Top Stories
Poll: Obama Outside Mainstream On Judges
By Joe Murray, The Bulletin
A new poll shows a vast divide between President Barack Obama and the American public when it comes to judicial appointments. It found an overwhelming majority of Americans believe judicial decisions should be based upon constitutional principle, not personal experience.
Sixty-four percent of respondents to a Rasmussen Reports poll said U.S. Supreme Court decisions should be based upon what is actually written in the Constitution. And only 35 percent believe Mr. Obama agrees with them on that key issue.
While the deepening economic crisis has engulfed the early days of the Obama administration, the federal judiciary — along with its power to reshape American culture — has become the silent giant hiding in the weeds.
With four of the nine justices over 70 — some of them in poor health — it is evident Mr. Obama will have a hand in shaping the character of the court. President Obama readily admitted this in October when he said appointing new justices would be “one of the most consequential decisions of the next president.”
But after almost six decades of an activist judiciary reshaping not just legal precedent, but public mores, the American people, as reflected in the Rasmussen poll, are wary of a judiciary motivated by emotion.
Instead, growing support exists for a return to judicial restraint, something that likely would be ignoreed by the Obama administration.
“Obama could cement the balance of the Supreme Court to a permanent activist stance where judicial restraint and following the text of the Constitution as our North Star are relegated to the ash bin of legal history,” said Gary Marx, executive director of the Judicial Confirmation Network.
During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama made it clear that he would avoid appointing judges like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito and would favor judges who have “heart.”
“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom,” Mr. Obama said of his judicial nominees while speaking at a Planned Parenthood conference in July 2007.
“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.”
Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, only 27 percent of those polled by Rasmussen felt the Supreme Court should deliver opinions based upon “fairness.” Nine percent said they were not sure.
“The Rasmussen findings are extremely close to the findings in a November 2008 nationwide survey of actual voters by The Polling Company, which found that regardless of whether they voted for Obama or McCain in the presidential race, voters favor judicial restraint by more than 3 to 1,” Wendy E. Long, chief counsel of the Judicial Confirmation Network, told supporters in an e-mail.
“Rasmussen found that regardless of party affiliation, Americans believe that Supreme Court rulings should be based on what is in the written Constitution: 79 percent of Republicans think so, as do 64 percent of unaffiliated voters and 52 percent of Democrats.”
Because so many Americans are skeptical of judges who lack judicial restraint and ignore the text of the Constitution, some believe that Mr. Obama’s federal judge selections will be the ultimate test of the new president’s commitment to bipartisanship.
“Like President Bush did by re-nominating one of Clinton’s judges who had bipartisan support, Obama should consider renominating a number of the judges Bush has supported who had bipartisan support, but were never given a hearing,” said Mr. Marx. “That would be a positive step towards fulfilling his campaign pledge.”
The nomination of judges, especially appointments to the federal branch, customarily adopt a hyper-partisan tone, a tone Mr. Obama adopted on the campaign trail when he promised abortion rights advocates they would not be disappointed with his judicial choices.
“I would not appoint somebody who doesn’t believe in the right to privacy,” Mr. Obama said last November in a Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas, Nev.
Because abortion rights are constitutionally rooted in the right to privacy, such language clearly contradicted what the Democratic nominee said Wednesday when he stressed, “I would not provide a litmus test.”
Speaking to the abortion group Planned Parenthood in July, Mr. Obama ridiculed Justice Anthony Kennedy for penning the majority opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court case the upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion.
“Justice Kennedy knows many things,” Mr. Obama declared, “but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor.”
He argued the decision was “a concerted effort to steadily roll back” abortion rights.
Joe Murray can be reached at jmurray@thebulletin.us
Sixty-four percent of respondents to a Rasmussen Reports poll said U.S. Supreme Court decisions should be based upon what is actually written in the Constitution. And only 35 percent believe Mr. Obama agrees with them on that key issue.
While the deepening economic crisis has engulfed the early days of the Obama administration, the federal judiciary — along with its power to reshape American culture — has become the silent giant hiding in the weeds.
With four of the nine justices over 70 — some of them in poor health — it is evident Mr. Obama will have a hand in shaping the character of the court. President Obama readily admitted this in October when he said appointing new justices would be “one of the most consequential decisions of the next president.”
But after almost six decades of an activist judiciary reshaping not just legal precedent, but public mores, the American people, as reflected in the Rasmussen poll, are wary of a judiciary motivated by emotion.
Instead, growing support exists for a return to judicial restraint, something that likely would be ignoreed by the Obama administration.
“Obama could cement the balance of the Supreme Court to a permanent activist stance where judicial restraint and following the text of the Constitution as our North Star are relegated to the ash bin of legal history,” said Gary Marx, executive director of the Judicial Confirmation Network.
During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama made it clear that he would avoid appointing judges like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito and would favor judges who have “heart.”
“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom,” Mr. Obama said of his judicial nominees while speaking at a Planned Parenthood conference in July 2007.
“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.”
Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, only 27 percent of those polled by Rasmussen felt the Supreme Court should deliver opinions based upon “fairness.” Nine percent said they were not sure.
“The Rasmussen findings are extremely close to the findings in a November 2008 nationwide survey of actual voters by The Polling Company, which found that regardless of whether they voted for Obama or McCain in the presidential race, voters favor judicial restraint by more than 3 to 1,” Wendy E. Long, chief counsel of the Judicial Confirmation Network, told supporters in an e-mail.
“Rasmussen found that regardless of party affiliation, Americans believe that Supreme Court rulings should be based on what is in the written Constitution: 79 percent of Republicans think so, as do 64 percent of unaffiliated voters and 52 percent of Democrats.”
Because so many Americans are skeptical of judges who lack judicial restraint and ignore the text of the Constitution, some believe that Mr. Obama’s federal judge selections will be the ultimate test of the new president’s commitment to bipartisanship.
“Like President Bush did by re-nominating one of Clinton’s judges who had bipartisan support, Obama should consider renominating a number of the judges Bush has supported who had bipartisan support, but were never given a hearing,” said Mr. Marx. “That would be a positive step towards fulfilling his campaign pledge.”
The nomination of judges, especially appointments to the federal branch, customarily adopt a hyper-partisan tone, a tone Mr. Obama adopted on the campaign trail when he promised abortion rights advocates they would not be disappointed with his judicial choices.
“I would not appoint somebody who doesn’t believe in the right to privacy,” Mr. Obama said last November in a Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas, Nev.
Because abortion rights are constitutionally rooted in the right to privacy, such language clearly contradicted what the Democratic nominee said Wednesday when he stressed, “I would not provide a litmus test.”
Speaking to the abortion group Planned Parenthood in July, Mr. Obama ridiculed Justice Anthony Kennedy for penning the majority opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court case the upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion.
“Justice Kennedy knows many things,” Mr. Obama declared, “but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor.”
He argued the decision was “a concerted effort to steadily roll back” abortion rights.
Joe Murray can be reached at jmurray@thebulletin.us
Copyright © 2010 - The Bulletin