration reform.” Many would argue that there is no need for new legislation, just enforcement of existing legislation and the hiring of additional border guards. The use of the word “comprehensive” is code language for making it easier for illegals to become citizens, giving them a “pathway to citizenship” as a reward for having entered the nation illegally. [2712]

 

In what may end up as a confrontation with Obama and his anti-gun attorney general, Eric Holder, Montana passes a Firearms Freedom Act. The legislation states that guns manufactured, sold, and kept within the state are not subject to federal regulation because they are not involved in interstate transport—the government’s usual excuse for interfering with state’s rights. “The Interstate Commerce Clause has grown and grown until the government asserts authority over everything under the sun,” says Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Sport Shooting Association. “How much water you have in your toilet; almost all environmental laws; maybe one-third of all federal regulations are asserted under the Commerce Clause.” The legislation is only partly about guns. “Guns are the object, but states’ rights are the subject.” Five states have introduced their own versions of the law, and others are likely to follow suit. It is almost a certainty that the Obama Justice Department will move quickly to sic the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco on the first gun shop to sell “made in Montana” weapons. Supporters of the legislation will then file lawsuits against the federal government, claiming infringement of Second Amendment and Tenth Amendment rights and other violations of the U.S. Constitution. [3304]

 

Obama’s deputy press secretary Bill Burton denies that Obama’s “car czar” Steven Rattner (head of the auto industry task force) threatened Chrysler investors if they refused to settle for pennies on the dollar for the billions they had invested in the company. “The charge is completely untrue,” said Burton, “and there’s obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way.” According to bankruptcy attorney Thomas Lauria, Perella Weinberg Partners had been told by Rattner to accept the pathetically low administration offer or “…the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.” The firm later denied Lauria’s version. Obama had publicly criticized the firms that had invested in Chrysler, saying, “I don’t stand with them. I stand with Chrysler’s employees and their families and communities. I stand with Chrysler’s management, its dealers, and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars. I don’t stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices.” Obama shamelessly expects the pension funds, retirement funds, 401(k) holders, and investors who had given Chrysler billions to survive to accept next to nothing for their investments, while he turns the company over to the federal government and the United Auto Workers union. (With regard to Lauria’s allegations of Rattner threatening investors and the subsequent White House denial, it should be noted that Lauria has no motive for lying, but Obama and Rattner do.) [2713]