This bit from the debate last night was particularly galling.

I wish McCain had pressed him on this more, but McCain isn't the world's best debater. It's pretty apparent that Obama does not understand separation of powers (or other parts of the Constitution, for that matter). Judges exist to apply the law, and while that sometimes requires interpretation, courts do not exist to "stand up" for anyone. That's the job of the legislative branch.

Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary? Given that the guy used to teach Constitutional Law, you'd think he would get this.

Don't you know that if you can't get something passed legislatively, you try to ram it thru with the judicial branch?????

At best your argument is just dense, at worst it's trolling in the form of semantic hair splitting.

Evidence to the contrary "the guy used to teach Constitutional Law" is probably pretty solid evidence he does understand seperation of powers.

Well then explain the contradiction. There's good reason to believe he understands it, but yet he supports judges going beyond their Constitutional duty. So, personally, I'm left with the idea that he understands separation of powers, but doesn't agree with the idea. He believes the "right" thing should be done in any way possible without respect for the Constitution.

Do you have an alternative explanation?

obama's thinking contradicts the oath that supreme court justices take when they are sworn in. It's be funny if it weren't so sad.

Yes,

In a somewhat trasparent attempt to make Obama look bad, you're taking an overly literal interpretation of what he said and twisting it to an extreme and nonsensical end. It is just as easy to infer that he feels judges should act "with respect to the Constitution*" as without.

Obviously it's not the best phrased argument, but you know damn well what he was saying, and know that he clearly understands basic fundamentals of how this country is run. Your position is either intellectually dishonest or flat out stupid, and you don't seem that stupid.

*-esp seeing as how the basis for his position on abortion is the right to privacy.

I had started to write a response, but this was much better than what I had come up with.

I guess I'll just underscore that it's patently absurd to claim that Obama does not know the role of the judiciary is to interpret laws, which is why McCain didn't try to argue otherwise.

Obama is the end of America as we know it. IMO.


/troll

All judges are political, and the judicial process is inherently political. You're kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.

Come on, do people really want a thread debating legal formalism vs. realism?

lol

liberals can't interpret anything literally, ergo we cannot read what they say literally - it all must be interpreted! not only do they read the constitution broadly, but apparently they also speak broadly. i love it.

Taso,

does Scalia interpret the Constitution literally?

Even if you take what he said 100% literally, I really don't see what the problem is.

This thread makes me long for the halcyon days of ikestoys and goofyballer debating whether presiding over impeachment proceedings is a "legislative power"

I found it sad that during their answers to the supreme court nominee questin neither candidate even mentioned the Constitution.

orly

doubttttttt it

Frankly I'm still not sure I understand Taso's point.

This isn't conservative/liberal- it's about one poster making a absurd assumption based on one line from Obama that can be interpreted a few different ways. I mean Taso- you seem like a sharp guy- do you really think the OP's inference is the least bit fair?

I'm considering running for mod just so I can make locking stupid threads like this part of my platform.

Yeah, I wonder where the usual "in before lock/merge" brigade is? I guess they only show up in threads that are critical of republicans/McCain/fundies.

I am not an expert on Scalia like you obviously are, but I would say that that is his intent, and that he tries to adhere to the constitution as the law of the land. "literally" as in every single word probably not, literally as in original intent yes.

I don't - as a matter of fact, I have a feeling the OP doesn't really understand how the separation of powers works.

However, I do find it amusing that a broad interpretation of what Obama said is necessary - amusing perhaps not the right word; ironic.

Bush V Gore?

It's not an absurd assumption. Obama's position is that judges should uphold certain values or ideals, "even if other people don't", and by that he is most certainly implying the legislative branch. He is implying that if a law doesn't seem fair, a judge should either ignore it, or at least interpret it in a way that's "more fair". This is not the job of the judiciary. Obama's position is very much an "ends justify the means" approach that ignores the reasoning behind separation of powers.