Roman Around

Here’s a shocker … Liberals don’t think of themselves as liberal.

They, in fact, see themselves as straddling the median of the cultural highway. To them, society can be divided into radical right-wingers and reasonable people.

On his Monday radio program - as he regularly does so well - Dennis Prager dissected and analyzed some of the comments made by President Barack Obama regarding the retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter. As is often the case with the President, his delivery was smooth and eloquent (in that side-to-side teleprompting style of his), but his words were successfully meaningless. Said Mr. Prager: “Every time he gives a speech, you analyze it and it’s painful … but it sounds so good.”

This is the way our Messianic Big Man operates. He makes both leftism and leftists sound so reasonable.

Obama, speaking of Souter, said:

Throughout his two decades on the Supreme Court, Justice Souter has shown what it means to be a fair-minded and independent judge. He came to the bench with no particular ideology. He never sought to promote a political agenda.

Is that right, Mr. President?

David Souter has no ideology? He has no sense of what he believes in?

What is he? An android?

It sounds as if the President is suggesting that to have an ideology means one cannot be fair. By definition, that would, of course, mean that just about all of humanity cannot be fair – with the notable exception of Obama himself, of course, and his trusty Obamacratic underlings.

At last look, the Supreme Court of the United States is comprised exclusively of human beings – unusual creations, to be sure, but predictable in many ways. For instance, they tend to have opinions about things. They tend to “judge” the people and events that comprise the circumstances of their lives. They develop conclusions and assessments based on experiences. That’s how they’re wired.

To suggest that any of the humans that sit on the Supreme Court do not have particular belief systems that directly affect what they do and how they do it is to be at direct odds with reality – not unlike Vice President Joe Biden is with common sense, for example.

The fact is, Souter is a typical liberal, just as Antonin Scalia is a strict constructionist. Justice Clarence Thomas is as much a ‘rightist” as Justice Steven Breyer is a “leftist.” Their value systems play an enormous role in what they do and how they rule. If not, then it wouldn’t matter who was appointed to the bench, would it?

Dennis Prager commented:

What (Obama) means is, I assume, is that they don’t have a political principle or a political agenda.

Of course they do. (Souter) was a left-winger. Justice Scalia is a conservative. Would anybody say that Justice Scalia comes with no pre-existing agenda? That’s absurd. Scalia would say it’s absurd. “This is my philosophy. I’m a constructionist. I ask, ‘What did the Founders mean when they wrote this in the Constitution?’ That’s what I believe.” .

The Left doesn’t ask, “What did they mean?” Their question is, “How can we use it to promote justice and compassion and welfare for the community as we understand it?”

Liberals and Conservatives ask different questions as justices.

Correct.

Seeing as Souter is free of ideology and agenda – according to Obama - it’d be interesting to find out from the President which justices on the Supreme Court actually do have political agendas.

(Did you know that only conservatives have “political agendas?”)

I invite anyone who truly believes that Justice Souter was somehow agenda-less during his time on the court to stand on his or her head. I also have a couple of suspension bridges in the heart of the city I can unload on you for very cheap.

Obama continued to gush:

He consistently defied labels and rejected absolutes, focusing instead on just one task – reaching a just result. 

Prager responded:

Defied political labels? Mr. President, he was not a liberal?

Liberals don’t think that they’re liberal. That’s what’s so fascinating. They think that they’re middle of the road.

In other words, if you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, you’re a right-winger. But if you believe that marriage should be redefined, you’re not a left-winger. If you believe the government should be the only group in business paying health care, you’re not a left-winger. You’re a moderate. The only left-wingers, I guess, were Lenin and Stalin. 

Obama continued:

I will seek someone with a sharp and independent mind, and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives – whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes.

This is extraordinary and remarkably telling. This statement by the President perfectly epitomizes the leftist’s view on what a judge is charged to do. This quote should be embossed on business cards and passed out to students, pundits, political hacks or anyone who may be unclear on how the modern liberal sees the role of a judge.

Besides the obvious (and predictable) call for someone of an “independent mind,” i.e. a non-conservative, to replace Souter, it is apparently the job description of a judge – according to Bam – to ensure the employment, security, and well-being of the families of the American citizenry.

Wow.

I must’ve been smoking in the boy’s room that day in US Constitution 101.

I wonder if today’s judges will also remove boils, do algebra, clean out the drainpipes and help change the oil in a struggling businessman’s truck.

As Prager comments:

A judge is supposed to make a decision based on whether a person can take care of his family? That is in direct contradiction to the whole point of a court room. The court room is not the place to work out whether I can feed my family. That is worked out by charitable groups and by the state. It is not worked out by a court.

This is why the Left distorts whatever it enters because it sees everything as a means to an end.

Justice is not an end in a court room.

And it violates the biblical prohibition against favoring the poor in judgment.

I would like to ask the President, “Do you disagree with the Book of Exodus which says, ‘Do not favor the poor man in judgment’?”

Because if the issue is, “How does the does the law impact a person’s ability to feed his family?” do you have to, then, favor the poor in a court room? Which is essentially what he wants to do.

So, the purpose of a Justice is to help people. The purpose of a Justice is not to render justice … But then why have a court room? Why not just change all laws to “help people,” which indeed is what the Left feels it does.

Look for Obama’s appointment to be someone decidely to the left of David Souter. That’s just a guess.

Not that there’s been a pattern or anything.

-