Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Criticizes Liberal Warren & Burger Supreme Courts as "Too Liberal"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:27 AM
Original message
Obama Criticizes Liberal Warren & Burger Supreme Courts as "Too Liberal"
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 11:25 AM by amborin
Obama Says Liberal Courts May Have Overreached

By CHARLIE SAVAGE and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: April 29, 2010


WASHINGTON In a seeming rejection of liberal orthodoxy, President Obama has spoken disparagingly about liberal victories before the Supreme Court in the 1960s and 1970s suggesting that justices made the error of overstepping their bounds and trampling on the role of elected officials.

Wednesday night against a backdrop of recent Supreme Court rulings in which conservative justices have struck down laws favored by liberals, most notably a January ruling that nullified restrictions on corporate spending to influence elections.
It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically, Mr. Obama said.
And in the 60s and 70s, the feeling was is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach. What youre now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.

snip

Mr. Obamas comments, which came as he prepares to make a Supreme Court nomination, amounted to the most sympathetic statement by a sitting Democratic president about the conservative view that the Warren and Burger courts which expanded criminal defendant rights, required busing to desegregate schools and declared a right to abortion were dominated by liberal judicial activists whose rulings were dubious.

snip

Mr. Obama made his remarks in an impromptu conversation with reporters on a flight to Washington from the Midwest. They were in response to a question about whether concerns about conservative judicial activism would play a role in the court nomination.

snip

That troubled some liberals, including Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. He agreed with Mr. Obamas definition of judicial activism, but said he had a concern about his effort to establish a moral equivalency between the Warren court and the Roberts court.

And the president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, Nan Aron, argued that the Warren and Burger courts had helped make progress on economic and social fronts for people who lacked political power, while the Roberts court is tilted in favor of those who already have power and influence.

By pegging his critique to the 1960s and 1970s, Mr. Obama stayed away from the most famous liberal Supreme Court ruling, the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision striking down school segregation. Still, his statement seemed to call into question subsequent liberal legal victories.

snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/us/politics/30court.h...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. That isn't the hope and change I thought I was going to get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. Read his remarks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #10
22. By his rationale, Brown would be overreaching as it wasn't decided by the representatives of The
People.

There are certain fundamental rights inherent in the Constitution that are not subject to a popular vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #22
40. That's NOT his rationale - he said activism USED to be defined that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #40
52. he disparaged the decisions of the liberal courts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #52
57. Where do you get that?
Show me a direct quote (not an attribution by the reporters) where he disparages the decisions of the liberal courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #10
31. I Read the Article.
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 10:56 AM by Toasterlad
"repeatedly defended the courts interventionist stance during the civil rights movement because minorities were cut out of the political process, even while saying that such a role would be inappropriate today."

In other words, "I got mine."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #31
44. Given how much the reporters mischaracterized his remarks here, I don't accept their indirect quote.
"....even while saying that such a role would be inappropriate today."

Sorry, Savage, you'll have to show me the direct quote and context - I don't believe for a minute that your interpretation is accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #44
76. Your Acceptance Is Not Required
Given Obama's abyssmal track record on GLBT issues, the quote would seem a completely accurate view on his feelings about the Supreme Court's role potential role in determining equality for gay people.

I have no doubt that what Savage writes is accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #76
121. Read the rest of the article - if that's accuracy for you, then it's not a very high threshhold
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #121
123. I Read the Rest of the Article. The Fact That They Interpret Obama's Words Differently From You...
...doesn't make it inaccurate. You could make a case that it's BIASED. But biased does not equal inaccurate. Not that I'd agree that this article is biased. Obama's words can legitimately be interpreted the way Savage is interpreting them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #121
126. I'm kind of with you on this.
Obama said "the feeling was" that liberal court overreached but he didn't say he necessarily felt that way. Maybe that is a minor distinction and I am usually all for criticizing Obama when it is warranted. I just am not sure it is in this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #126
135. he did; he said conservatives make the same error that liberal courts were guilty of
those are direct quotes

Obama is saying that, just as conservatives blew it recently, so, too, libs did, in the 70s

that's a criticism of the liberal courts; it's saying they made an error

that's characterizing their landmark lib decisions as an error

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #10
73. Obama said: "conservatives make the same error" "that liberal courts made"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VMI Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
2. Is anyone surprised?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. Read his remarks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #11
67. Obama said, "conservatives make the same error" "that liberals were guilty of"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #67
95. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
137. Nope, not at all. And I wish that weren't the case. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ensho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. this makes my stomach turn
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. Read his remarks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #12
71. Obama said: "conservatives make the same error" "that liberal courts made"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tallahasseedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
4. Obama...
might want to re-think these statements and remember one of the biggest reasons why he was voted into the White House.

