Hey Barry, What About The Constitution?

In the latest evidence that elections have consequences, the chosen one gets to make his second Supreme Court nomination before he even reaches the  midway point of his first term in office.

As we’ve already seen with his first nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, the community organizer with the socialist agenda cares little about protecting the Constitution, and instead prefers judges who care about political correctness and how the law “affects the common man.”

“While we cannot replace Justice Stevens’s experience and wisdom, I will seek someone in the coming weeks with similar qualities: an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people,” Obama said.

Of course, it’s been this very approach that made Stevens one of the most activist members of the Supreme Court in history, not to mention unconstitutional. A few lowlights of his stellar “non-activist” career:

  • He voted against the death penalty for child rapists in Kennedy vs. Louisiana (2008)
  • He voted against the partial birth abortion ban in Gonzales vs. Carhart (2007)
  • He voted to uphold the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policy in Grutter vs. Bollinger (2003)
  • He voted with the minority, and wrote a spritied dissent, in Bush vs. Gore (2000)
  • He voted to uphold Roe vs. Wade in its most significant review to date, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (1992)
  • He wrote the opinion in Kelo vs. New London (2005), upholding the governmental taking of private property through eminent domain as a permissible public use

Gee, it’s really great when a judge doesn’t legislate from the bench, isn’t it? Who needs a Constitution when you can make your decisions based popular opinion and political correctness?

So, I ask the question again. Hey Barry, what about the Constitution?

Silly me, I forgot that the Socialist-in-Chief doesn’t really care all that much for the nation’s founding document because of its “flaws” and gets in the way of his “redistribution of wealth” ambitions.

Is it just me, or does it sound like Obama is calling for a little judicial activism in the name of “social justice?” Damn those pesky little “negative liberties” the Founding Fathers put in there, eh Barry?

You know, since Barry brought up the Founding Fathers, I thought it might be fun to see what they had to say about the Constitution.

“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

“[T]o preserve the republican form and principles of our Constitution and cleave to the salutary distribution of powers which that [the Constitution] has established… are the two sheet anchors of our Union. If driven from either, we shall be in danger of foundering.” – Thomas Jefferson

“I trust that the proposed Constitution afford a genuine specimen of representative government and republican government; and that it will answer, in an eminent degree, all the beneficial purposes of society.” – Alexander Hamilton

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” – James Madison

“The Constitution which at any time exists, ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.” – George Washington

It’s a sad reality that the chosen one will likely replace Justice Stevens with another activist judge who will further restrict the liberties intended by our nation’s founders, but that shouldn’t stop us from asking the question. . .

Hey Barry, what about the Constitution?

What others had to say: