Looking Forward: The Obama Judiciary

From the Filing Cabinet

The good folks over at the Volokh Conspriacy were kind of enough to post about Senator Obama's teaching exploits at the U of Chicago. (I'm searching for the link).

Give credit where credit is do: (I'm summarizing) Reports are that was a student favorite. He taught the law in a straight forward manner, stuck to the relevant case law, and taught the facts of the case law and jurisprudential theories.

Think this is reflective of the federal judiciary (and Supreme Court) under and Obama presidency? Think again.

From the Denver Post:

opinion
You want radical? You got it
By David Harsanyi
Article Last Updated: 05/08/2008 09:35:03 PM MDT
Supreme Court justices take an oath promising to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties . . . of the Supreme Court of the United States under the Constitution and laws of the United States . So help me God."
They do not take an oath to "faithfully and impartially perform all duties . . . except when personally offended, or when having pangs of empathy for the poor or trying to be a standup guy or gal."
Listening to Barack Obama, you may think they do. And though the Bush administration cared little for the Constitution, the next administration, it seems, won't care in a brand new way.
You may remember conservatives fuming when Sen. John McCain joined the "Gang of 14" — a group of self-proclaimed moderates who in truth were too cowardly to vote on qualified judicial nominees.
These days, McCain is reborn. Embarked on his "Don't Worry, I'm No Maverick! Tour 2008," he has addressed conservative concerns about judges, promising to look for "judicial restraint" and "limits to the scope of judicial power." McCain cited John Roberts and Samuel Alito as model judicial appointees.
For conservatives, it's comfort rhetoric (though hard to believe). For his soon-to-be presidential rival, it's unacceptable.
"Barack Obama," explained spokesman Tommy Vietor, "has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves."
Really? Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, knows full well that the Supreme Court isn't charged with upholding subjective world views on "economic and social justice" — quite the opposite, in fact.
Justices solemnly swear to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." So judges, incredible as this may sound, are not prohibited from "protecting" the powerful if the powerful happen to be right on the constitutional issue.
To suggest otherwise, as Obama has, is to suggest they should ignore their oath.
Politically speaking, Obama would be served well as a candidate to throw in — you know, for kicks — the word "Constitution" when explaining his take on the highest court of the land. He rarely does.
The always-irascible Democratic Party chair Howard Dean chimed in, calling McCain's view a "radical right-wing judicial philosophy." (1. rad i cal — adjective: of or in disagreement with Howard Dean.)
Conceding that both sides are posturing, one could ask: Which is more radical? Judicial restraint, which allows a representative government to make laws and an independent judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of those laws? Or a judicial philosophy guided by shifting personal morality and so-called "social and economic justice" rather than the Constitution?
After a recent Supreme Court death penalty case, Obama said he would nominate justices who shared "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." (Cogito Conservative: What?!)
Relying on such extraordinarily subjective views undercuts the idea of blind justice. It implies that justices should be free to follow their own broader perspectives rather than the law.
It also means that appealing to the court's vision of "social justice" — an elastic notion, to be sure — would be as vital as making a strong legal case.
You want radical judicial philosophy?
There you have it.
Reach columnist David Harsanyi at 303-954-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.