Obama, We Are Remaking The Courts

Hey folks, looking at this statement at a speech from the other day, I am compelled to think that Obama is speaking entirely about innocent court appointments vs. some evil plot. And I passed this remark off. But then later decided that maybe I should ask you what you think. Considering that I don't trust him, I want your advice before I pass this one off as 100% insignificant. I am leaning towards nothing important.

As Lisa mentioned, we are remaking the courts. I know that we’ve got some lawyers here, and here in Texas sometimes people feel a little frustrated about the pace of appointments here in Texas. But you should know that in addition to the Supreme Court, we’ve been able to nominate and confirm judges of extraordinary quality all across the country on federal benches. We’re actually, when it comes to the district court, matching the pace of previous Presidents. When it comes to the appellate court, we’re just a little bit behind, and we’re just going to keep on focused on it.

President Obama's remarks at DSCC event, Dallas, TX

No worries,nothing Obama does will slip past you.
You don't need our advice. We should just ask you what
he really meant when he speaks moves or sneezes.
Is this thread # 143 on Obama in 1 month ?
Yeah you are definetely not over thinking any of this..

sealing
No worries,nothing Obama does will slip past you.
You don't need our advice. We should just ask you what
he really meant when he speaks moves or sneezes.
Is this thread # 143 on Obama in 1 month ?
Yeah you are definetely not over thinking any of this..

Actually someone else brought this up elsewhere, and I passed it off. Then I though, hmm.. May be best asking for other opinions.

Glad you enjoyed my thread enough to post in it.

reply to post by elouina


If we go by everything else Obama says and lies about then what he means with this statement is:

"We're going to stack the bench's in our favor."

Or translated more simply, "We're gonna put as many left-wing (fake) liberal progressive as we can into positions of power in the court systems."

Obama's goal in life is the destruction of conservative thought and power to big government.

It's likely about this.

He's shaping the courts by getting judges appointed who agree with his idea of legal jurisprudence. Sotomayor, the Wise Latina, is a prime example. She believes that you should judge as much through your racial/ethnic identity lens as you should go by simple legal precedent and logical reason. If the latter says the big guy should win and the former says the little guy should win, then the little guy will likely win because she identifies more with him.

It means we're facing a legal system where rule of law as it were no longer strictly applies, but rule of identity group and caste most certainly does.

However, it's a mistake to think he's the only president who has done this. Every president packs the courts as much as they can because the courts leave the most lasting legacy for them.

No need. They will just use the "opposition research" they have on the Republican nominated Jurists to extort the verdict they want.
Am I right Justice Roberts?

Bassago
reply to post by elouina

 

If we go by everything else Obama says and lies about then what he means with this statement is:

"We're going to stack the bench's in our favor."

Or translated more simply, "We're gonna put as many left-wing (fake) liberal progressive as we can into positions of power in the court systems."

Obama's goal in life is the destruction of conservative thought and power to big government.

But my premise in thinking this is something innocent is that I thought they are required to have a near 50/50 ration of democrats and republicans for all appointed positions? So how can they stack the courts? Maybe I am missing something here?

Well after he joked about hitting republicans with a hockey stick the other day, there is no questioning that he has it out for them. Totally wrong! A president is there to represent all individuals of all parties. If I was republican, I would be highly offended.

sealing
No worries,nothing Obama does will slip past you.
You don't need our advice. We should just ask you what
he really meant when he speaks moves or sneezes.
Is this thread # 143 on Obama in 1 month ?
Yeah you are definetely not over thinking any of this..

You are allowed to make threads about anything you like.

Make one defending Obama for screwing up millions of people's lives.

I am sure you will get some attention.

Not meaning to sound defeatist in any way, but how is this any fracking different than any pres. In the history of our country. Bush managed to get a one time only decision from the supreme court for his election against Gore. To think that Obama is any worse, or better, than any other corporate elected official is simple mental masturbation on the part of the observer.

Democrats and Republicans both load the courts when they have a chance. But with Obuma there is no way to know what to think. Will they be closet commies or closet muslims? Who is really making the decision? Valerie Jarret? The CFR? George Soros?

reply to post by elouina


Your answer is in his use of the phrase "extraordinary quality." By what qualities would a totalitarian assess a judge? Certainly not on their intention to apply the law equally and fairly to all who come before them; more, I should imagine, on their intention to hold the oligarchy's needs above those of its subjects.

