vote for Obama to get....moderate judges.

[IndianaJones]

Because federal judges receive lifetime appointments and often serve through terms of multiple presidents, it behooves a president - and benefits our democracy - to find moderate nominees who can garner some measure of bipartisan support."

Barack Obama

[AndyA]

1. I think we have enough "moderate" judges already.

What I want are some progressive judges to balance out all the right wing crazies we have.

Edwards is the best chance for restoring some balance.

[cali]

11. has JE said he'll nominate progressive judges and justices?

I'd be interested in some links.

[jackson_dem]

26. No one says that. No one other than Obama calls for "moderate" judges either though

[EffieBlack]

35. "I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis to elevate qualified, moderate nominees

to the Federal bench."

John Edwards, Febrary 11, 2003
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r108:./temp/~r108B2f3cm

[EffieBlack]

34. Self-delete

[MNDemNY]

He'll get some great advice from his friend "Donnie"

[IndianaJones]

3. Donnie is not moderate. Thats scary. nt.

[readmoreoften]

2. Yay. Moderate judges in an extreme right wing society mean moderate right wing judges.

Fucking Stevens is our most moderate judge and the man was appointed by a Republican. Tells you something about how far the party has shifted.

[redqueen]

4. That is really very troubling.

This stuff just keeps trickling out about Obama... but not in the media.

:think:

[IndianaJones]

5. I believe this could be a strength for him in the general election. nt.

[redqueen]

7. Sadly that is very true... but will it be good for the country?

*sigh*

[BootinUp]

24. Its really no mystery

in order to be a viable candidate he has to run right more than Hillary would. This is just another example.

[TwilightZone]

6. Let's hope that's just campaign pandering.

It better be. We need some progressive judges to offset Roberts, Scalia, et al.

[IndianaJones]

8. how to tell if its pandering? nt.

[TwilightZone]

10. That's the problem, isn't it?

That's the problem with a lot of Obama's statements. It's difficult to tell if he's just running a general election campaign now, or if he really believes them and intends to act on them accordingly.

[IndianaJones]

12. while this statement is troubling, I find his religious views much more alarming. nt.

[TwilightZone]

13. My theory...

is that he thinks that the Dem base is a lock because of anti-Bushism, so he's targeting moderates and Republicans. In doing so, he's alienating some in the base. Whether they're still vote for him as the nominee remains to be seen. He's betting (right or wrong) that they will.

That being said, there are plenty of ways to target moderates and Republicans without resurrecting Reagan, campaigning with "ex-gays", making slightly ambiguous statements on choice, and calling the Republicans the party of ideas.

Then again, throw in the NRA, and he'd have the Republican platform covered.

It's probably a good strategy for the general, but it doesn't do him any good if he doesn't get out of the primaries.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. Judges are pretty irrelevant in an empire. When we were a constitutional democratic republic,

it actually made a difference, but not now.

[redqueen]

19. Bush v. Gore?

Refusal to hear the Enron case?

:wow:

[John Q. Citizen]

21. Exactly! And if the court decided different, what difference would it make. The

Emperor/es is unitary.

You are still in the constitutional republic mindset.

[redqueen]

30. What difference would it make? Are you kidding?

I don't even know how to respond to that.

Mindset schmindset... if you don't think things would be different had the court not been handed to right-wing extremists... I don't even know what to say to you.

[John Q. Citizen]

31. Remeber your history. The Florida legislature was ready to vote to give their delegates to

bush.

The sitting judges were consented to by the compliant Senate.

[redqueen]

32. "The sitting judges were consented to by the compliant Senate."

Which is why we don't need anyone nominating moderate judges, we need balance. We need leftists.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

14. PUKE

[jackson_dem]

15. If Lieberman said this we would kill him. Obama is Liebermanism with "hope" and personality

[IndianaJones]

16. and Jesus. nt.

[redqueen]

17. Kick

[krabigirl]

18. wow...he is really trying to get him some Obamacons!

