One of the most critical issues to consider in the upcoming presidential election is the impact of either candidate on the courts, particularly the Supreme Court. I am certainly no fan of John McCain, but based on his somewhat conservative background I would be more comfortable with him selecting Supreme Court justices than Barack Obama. The fact that Senator Obama is an outright liberal and socialist has implications for the types of justices he would nominate. Obama is so liberal that the National Journal rated him the most liberal US senator of 2007 based on 99 key votes. He supports abortion - even partial birth abortion, the abolition of any federal prohibitions on gay marriage, and gun control. He supports bad socialist policies like comparable worth, government healthcare, and raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation. Even more concerning to me is his father, an avowed communist, and the influence he may have had on Obama. If Arnold Schwarzenegger can be scrutinized because of his father's association with the Nazis, it certainly seems legitimate to raise questions about Barack Obama's political philosophy based on that of his father - a man he apparently greatly admired. Combine his social and political views with some statements he has made about the role of judges and I think Americans have reasons to be concerned about the impact of an Obama presidency on the judiciary. As reported in a Washington Times article, Senator Obama made the following statements regarding John Roberts' confirmation to the Supreme Court:

The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. 1

Obama also said the following regarding the confirmation of Samuel Alito:

"When I examine the philosophy, ideology and record of Samuel Alito, I am deeply troubled," [Obama] said in another floor speech on Jan. 26, 2006. "There is no indication that he is not a man of fine character. But when you look at his record, when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I found that in almost every case he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless." 1

Back to Roberts:

In [John Roberts'] work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. 1

Alito received similar criticism from Obama:

If there is a case involving an employer and employee, and the Supreme Court has not given clear direction, Judge Alito will rule in favor of the employer. If there is a claim between prosecutors and defendants, if the Supreme Court has not provided a clear rule of decision, then he will rule in favor of the state. 1

See a recurring theme here? Obama apparently believes that courts should favor the weak over the strong, not rule based on the law as written by the legislature. This is blatant activism. Justice Roberts identifies the proper role of a judge:

"Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them," said Chief Justice Roberts. "I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat." 1

More >