Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Will Lean Solidly Left

The old and new media is spending lots of column inches and television hours trying to prognosticate whom President Barack Obama will pick as his Supreme Court nominee to replace, retiring  Justice David H. Souter.

Most are trying to paint Obama as an amazing, thoughtful pragmatist who is really a centrist at heart. Don’t believe it. Nothing in Obama’s first 100 + days in office, or his entire and very brief political career has shown him to be anything but a Lefty.

Obama at Saturday night's Correspondents Dinner

You only have to look at his cabinet picks to see where he really stands. First and fore most – you can be a tax cheat and serve in Obama’s cabinet!

Attorney General Eric Holder: is pushing for an investigation of alleged torture under the Bush administration to include the officials who approved the interrogation techniques and the members of Congress who knew about them.  This is the same Eric Holder who under President Clinton pushed for clemency of 16 terrorist members of two violent Puerto Rican nationalist organizations in 1999.

Kathleen Sebelius, former Govenor of Kansas is the new Secretary of Health and Human Services. She is strongly in favor of late term abortions. This jives with Obama’s stance on the issue. As a state Senator in Illinois he supported legislation on infanticide.

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis: is strongly in the union camp and has a murky view on illegal immigration.

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu: is a global warming alarmist and has no love for the oil or nuclear energy industries.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano: has a checkered record on illegal immigration and border enforcement. She is weak on terrorism and strong on gaffes.

Here is what Obama thinks is the criteria for a Supreme Court Justice: “We need [judges] who’ve got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom.  The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.  And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

Ed Kaitz in a post at “American Thinker” says, “What all of this suggests, however, is that in addition to Obama’s severely myopic understanding of the American legal tradition, the current president once again is demonstrating his breathtaking arrogance with respect to the Constitution.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that a judge should favor the poor over the rich — or the weak over the strong.  This kind of social justice ideology is simply pure, unadulterated Marxism from the former professor of constitutional law.

Digging deeper into Obama’s “vision for what America should be” reveals a disturbing penchant for automatically anointing America’s “underdogs.”  This rather naïve and chilling vision of social justice is just another example of our president’s alarming and self-conscious neglect of the wisdom of history.  It is also another sign of Mr. Obama’s pathological narcissism.  Lenin and Mao were once underdogs too.”

“To automatically assume that the poor, the African-American, the gay, the old, or the Palestinians for that matter, have some superior claim on America’s moral capital simply because they are the “underdogs” is to demonstrate a tragic misunderstanding of what constitutes justice, virtue, or community solidarity.”

Expect Obama to nominate a jurist who has a history of legislating from the bench and not respecting the Constitution. Kind of very similar to the left wing bent of Barack Obama.

Posted: 1710PT
autone.wordpress.com