[joshcryer]

20. This is my fear, too.

[ruggerson]

22. Interesting no Obama supporters are even attempting to defend this

n/t

[BootinUp]

25. There is no defense, not in these times

not when we have a rw court.

[AX10]

37. There are a few around here who are though.

[cascadiance]

23. If "moderate" judges means those that keep in place "corporate personhood", then no thank you!

[kelligesq]

39. Yeah, moderate like Alito and Roberts - a vote for Obama will

complete the tranformation of the democratic party to republicratic party.IMO

[JustinL]

43. not very likely

This is not very likely, considering that Obama, along with Clinton, voted against the confirmation of both Alito and Roberts.

[teleharmonium]

27. it's all relative

Maybe he means moderate, compared to those Bush has selected...
and "some measure of bipartisan support" is not a particularly high bar...

damn, the guy can't catch a break around here.

I'd rather have his judges than McCain's, any day of the week, I'll tell you that much.

[Egnever]

28. He is absolutely right.

I do not want ideological judges.

[IndianaJones]

29. kick for justice. nt.

[Renew Deal]

33. This is unfounded

And based on Hillary's track record, her nominations will be moderate corporate shills.

[Yanez Houston Jordan]

36. Michael Moore made a good point about Obama's not-so-great record on civil justice issues:

"since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place."

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2008-01-02

[kelligesq]

40. CORRECT !

yeah he;s hope..hope for the republicans but death for dems issues.

not so good on health care,
not so good on no big embassies in Iraq
not so good on who he associates with : Lieberman, Rizko.
not so good at telling the truth either - he keeps saying he doesnt take pac money or lobbiest money. Ommission - he doesn't add recently, cause the list of his contributors sure includes the biggest lobbies. Why John Edwards doesnt call him on it the way Hillary did on RiZko slumlord, I dont know. John just looks at him with that " you're looking in my face and telling a bald faced lie"

[IndianaJones]

38. Reaching out! nt.

[kelligesq]

41. guess 0 doesnt have that in his fact check scheme,

otherwise you wouldnt be saying "reaching out"

why dont you google his voting record on these votes? or are you afraid to
find out the truth. rather keep the fantasy going eh.

[IndianaJones]

42. the quote is in the OP. nt.

[JustinL]

44. context

The quote in the original post is from pg. 82 of The Audacity of Hope (Crown Publishers, 2006). In context, it is clear that he is defending the Democratic filibusters of Bush's judicial nominees:

To me, the threat to eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominations was just one more example of Republicans changing the rules in the middle of the game. Moreover, a good argument could be made that a vote on judicial nominations was precisely the situation where the filibuster's supermajority requirement made sense: Because federal judges receive lifetime appointments and often serve through the terms of multiple presidents, it behooves a president--and benefits our democracy--to find moderate nominees who can garner some measure of bipartisan support. Few of the Bush nominees in question fell into the "moderate" category; rather, they showed a pattern of hostility toward civil rights, privacy, and checks on executive power that put them to the right of even most Republican judges (one particularly troubling nominee had derisively called Social Security and other New Deal programs "the triumph of our own socialist revolution").

[FrenchieCat]

45. Thanks. Maybe Pres. Obama will nominate judges that look at context

when deciding a case.


I'm sure whomever he chooses will have never posted here, at the Democratic Underground!

[MrSlayer]

46. What do you want him to do? Come out and say he's going to appoint the most liberal judges possible?

It's a good statement from Obama. You don't want to scare off the people that are looking for an excuse to vote Democratic in the general when they normally wouldn't.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Actually, Obama did say something in that order....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4180459&mesg_id=4180459

Now this thread here (not the one I linked) doesn't even have a quote about what Obama said about Judges, and the type that he would appoint, while the link I post above carries his words and his deeds.

Too bad that some DUers believe that they can just talk out of their asses.....without presented anything to corroborate their "opinion". :(