I am one of the biggest Obama apologists out there, but this pisses me off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. Read his remarks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #13
68. "conservatives make the same error" "that liberal courts made"
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 11:30 AM by amborin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #68
98. since you seem to feel it necessary to try a perpetuate the lie, I will simply say the OP is wrong
and the OP'er willfully misrepresented Obama's statement and intent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-10 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #13
138. Why don't you post them, with your interpretation
of what he meant? Obama has shown before that he considers 'the '60s' era something that we do not want to repeat. This was the Civil Rights era! The only people I know who have a visceral hatred for that period of history, are Republicans, specifically Reagan Republicans and DLCers.

He has tried to distance himself publicly from anything that appears to be Liberal. He seems almost ashamed of Liberals. Or maybe it's fear, as it was with Reagan. His admiration for Reagan, (and yes, I know, we all 'misunderstood what he meant'), was disturbing to me and to many people. Surely there was a Democratic President he could have named as someone he admired? That revealed a lot about him, imo.

He was asked a simple question here. He could have answered it directly 'Yes, I am concerned about Conservative judges' over-reaching' without going into 'and liberals did it too'.

He does that a lot. 'On the one hand, and then on the other'. He needs to remember he is a Democrat. He is constantly struggling to show how 'fair and balanced' he is. And in the end, while he's a great speaker, he actually leaves people wondering exactly what he meant.

And, I think he's proud of that. He said that he was always 'good at getting along with all sides' in one of his interviews. I don't think that's a great thing when you are a leader. Leaders have to take a stand sometimes. And sometimes I wonder just who this man is. Maybe he does too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
132. God forbid the President think that maybe his strongest supporters
are capable of reading comprehension.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
5. pathetic, just pathetic nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. Read his remarks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #14
66. Obama said, "conservatives make the same error" that liberal courts made.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #66
99. No matter how many times you try and cast his statements the wrong way, it's still devious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
6. No he didn't
Read his actual remarks, not the mischaracterization in the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Seems you are the one who hasn't read his remarks.
I see you in two threads spinning as hard as you can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. Read his remarks.
Show me where he says what you think he says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
20. OK, then what exactly does this sentence mean? Since when is 'the feeling' equal to 'my personal
belief'? And in the 60s and 70s, the feeling was is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach. What youre now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #20
53. it's a disparagement of the liberal courts' pathbreaking decisions, which liberal praise
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #53
63. Why would he say that?
Sit back, take a deep breath and ask yourself why he would THINK that, much less why he would say it. If you come up with a credible answer I'd love to hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #53
118. Wow. I'm so glad that you got all this attention. I would suggest revisiting sentence structure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
7. Stop posting this POS article. Read or listen to what Obama actually said. You people
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 10:37 AM by sinkingfeeling
take a couple of NY Times writers' words, 'Mr. Obamas comments, which came as he prepares to make a Supreme Court nomination, amounted to the most sympathetic statement by a sitting Democratic president about the conservative view that the Warren and Burger courts which expanded criminal defendant rights, required busing to desegregate schools and declared a right to abortion were dominated by liberal judicial activists whose rulings were dubious.' as some sort of Gospel?

THAT'S THE OPINION OF THE WRITERS.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
8. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
16. actually, he didn't say that
he used purposely vague rhetoric.