That answer your question?

Ex_CT2
reply to post by elouina

 

Your answer is in his use of the phrase "extraordinary quality." By what qualities would a totalitarian assess a judge? Certainly not on their intention to apply the law equally and fairly to all who come before them; more, I should imagine, on their intention to hold the oligarchy's needs above those of its subjects.

That answer your question?

edit on 11/7/2013 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)

Gottcha... A lot of presidents do this, but he has the gumption to mention that he wants to stack the deck. Plus that is also like saying that the judges sitting there already are crap. Quite insulting....

I do know that Obama gets quite upset being struck down by the courts. His admin was admonished by the supreme court just the other day for, "picking on words", for wanting to try an American under Federal court for breaking international law. She tried to poison someone and Obama and holder want her tried for chemical warfare. is this a good example?

Ex_CT2
reply to post by elouina

 

Your answer is in his use of the phrase "extraordinary quality." By what qualities would a totalitarian assess a judge? Certainly not on their intention to apply the law equally and fairly to all who come before them; more, I should imagine, on their intention to hold the oligarchy's needs above those of its subjects.

That answer your question?

No - it is just partisan Obama hater BS.

would you expect a President to appoint judges they consider crap quality?? And if they are appointing people they consider extraordinary quality why would they not say so?

Here's what was said about Saint Reagan's court appointments::

Although Bork's defeat was a major setback for the Reagan administration, it could not negate Reagan's significant legal legacy of a conservative federal judiciary from top to bottom. "Reagan's success lies not simply in quantity but quality," concluded conservative author Terry Eastland, who worked in the administration's Justice department. Indeed, Reagan's judges, according to biographer Lou Cannon, "ranked above [those of] Carter, Ford, Nixon and Johnson."[xlvi]

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Again, it depends on what you idea of good jurisprudence is.

How do you define justice?

I think justice means that the law say what it says and applies equally to all which is why Justice is often depicted wearing a blindfold. There is no special circumstance for someone to get a special exemption or twisted ruling because the judge feels sorry for them or because they came off wrong against "The Man." Let's be honest, sometimes, "The Man" has the facts of the case on his side no matter how much it's unpopular.

We can see some of the presidents' idea of jurisprudence from his feelings on the Zimmerman case. He had Zimmerman hanging like most of the rest of America, and indeed, I'm sorry that Martin died. However, the facts of the case did not support the charges they were attempting to hang on Zimmerman, so he was found not guilty. This is an instance of Justice being a blind b***** who doesn't care what everyone around the case feels. She only cares what the facts are and what conclusions they will support.

This is not necessarily the definition of justice that Obama favors I think.

reply to post by elouina


You are RIGHT to be VERY ALARMED at any court changes he makes.

He's eager to further insure that only globalist/Marxist/etc. judges are installed who will help make sure that the globalist oligarchy is protected and their tyrannical goals furthered.

Shredding the Constitution is not enough. He wants to insure that the gestapo is aided, not hindered by the courts.

IT's akin to the purging effort he's quite deep into regarding the US Military officer corps.
.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You're assuming I give a s#!t about Reagan. I hold no brief for any of these bastards, including the present and past "residents of the White House" for the past 50 years. They were all scum, and they all stacked the courts as best they could. It's only gotten worse now because even the judges are all bought-off, leaned-on, threatened with exposure, and worse.

True that I hate Obama and all he stands for; I can't help that. Even so, he's only marginally worse than all the scum who came before him. Oh. With the possible exception of Bush the First....

Ex_CT2
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You're assuming I give a s#!t about Reagan.

Nope.

I hold no brief for any of these bastards, including the present and past "residents of the White House" for the past 50 years. They were all scum, and they all stacked the courts as best they could. It's only gotten worse now because even the judges are all bought-off, leaned-on, threatened with exposure, and worse.

True that I hate Obama and all he stands for; I can't help that. Even so, he's only marginally worse than all the scum who came before him. Oh. With the possible exception of Bush the First....

So you are anti democracy, government, the Constitution and independance from the UK -OK - I get that.

But that's irrelevant to my point, which is that appointments are always going to be people who the President is going to talk up as "great" or "extraordinary" or some such language.