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

[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 you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.”

snip

Mr. Obama’s 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. Obama’s 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.html?ref=todayspaper

[no_hypocrisy]

1. That isn't the hope and change I thought I was going to get.

[Richardo]

10. Read his remarks.

[no_hypocrisy]

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.

[Richardo]

40. That's NOT his rationale - he said activism USED to be defined that way.

[amborin]

52. he disparaged the decisions of the liberal courts

[Richardo]

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.

[Toasterlad]

31. I Read the Article.

"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."

In other words, "I got mine."

[Richardo]

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.

[Toasterlad]

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.

[Richardo]

121. Read the rest of the article - if that's accuracy for you, then it's not a very high threshhold

[Toasterlad]

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.

[alarimer]

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.

[amborin]

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

[amborin]

73. Obama said: "conservatives make the same error" "that liberal courts made"

[VMI Dem]

2. Is anyone surprised?

[Richardo]

11. Read his remarks.

[amborin]

67. Obama said, "conservatives make the same error" "that liberals were guilty of"

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lorien]

137. Nope, not at all. And I wish that weren't the case. nt

[ensho]

3. this makes my stomach turn

nt

[Richardo]

12. Read his remarks.

[amborin]

71. Obama said: "conservatives make the same error" "that liberal courts made"

[tallahasseedem]

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.

[Richardo]

13. Read his remarks.

[amborin]

68. "conservatives make the same error" "that liberal courts made"

[KittyWampus]

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.

[sabrina 1]

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.

[Arkana]

132. God forbid the President think that maybe his strongest supporters

are capable of reading comprehension.

[DURHAM D]

5. pathetic, just pathetic nt

[Richardo]

14. Read his remarks.

[amborin]

66. Obama said, "conservatives make the same error" that liberal courts made.....

[KittyWampus]

99. No matter how many times you try and cast his statements the wrong way, it's still devious.

[Richardo]

6. No he didn't

Read his actual remarks, not the mischaracterization in the article.

[DURHAM D]

9. Seems you are the one who hasn't read his remarks.

I see you in two threads spinning as hard as you can.

[Richardo]

15. Read his remarks.

Show me where he says what you think he says.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sinkingfeeling]

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

[amborin]

53. it's a disparagement of the liberal courts' pathbreaking decisions, which liberal praise

[Richardo]

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.

[sinkingfeeling]

118. Wow. I'm so glad that you got all this attention. I would suggest revisiting sentence structure.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Stop posting this POS article. Read or listen to what Obama actually said. You people

take a couple of NY Times writers' words, 'Mr. Obama’s 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.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

16. actually, he didn't say that

he used purposely vague rhetoric.

Here, he really is playing chess.

[amborin]

21. "playing chess" ?

[Oregone]

27. 3-D chess. Us simpletons wouldn't understand. We must trust instead

[Name removed]

43. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skidmore]

105. .....

:eyes:

Obtusity is almost as blissful as ignorance.

[FSogol]

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.

[amborin]

23. read his actual statement; it's the opposite of what one would hope to hear

[KittyWampus]

100. Your OP is the opposite of what actually was meant.

[Rex]

19. The NYT strikes again.

We all know they will whore for the $ client.

[Enrique]

25. it's a very good article, imo n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

36. More like an editorial since it's loaded with the writers' comments instead of facts.

[Enrique]

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.

[sinkingfeeling]

49. Still there's lots of comments one is supposed to accept because the authors say so.

"Mr. Obama’s 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.

[amborin]

54. direct quotes are not opinion

[sinkingfeeling]

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 you’re 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. Obama’s 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.

[Enrique]

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?

[sinkingfeeling]

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.

[katandmoon]

58. It has has Obama's OWN WORDS.

[sinkingfeeling]

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'?

[katandmoon]

83. Where DIDN'T Obama say the conservative court wasn't guilty of the same ERROR the liberal court was?

[sinkingfeeling]

97. Answered in #92.

[katandmoon]

102. No, it isn't. Obama's own words are crystal clear.

[sinkingfeeling]

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/main6442450.shtml

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oregone]

26. Please reply "Read his remarks" to me

:puke:

[Richardo]

28. You have to say something uninformed first.

[Oregone]

30. We all know he will find a judge liberal enough to approve his death panels

:)

[Cant trust em]

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

This is not the same as "I think that the Warren courts went too far".

[amborin]

34. it's bashing the liberal Warren & Burger courts, no matter how one tries to sanitize the remarks

[Richardo]

37. It is not - he's describing how the conservatives of the 60s and 70s viewed the court's rulings.

[Renew Deal]

38. And we know you can't let the truth get in the way of an opportunity to bash Obama,

:shrug:

[sinkingfeeling]

47. Wow, 2 writers make the following statement and it's now the Gospel on how Obama feels about the

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/main6442450.shtml
"Mr. Obama’s 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."