Here, he really is playing chess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. "playing chess" ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. 3-D chess. Us simpletons wouldn't understand. We must trust instead
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #27
43. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #27
105. .....
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 12:10 PM by Skidmore
:eyes:

Obtusity is almost as blissful as ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
18. BS reporting. "Still, his statement seemed to call into question"?
The President's comments on Conservative Judicial Activism are twisted and reinterpreted. But it'll get rec'ed up because it bashes the President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. read his actual statement; it's the opposite of what one would hope to hear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #23
100. Your OP is the opposite of what actually was meant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
19. The NYT strikes again.
We all know they will whore for the $ client.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #19
25. it's a very good article, imo n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #25
36. More like an editorial since it's loaded with the writers' comments instead of facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #36
45. and quotes from 7 people across the spectrum
and good historical background, and very interestingly, a quote from Obama's own book, which makes his comment look consistent with what he has said all along:

The White House declined to identify rulings that Mr. Obama believes relied on judicial activism. It also argued that his recent remarks were consistent with his history of separating himself from liberals in the Warren court mold. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, for example, Mr. Obama suggested that in our reliance on the courts to vindicate not only our rights but also our values, progressives had lost too much faith in democracy.

A very good article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #45
49. Still there's lots of comments one is supposed to accept because the authors say so.
"Mr. Obamas comments, which came as he prepares to make a Supreme Court nomination, amounted to the most sympathetic statement by a sitting Democratic president about the conservative view that the Warren and Burger courts which expanded criminal defendant rights, required busing to desegregate schools and declared a right to abortion were dominated by liberal judicial activists whose rulings were dubious."

That is pure opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #49
54. direct quotes are not opinion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #54
85. There are exactly 4 quotes from Obama in the article.
1. It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically, Mr. Obama said.

2. And in the 60s and 70s, the feeling was is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach. What youre now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.

3. He added, The concept of judicial restraint cuts both ways.

4. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, for example, Mr. Obama suggested that in our reliance on the courts to vindicate not only our rights but also our values, progressives had lost too much faith in democracy.

Opinions by the authors:
Mr. Obamas comments, which came as he prepares to make a Supreme Court nomination, amounted to the most sympathetic statement by a sitting Democratic president about the conservative view that the Warren and Burger courts which expanded criminal defendant rights, required busing to desegregate schools and declared a right to abortion were dominated by liberal judicial activists whose rulings were dubious.

Still, his statement seemed to call into question subsequent liberal legal victories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #49
75. that is such a whiny way to look at it
the article presents an idea that you are uncomfortable with, and you complain that you are supposed to accept it.

Why do you have to accept it? I came away from the article thinking the comments were not so significant, especially in light of what Obama has already written.

Why so whiny? Why so afraid of having your view of Obama challenged?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #75
79. I'm very comfortable with the ideas President Obama discussed, i.e. 'restraint' and the way
'judicial activism' is preceived. This is a 'hit piece' to convince progressives they've been sold out and it's working.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #36
58. It has has Obama's OWN WORDS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #58
82. Where did he say he was making the most important 'sympathetic statement' about the Warren and
Burger courts or that any of those rulings were 'dubious'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #82
83. Where DIDN'T Obama say the conservative court wasn't guilty of the same ERROR the liberal court was?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #83
97. Answered in #92.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #97
102. No, it isn't. Obama's own words are crystal clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #102
113. OK, think whatever you like. Funny, though that every other news story on the exact same 3 quotes
from Obama have the headlines as 'Obama Warns Of A 'conservative' Judicial Activism'. I guess that only those who want to cripe about the President see it as 'Obama Says Liberal Courts May Have Overreached' (which of course, isn't in any of his quotes).


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/28/ap/preswho/ma...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
26. Please reply "Read his remarks" to me
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. You have to say something uninformed first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. We all know he will find a judge liberal enough to approve his death panels
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 11:05 AM by Oregone
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
29. 
This is not the same as "I think that the Warren courts went too far".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #29
34. it's bashing the liberal Warren & Burger courts, no matter how one tries to sanitize the remarks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. It is not - he's describing how the conservatives of the 60s and 70s viewed the court's rulings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #34
38. And we know you can't let the truth get in the way of an opportunity to bash Obama,
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #34
47. Wow, 2 writers make the following statement and it's now the Gospel on how Obama feels about the
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 11:05 AM by sinkingfeeling
Warren and Burger courts. Talking about how conservatives of the '60s and '70s and now viewed the liberal courts makes it a 'sympathetic statement? I'd say it's an editorial, not a factual article, like this one on the same discussion:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/28/ap/preswho/ma...
"Mr. Obamas comments, which came as he prepares to make a Supreme Court nomination, amounted to the most sympathetic statement by a sitting Democratic president about the conservative view that the Warren and Burger courts which expanded criminal defendant rights, required busing to desegregate schools and declared a right to abortion were dominated by liberal judicial activists whose rulings were dubious."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #47
56. direct quotations are not editorials
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #56
65. Very true - which direct quotes are giving you problems?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #65
69. Obama said: "conservatives make the same error" "that liberal courts made"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #69
120. That's two you're splicing together - do you work for the Times?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #65
93. There are exactly 4 quotes from Obama in the article. None give me problems. Comments by the
authors of this piece are the quotes that bother me.

