David Hamilton is being touted by the White House (and the New York Times) as a “moderate”, yet there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest it. However, there is every reason to believe he is a far left activist judge who does not respect the Constitution or the traditional role of the judiciary.

So what are some of this ‘moderate’ appointee’s credentials?

• Was a fundraiser for ACORN, a far-left organization that engaged in criminal voter fraud and closely allied to Obama.
• Served as a board member of the ACLU, another far-left special interest group.
• Hamilton ruled that prayers in Jesus’ Name was unconstitutional, but prayers to Allah were okay.
• He prevented enforcement of an Indiana law requiringabortion clinics to warn about the risks of the procedure, or requiring two visits before the abortion.
• In 1994, when Bill Clinton nominated him to the district court, the ABA rated Hamilton as ‘not qualified,’ apparently because of his almost purely political (as opposed to legal and judicial) experience. There is nothing in his record to suggest he is more qualified now.

If this is Obama’s idea of what a ‘moderate’ judge should look like, then the country is in very big trouble. But all of the warning signs that Obama would appoint extremist judges were there.

A New York Times article dated May 28, 2008 gave us a glimpse of the type of judges Obama would appoint. When asked about judicial nominations Obama responded, “I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through.”

Feelings? Empathy?

Do we really want judges deciding cases based on something other than the facts and the law? How can a judge be impartial and give a fair trail when feelings should be considered? This is something that justice Ginsburg would endorse as a valid way to reach rulings. Ginsburg also recently said, “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” Because taking into account foreign rulings undermines American sovereignty since most countries do not have Constitutions or a Bill of Rights.

The article went on to explain that Obama had opposed the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court by saying that Alito showed “extraordinarily consistent support for the powerful against the powerless” and “for an overreaching federal government against individual rights and liberties.”

That last part is laughable, as Obama and the Left are the ones who are in favor of massive overreaching federal government, as has been seen lately, and have consistently been opposed to individual rights and liberties. True conservatives are trying to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and do everything they can to protect individual rights and liberties.

As for the first part about Altio supporting the powerful over the powerless, this is just plain rubbish. This nonsense comes straight from the socialist propaganda playbook. It is a pure emotional claim, like most liberal criticisms, and is without validity.

Liberals were against Alito because he hinders the Left’s agenda. Alito is considered an originalist justice, and interprets the Constitution in a dispassionate and agenda-free manner, as much as possible. Alito’s politics should not matter if he just interprets the law, not creates it. However, liberals want activist judges, who will ignore or twist the Constitution to produce the outcomes they desire. They do not want an accurate or faithful interpretation of the Constitution. They see the courts as a vehicle for social change. Hence the hostility to all ‘conservative’ judges, which really means judges who do their job properly.

For the Left, the only job of a judge or Supreme Court justice is to create equality or ’social justice’. No other value is higher to modern liberals than their idea of equality. Those on the political left will admit as much, as Democratic Senator Herb Kohl remarked: “The neutral approach, that of the judge just applying the law, is very often inadequate to ensure social progress . . . ” The Left has always been a product of postmodernism and the French Revolution. Therefore, the greatest evil is not injustice or even murder, but inequality.

A country cannot function with a legal system based on “feelings” or “empathy”. If a judge can rule in favor or against someone based on what creates ’social justice’, regardless of law, the system crumbles into a third world kangaroo court. Law will not matter, right or wrong will not matter, personal responsibility will not matter, contracts will not matter.

Western civilization in general, and America in particular, has spent decades trying to get away from the tyrannical notions of other countries where who you are determines what kind of justice you get. This is especially strange coming from Obama, a black (half-black) man, who in the past would have likely been ruled against in court simply because of his skin color. But the political left does not mind injustice, per se. If injustice helps bring about equality of outcomes, then it is acceptable to liberals.

A president and his administration are only around for four to eight years, but a federal and Supreme Court justice is a lifetime appointment, which can mean decades of harm to this nation and the Constitution.

Barack Obama will stack the courts with radical activist judges who will legislate from the bench and rule by judicial fiat. For the political left, it is not about right or wrong, but weak and strong.

The only exception to this are cases involving the government and money/power. For instance, eminent domain abuses are acceptable if it benefits the state. Kicking people out of their homes for greater tax revenue is unjust and unconstitutional, but to the statist it is permissible.

But in all other cases, the ‘little guy’ must always come out the winner. Judges who side with murderers and terrorists exemplify this. Outcome-based jurisprudence is no different than any totalitarian country, but unfortunately that is where we are headed as a nation.

http://thenationalscene.com/