[amborin]

56. direct quotations are not editorials

[Richardo]

65. Very true - which direct quotes are giving you problems?

[amborin]

69. Obama said: "conservatives make the same error" "that liberal courts made"

[Richardo]

120. That's two you're splicing together - do you work for the Times?

[sinkingfeeling]

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 you’re 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. Obama’s 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."

[DefenseLawyer]

32. I assume he's talking about busing.

But it's still a sad and telling remark and one more reason my wallet is closed.

[depakid]

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.

[Renew Deal]

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?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

74. Outrage doesn't whip itself up you know. Disinformation greases the skids.

[tishaLA]

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.

[Cant trust em]

41. Bingo.

The Rorschach test of Obama remarks continues.

[amborin]

42. actually, his statement is softer on the conservatives; harsher on the liberal courts

[tishaLA]

48. how so?

[amborin]

59. just read the direct quotes; Obama criticizes liberal decisions

[tishaLA]

72. I did read the direct quotes. Can you answer my question?

[Aramchek]

46. you guys are flogging the shit out of this misrepresentation, ain't ya?

Is this really the best you can do?

[DefenseLawyer]

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 you’re 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.

[Oregone]

60. LOL....leave it to a defense lawyer to parse that one out

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)

[amborin]

64. conservative court makes "the SAME ERROR" (as liberal courts made) incredible

to disparage some landmark liberal court decisions

[jgraz]

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.

[ecstatic]

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.

[Aramchek]

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.

[EFerrari]

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.

[ecstatic]

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.

[EFerrari]

110. He needs to stop saying, both sides do it. It's gratuitous

and it's untrue as well.

[Aramchek]

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.

[Lord Helmet]

117. Correct.

But that seems to be just an irrelevant detail dismissed in favor of the excoriation de jour by the "left-wing hecklers."

[DefenseLawyer]

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."

[katandmoon]

55. It is no misrepresentation. It is Obama's own words.

[Aramchek]

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?

[EFerrari]

81. Take it up with Obama. He said it. n/t

[Aramchek]

96. the OP headline is false. Obama didn't say it.

but why let the truth stop you?
it hasn't in the past.

[EFerrari]

101. HIs quotation is in the OP. n/t

[Aramchek]

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.

[EFerrari]

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.

[Aramchek]

112. the only reason they don't help is because people like you who want to see the worst in him

[EFerrari]

114. As I said, take it up with him, he said. n/t

[katandmoon]

51. "What you’re now seeing....is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error."

The same ERROR...as "LIBERALS... guilty of that kind of approach."

Direct quotes.

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

[amborin]

61. exactly: the "same error" as "liberals...guilty of that kind of approach"

[NYC Liberal]

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.

[butterfly77]

62. Are all Democrats...

liberal or liberal on all issues?

[ecstatic]

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.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

77. Antonin Scalia knows much more about those courts than Obama does. Should we defer to him?

[ecstatic]

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.

[jgraz]

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.

[amborin]

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

[paulsby]

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

[jgraz]

87. Which liberal activist decision would you overturn from the 60's and 70's?

:shrug:

[paulsby]

107. how about trop v. dulles?

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.

warren’s opinion declared that the “basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment<’s bar on cruel and unusual punishments> 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

[jgraz]

111. Because Trop v Dulles is the first thing people think of when you mention liberal judicial activism

:eyes:

[paulsby]

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

[jgraz]

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:

[NYC Liberal]

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."

[fishbulb703]

109. Of course the Warren court overstepped the constitution. Thats why they could succeed.

Earl Warren was a great judge.

[newtothegame]

116. Wow, I'm so inspired. Please, more pictures of him in his sunglasses/weeping/playing with his dog!!!

[freddie mertz]

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?

[Bluebear]

124. That quote was a real gem,

[freddie mertz]

125. And turned out to be a clear warning of what was to come.

We were chumped.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

128. No, he was saying the liberal court was *viewed* that way back then.

“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 wasn't saying it was his personal opinion.

[Odin2005]

129. How much more evidence do the Cheerleaders need showing that Obama is a Corporatist?

[Arkana]

131. When you grow some reading comprehension, I'll admit that

Obama is a "corporatist".

[Arkana]

130. Nowhere does the President say "I feel that..." or any combination of that.

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.

[depakid]

140. You are correct on one point- the title is misleading

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 isn’t 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 — what’s mystifying about this kind of talk is that it doesn’t 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 side’s arguments about, of all things, energy issues.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/climate-change/obama-and-the-liberal-courts/

[Blue_In_AK]

133. I respectfully disagree with the president on this

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.

[kenny blankenship]

134. I'll be writing in the name of an actual Democrat next time.