Obama's quotes:
1. It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically, Mr. Obama said.

2. And in the 60s and 70s, the feeling was is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach. What youre now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.

3. He added, The concept of judicial restraint cuts both ways.

4. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, for example, Mr. Obama suggested that in our reliance on the courts to vindicate not only our rights but also our values, progressives had lost too much faith in democracy.

Opinions by the authors:
"Mr. Obamas comments, which came as he prepares to make a Supreme Court nomination, amounted to the most sympathetic statement by a sitting Democratic president about the conservative view that the Warren and Burger courts which expanded criminal defendant rights, required busing to desegregate schools and declared a right to abortion were dominated by liberal judicial activists whose rulings were dubious."

"Still, his statement seemed to call into question subsequent liberal legal victories."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
32. I assume he's talking about busing.
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 10:55 AM by DefenseLawyer
But it's still a sad and telling remark and one more reason my wallet is closed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-10 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #32
139. My guess is Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey
Though who can say?

It could have been Miranda/Escobedo.

Or Gideon.

Or Mapp.

Or Tinker.

Or _________ (pick 'em).

Bottom line- another gratuitous remark meant that he probably wishes he had back. Kinda like the not begrudging bankster bounes/baseball players deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
33. Where does the article say that Obama said the Warren and Berger courts are "too liberal"
I read the whole thing. He didn't say that. Did you make it up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #33
39. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #33
74. Outrage doesn't whip itself up you know. Disinformation greases the skids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
35. It sounds like he's criticizing Conservative jurisprudence, not Burger/Warren courts
And I don't see where he creates any kind of "moral equivalence" between the Warren court and the Roberts court.

Sorry, but the title and the interpretation of Obama's remarks seem like bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #35
41. Bingo.
The Rorschach test of Obama remarks continues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #35
42. actually, his statement is softer on the conservatives; harsher on the liberal courts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #42
48. how so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #48
59. just read the direct quotes; Obama criticizes liberal decisions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #59
72. I did read the direct quotes. Can you answer my question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
46. you guys are flogging the shit out of this misrepresentation, ain't ya?
Is this really the best you can do?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #46
50. I'm just a caveman
but he is quoted as saying And in the 60s and 70s, the feeling was IS that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach. What youre now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the SAME ERROR. He says that the feeling IS (as in right now) that the warren court was GUILTY (his word) of not acquiescing to majority rule and that the current court is making the same ERROR. How can he accuse the conservatives of making the same error without thinking that the warren court was in error first? What is the misrepresentation? Type slowly, I'll try to understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #50
60. LOL....leave it to a defense lawyer to parse that one out
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 11:51 AM by Oregone
Hey, honestly, your interpretation of the words is probably accurate, ya know, BUT, you can't exactly parse out the intention behind the words (maybe he didn't mean to say that, but he surely did imply error of the liberal courts with his words)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #50
64. conservative court makes "the SAME ERROR" (as liberal courts made) incredible
to disparage some landmark liberal court decisions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #64
88. Dear Mr. President: The Repukes are NEVER going to like you. NEVER.
Please stop this shit and start doing what we elected you to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #50
78. The vague part is, he doesn't mention who had/has the "feeling"
It could be Rush and Co that he's referring too. The first part of the statement is sort of like "some people say." The second part of the statement says that the conservative supreme court is making the error that "some people" accused the liberal court of doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #78
90. Exactly. Repigs are the ones who had/have that feeling.
If he was talking about his own opinion, he wouldn't have had to say it like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #78
103. Were that the case, why is he promoting it by repeating it?
Obama seems to be trying to get advance support for his nominee. He'll never get it from conservatives and when he does this stuff, then he pisses off people on the left. I wish he'd find some other strategery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #103
106. "pisses off people on the left"
I'm on left, but I'm not pissed because I'm not twisting his words. In fact, 91% of democrats approve of his performance so far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #106
110. He needs to stop saying, both sides do it. It's gratuitous
and it's untrue as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #50
89. it's the feeling among Conservatives, not Barack Obama
He is calling them hypocrites because they opposed the liberal courts of the past, yet support the current court..

But of course his hecklers are trying to use it against him, as always.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #89
117. Correct.
But that seems to be just an irrelevant detail dismissed in favor of the excoriation de jour by the "left-wing hecklers."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #89
136. If that's what he meant then he should have said that.
You sound like Dennis Hopper trying to explain Col. Kurtz to Willard. I think in the end, rather than trying to make words say something they just don't say or even imply, you should just say "Sometimes he goes too far."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #46
55. It is no misrepresentation. It is Obama's own words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #55
94. can you show me in his quote where says that he thinks warren and burger were too liberal
or is that just your convolution of what he said?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #46
81. Take it up with Obama. He said it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #81
96. the OP headline is false. Obama didn't say it.
but why let the truth stop you?
it hasn't in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #96
101. HIs quotation is in the OP. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. yes, but nowhere in that quote does he say what's in the title of this OP
I know it's hard for you to understand, but I'll give it a go.

He is basically calling Repukes hypocrites because they "had\have the feeling" that Liberal courts overreached,
yet they support a Conservative court that is definitely overreaching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #104
108. And that would be a fine reading of what he said but
he didn't qualify "the same error". He didn't say, "the same perceived error".

Whatever. I don't think these remarks are going to help him and ditto for the whole "both sides do it" thing that he does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #108
112. the only reason they don't help is because people like you who want to see the worst in him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #112
114. As I said, take it up with him, he said. n/t


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
51. 
The same ERROR...as "LIBERALS... guilty of that kind of approach."

Direct quotes.

Obama's words and meaning couldn't be clearer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #51
61. exactly: the "same error" as "liberals...guilty of that kind of approach"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #51
115. His words and meaning were that conservatives SAID earlier liberal courts
were "guilty" of "judicial activism" and now conservative judges are doing the same thing THEY claimed liberal judges were doing.

"in the 60s and 70s, the feeling was" not "My feeling is."

I say all the time that Republicans are guilty of things they accuse Democrats of doing. It doesn't mean I think Democrats are guilty of it, just that Republicans said they were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
butterfly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
62. Are all Democrats...
liberal or liberal on all issues?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
70. Most people probably don't know as much about those courts
and their rulings as Obama does. Obama, as a constitutional scholar and Harvard Law graduate, spoke candidly on those courts. That does NOT mean he will appoint conservatives to the court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #70
77. Antonin Scalia knows much more about those courts than Obama does. Should we defer to him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #77
80. I didn't say we should defer to anyone. I'm saying a candid remark
about something does not necessarily indicate what someone will do.

I can say that a meal looks fattening while still deciding to eat it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #70
91. With one comment he legitimized all conservative criticism of Roe v Wade and other landmarks
Does this guy have a CLUE when it comes to politics? The best interpretation is that he doesn't. I don't even want to consider the idea that he knows exactly what he's doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #91
127. +10 thnks for stating it concisely! Obama affirmed conserv criticisms of landmark lib court dec'ns
alas, i suspect he does know exactly what he's doing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
84. he's being honest. liberals love judicial activism when it benefits them and conservatives love it
when it benefits them

obama is honest enuf to admit it happen(s) on both sides.

good for him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #84
87. Which liberal activist decision would you overturn from the 60's and 70's?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #87
107. how about trop v. dulles?
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 12:17 PM by paulsby
a 1958 case (not 1960's but an earl warren decision, and we are talking the warren court)

the court invalidated a sentence of forfeitureof citizenship imposed on a soldier who deserted during wartime.

warrens opinion declared that the basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man and that the Eighth Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.

that's like judicial activism in a nutshell. not about what the law says, or case law, or precedent, but .. well. read on

here's a hint. and it was pointed out in the dissent. desertion has been a CAPITAL offense (iow punishable by death ) since the first year of our nation's independence. therefore, insisting that it is cruel and unusual to revoke citizenship for a crime that warrants the DEATH PENALTY is the HEIGHT of judicial activism (see: "evolving standards of decency")


a beautiful example in a dissent (iow not a decision) was justice douglas proposal in his dissent in sierra club v morton of the "conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation"

seriously! read the case. it's phenomenal. whatever one thinks about it as POLICY, the idea that constitution allows standing to be transferred from ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTS to other entities to sue on their behalf is geometrically wackier than the idea that corporations are persons.

trees having standing to sue!!!

lol

i could go on

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #107
111. Because Trop v Dulles is the first thing people think of when you mention liberal judicial activism
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #111
119. that is a perfect example of intellectual dishonest and it disgusts me
you asked for examples and i gave it

i don't CARE what the average person thinks

you asked for examples of judicial activism and i gave some to you

instead of acknowledging the problems with these cases, or disagreeing that they ARE judicial activism (good luck on that), you just say that they are obscure

i STuDY case law. i make informed decisions. heck,i TEACH aspects of case law

do you disagree that these are examples of judicial activism?

i could give plenty of examples of conservative and liberal ones. dozens

i chose two PARTICULARLY egregious ones

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
86. Someone needs to ask him what the liberal "ERRORS" were
Roe v Wade?
Brown v Board of Education?

Can someone please check Reagan's grave and make sure he's still in it? :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
92. "THE FEELING WAS" ... see that? "THE FEELING WAS"!
"that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach"

Holy crap.

He is saying, "Conservatives claimed the Warren & Burger courts were 'activist'. But now they are doing the same things that they criticized liberal judges for."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishbulb703 Donating Member (492 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
109. Of course the Warren court overstepped the constitution. Thats why they could succeed.
Earl Warren was a great judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newtothegame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
116. Wow, I'm so inspired. Please, more pictures of him in his sunglasses/weeping/playing with his dog!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
122. And Reagan appealed to Americans put off by the "excesses of the 60s and 70s."
"He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263

More of the same.

Sometimes he seems to be a smart guy.

Other times... who knows?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #122
124. That quote was a real gem,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #124
125. And turned out to be a clear warning of what was to come.
We were chumped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
128. No, he was saying the liberal court was *viewed* that way back then.
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 05:13 PM by Starbucks Anarchist
And in the 60s and 70s, the feeling was is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach. What youre now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.

He wasn't saying it was his personal opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
129. How much more evidence do the Cheerleaders need showing that Obama is a Corporatist?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #129
131. When you grow some reading comprehension, I'll admit that
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 05:19 PM by Arkana
Obama is a "corporatist".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
130. Nowhere does the President say "I feel that..." or any combination of that.
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 05:20 PM by Arkana
He says that "This was the prevailing feeling".

And FYI, Brown was in 1954.

Your title is disingenuous and horribly misleading, and meant to whip up outrage from the knee-jerk "WE HATES OBAMA, YES WE DOES PRECIOUS" crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-10 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #130
140. You are correct on one point- the title is misleading
Edited on Sat May-01-10 02:42 AM by depakid
On the jurisprudence angle- and what was said, implied- and the effect(s) on the lager debate, Greenwald makes some very salient points- which can be taken or left for what they're worth- though Greg Sargent's broader take is illuminating:

Is this what Obama meant to say? Well, the White House isnt walking the comments back. Meanwhile, the White House is declining to specify which rulings Obama was referring to.

Putting aside the specifics of this argument which Glenn Greenwald deals with at length today whats mystifying about this kind of talk is that it doesnt serve any clear purpose, other than needlessly antagonizing the left. When Obama announced his drilling plan, he said it was time to move beyond the tired debates between right and left, apparently drawing an equivalence between both sides arguments about, of all things, energy issues.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/climate-change/obama-... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
133. I respectfully disagree with the president on this
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 05:28 PM by Blue_In_AK
if he meant what it sounds like. What we have NOW is an activist court who only seem to represent the interests of nonhuman corporations. I'm extremely grateful to the Warren and Burger courts for standing up for human rights. And, coincidentally, Obama would probably not be where he is today without them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
134. I'll be writing in the name of an actual Democrat next time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2019, 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC