Obama Says Liberal Courts May Have Overreached

[IndianaGreen]

For those of you that totally trust Obama's judgment in choosing Elena Kagan, consider what he said in the following NY Times article, and try to determine why he put conservative activism of the past 20 years on the same level as liberal decisions that expanded civil liberties.

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.

Mr. Obama made his remarks 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 you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.”

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/us/politics/30court.html

[ProSense]

1. Luckily, he isn't being appointed to the SCOTUS.

:rofl:

[babylonsister]

2. Hahaha!

:thumbsup:

[mucifer]

3. I interpret that as him saying conservatives are hypocrites.

[NYC Liberal]

4. Oh GEEZ. Not this bullshit again.

Read the article. Read what was said.

"And in the ’60s and ’70s, the feeling was..."

He says conservatives complained that the liberal courts were "overreaching" but then turned around and have done the very thing they accused others of doing: "What you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error."

[FrenchieCat]

5. Nothing like a good old Corporate Media NYT headline and a

gotcha quote to illustrate what's wrong with our media today.....
and those who allow it to lead them by the nostrils if it suits
their own obvious day in, day out agenda.

[NYC Liberal]

8. Well, if it's anti-Obama, it must be credible right?

:sarcasm:

[IndianaGreen]

7. Nice of Obama to call Griswold v Connecticut an overreach

He was just pandering to the rightwing!

[NYC Liberal]

9. Except Obama didn't call ANYTHING "overreaching"

so where do you get that, again? Oh, a New York Times headline...that must just say it all!

[activa8tr]

28. You're absolutely CORRECT! Sometimes I wonder about the

critical reading skills of some posters here, (to whom you replied).

They think a poorly written article in the NY Times is what they need to go by, instead of the precise words of the President.

Geeze I sometimes really wonder what agenda's are going on here for some people.

[qazplm]

6. wow, I agree read the article

read the actual words he uses, assign them their normal reading.

It in no way says what the lede says it says.

Good grief, it's pretty clear he was using the stuff about what others were saying about judicial activism and liberal judges and applying it to conservative judges today. Totally talking about hypocrisy and how the pendulum had swung too far the other way.

RIF.

[tblue]

10. What did liberals ever, EVER do to him?

I almost feel like, and bear with me on this, we are the white side of his family that raised and supported him his entire life. The Republicans/conservatives are the distant, estranged father he never felt enough love from, and he knows he will regret it if he doesn't do everything in his power to get it..

Considering the tsunami of attacks that conservatives continue to lodge to umdermine and vilify him and everything he does, I can't for the life of me understand his low-grade but persistent contempt for liberal activists and our highest ideals. Wish I knew more about psychology.

[ProSense]

11. WTF? n/t

[NYC Liberal]

12. You could only write that post if you didn't read the article.

"I can't for the life of me understand his low-grade but persistent contempt for liberal activists and our highest ideals"

That's pretty much 180-degrees opposite of what he expressed.

[qazplm]

13. I wish you knew more about reading comprehension

before you start working on psychology.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

23. So by your analogy, Obama has shown "persistent contempt" for the white members of his family?

Oh lord...:eyes:

[dionysus]

25. that's a fucked up statement, billy.

[Jennicut]

29. The what side of his family???

Don't go there, please. Don't use that as an example, okay?

[dionysus]

44. he went there!

:rofl:

[housewolf]

14. You'll notice that he DOES NOT say "I think that..."

"...liberals were guilty of that kind of approach"

He says "... And in the ’60s and ’70s, the feeling was — is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach. "

There's no ownership of "the feeling" to himself if you actually read the words.

[FrenchieCat]

15. He saying that Conservatives are overreaching NOW,

Just like they have claimed that liberals overreached back then.

He's right, the Conservative court that we have (and yes, it is conservative),
are some fucking overreaching hoodlums. Obama's calling them out,
and what he gets for it is the famous NYT gotcha play.

[Aramchek]

16. you're just now getting to this week-old trash?

[dionysus]

26. sometimes you're running low on material and ya gotta post your second string smears?

:shrug:

[Aramchek]

38. or you're just running around frustrated and flailing

;)

[Starbucks Anarchist]

17. I didn't realize "the feeling was" meant "I personally believe."

:eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

18. With enough twists and turns anything is possible for some with a clear agenda!

[SpartanDem]

19. weak sauce

[grantcart]

20. Nothing in your quoted text supports your headline

Either you have a predisposition to post OPs that cast the most possible and absolute negative criticism of the President and think that the rest of us won't bother to read it

or

You have a severe problem in reading simple English.

"“It used to be that the notion of an activist judge" is an accurate depiction of how the right framed the role of liberal judges (and Obama clearly doesn't indicate it was his notion) and the President cleverly turns the idea of 'activist judge' back on the conservatives.

[LiberalAndProud]

21. Okay, I have considered what he said, and find that I agree with him.

It's important to read beyond the headlines.

[thelordofhell]

22. If it wasn't for the worst Supreme Court ruling ever in Bush v. Gore

I don't think Obama would have been President. We would have had unprecedented prosperity for the last 8 years of a Gore Presidency and would probably be looking at Hilary as the President now.

No amount of Liberal judicial action was or ever will be as bad as Bush v. Gore.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

24. I unrecc'd this before I read it...

Then I read and, sure enough, it was more bullshit from the same pathetic source.

[dionysus]

27. and a swing and a miss...

[ClarkUSA]

30. This is a completely misleading and totally false OP title that is not supported by the facts.

How many of these kind of false media whore headlines are you going to post this week? Go ahead and blame the reporters, but it's clear that you have no intention of acknowledging their misleading headline despite many replies telling you that it's false. The least you could do when you post erroneous OP titles is to state a correction when misleading headlines are proven to be completely fabricated and totally unsupported by the very source text that you link to.

[FrenchieCat]

31. This week????

Come on, give credit where credit is due. :spank: The track record shows that this has been happening forever!

[ClarkUSA]

33. lol! Ain't it the truth?

:fistbump:

[jenmito]

32. It's only Monday. I predict there will be many, many more by the end of the week...

judging by her record. ;)

[ClarkUSA]

34. No doubt.

:fistbump:

[Vattel]

36. you are right that the headline is misleading,

but Obama seems clearly to be endorsing judicial restraint and condemining judicial activism, whether that activism is from the left or the right. I don't see what's wrong with, e.g., ignoring the will of Congress and democratic processes when that is necessary to ensure that, e.g., constitutional rights are protected.

[ClarkUSA]

37. No, I see his comments as an attempt to underline the rank hypocrisy of the modern Republican Party.

Considering the Citizens United decision was clearly a case of the conservative Justices' judicial activism in overturning well-established precedent, I can see why.

[Vattel]

39. well, it's certainly partly that.

But when he speaks of the "same error," what error is he referring to?

[ClarkUSA]

40. He was using a rhetorical device in order to set up the thrust of his point re: GOP hypocrisy

That's the way I see it, anyway. From the article:

"Still, Mr. Obama, who formerly taught constitutional law, did not cite any specific decisions. He has long been a supporter of abortion rights, and repeatedly defended the court’s 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."

[Vattel]

46. maybe

but you should concede that there is more than one reasonable interpretation here. Obama should be asked to clarify his remarks.

[gravity]

35. Obama was just reaching out to the middle and right

When Obama acknowledges their feelings about past liberal judges, it gives him more credibility to criticize some conservatives.

If Obama would just have said that the liberal judges were right and the conservatives were wrong, it would have done nothing to persuade the moderates and conservatives.

Obama is a politician and he knows how to give politician answers.

[damonm]

41. Your Troll Fu is WEAK, Weedhopper...

[AtomicKitten]

42. I think you may have overreached by glomming onto yet another distortion. nt

[dionysus]

45. it's as regular as taxes and the mail.

[activa8tr]

43. Let's not waste time trying to explain to people who don't understand how bad

the NY Time writers are in headline creation.

"Obama Says Liberal Courts May Have Overreached
By CHARLIE SAVAGE and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: April 29, 2010"

Let's get some comments into the Ombudsperson and replies column at the Times... they need to correct their GROSS ERROR in column title creation.