Obama’s Progressive Court: Justices Who Are ‘Not Blind to History of Discrimination’



Barack Obama is pushing for his left-wing appointee to the Supreme Court and, if he doesn’t get his way, he’s at least going to use it for all its political capital as the election approaches.

As if we didn’t know, Barack Obama has a very progressive view of how the courts should operate. In an interview with David Strauss at the University of Chicago, he talked about his views on collectivism which he wants to dominate the Supreme Court.

STRAUSS: “… who hold up the Warren court as the model and say a court’s job is to be really on the front lines of attacking society’s problems. And if I remember correctly, you were skeptical of that when you were a law professor. So am I right in remembering that, and that the skepticism carried over?”

OBAMA: “No. I think you’re right about this. It’s an adage in law and you’re familiar with this, probably the students are too, that, you know, the courts are a terrific shield but they’re not always a very effective sword. And what I mean by that is that there have been moments in history, brown vs. Board of education being the best example, and on the other end of the spectrum, a decision like Scott, which was antithetical to what we’d want to see a court do. There are certain moments where, like in brown, the democracy has broken down. In a fundamental way.

The majority has shut down access for the petitions for redress from a minority group. There are times where an individual who is engaging, let’s say, in highly unpopular speech, is not going to be able to, through the political process, uphold the values that we collectively have decided are pretty important to uphold. And so in those circumstances, I have a very Progressive view of how the courts should operate.”

There is that word, the “collective”. We are no longer individuals, we are the collective.

He sees the constitution as “living” in that justices can make decisions based on emotions and how they feel, given society and opinions at the moment. He also sees everything through a prism of alleged racial injustice.

“The cases that really matter are the ones where there’s ambiguity, where there’s a lack of clarity, where it requires constitutional principles being applied in a way that is true to precedent, is true to basic legal tenets, but also that understands the unique role of the court in making sure that people who are locked out of the political process, for example, are not permanently locked out, that they have some recourse, that we have justices who understand how the world works so that they are not entirely blind to the history of racial discrimination or gender discrimination or how money operates in our world.

Not because that necessarily leads them to rule on a particular issue but because it means that when they’re looking at a tough case in which statute or the constitution does not provide an immediate, ready answer, that they can apply judgment grounded in how we actually live.

And the ideals and principles that have made this such an extraordinary country. I want them to have lived a little and be able to see the wide spectrum of people that they’re going to be wielding this enormous power over. And so a lot of times, when I talk to the candidates for the judiciary, I spend time asking them about their families and them growing up and what were formative experiences in their minds. And in some ways, that reveals more than anything.”

Again, he is deciding what our values are.

Obama has already swayed the appeals courts far-left for generations to come.

While No One Was Watching, Obama Took Control of the Courts

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments