ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Obama on judges, Supreme Court

Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:21 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:

From NBC's Carrie Dann
Speaking at the Planned Parenthood conference in DC this afternoon, Barack Obama leveled harsh words at conservative Supreme Court justices, and he offered his own intention to appoint justices with "empathy." Obama hinted that the court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart -- which upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion -- was part of "a concerted effort to steadily roll back" access to abortions. And he ridiculed Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote that case's majority opinion. "Justice Kennedy knows many things," he declared, "but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor." 
 
Obama also won a laugh at the expense of Chief Justice John Roberts, saying that judgments of Roberts' character during his confirmation hearings were largely superficial. "He loves his wife. He's good to his dog," he joked, adding that judicial philosophy should be weighted more seriously than such evaluations. "We need somebody who's 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."
 
Obama's criticisms fell on eager ears at the conference, where activists assembled today to hear remarks from top Democratic presidential contenders Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Elizabeth Edwards (appearing in lieu of her husband while he continues his three-day poverty tour.) But his comments also demonstrated how social issues like abortion rights have been eclipsed in many ways by the high emotions of the Iraq war. "At a time when the real war is being fought abroad, [some] would have us fight Culture Wars here at home." But he added smilingly, "I am absolutely convinced that culture Wars are just so '90s. Their days are growing dark."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Obama is saying all the right things that the republicans do not want to hear.I am watching the senate Mccain still does not get it----oh I want the surge to last longer than September.Then Lotts coiffed cap comes unhinged when Durbin calls for the vote that Lott said he was prepared for.Where did these fools come from?
Yes we need more Liberal judges that will take private property away from people and give it to richer private property owners who can develop it for higher taxes. Wonder if any African-American, gay, or disabled, old people lost out on that deal?
Obama leaves no stone unturned to cast Hillary as unfashionable, huh?  I agree with him that the culture war is over and Hilary won, though.
Was Denny Hastert gay,african-american,disabled when he bought all that property to sell?Was the guy in California any of these things when he bought the property of the water department to sell for a profit?Boo hoo---
Dave, Tn / relax, throw down the top on the beamer and take a soothing drive, better hurry though the evil dems are coming fast, and unfortunately there is nothing you can do to stop them
Dave are you Africcan American, gay, disabled or old?
Do you really want judges to have "empathy"?  Their job is to interpret the laws.  If a law lacks empathy, shouldn't it be up to the legislative branch to change the law?
Dave, does that make His Honor, Judge John Roberts, an 'activist' judge?  Is this guy 'legislating from the bench'?.  Quick, someone- consult Rush Screwbaugh, and see what's going on here with this POS!
Judges should indeed have empathy.  They rule in cases dealing with all kinds of people.  Without empathy, there would be no insanity charges, we'd convict the mentaly retarded and we certainly wouldn't take into consideration age; it requires far too much empathy to consider how a nine year old might do in adult prison...I really hope Obama gets elected, for your sake, and mine.
Dave, the SC recently upheld the right of government entities to use eminent domain type laws to take away citizen's private property and to allow developers to have it.  THIS WAS DONE WHILE BUSH WAS IN OFFICE, with approval of at least one of his SC appointees.  If it happens under the next CIC, it will be more of the same ole' thing!
Grimey, it isn't the law that lacks empathy, it is the judges (currently) interpreting it. Also, just because a judge has empathy doesn't mean that he or she has to decide on that basis when the law is clear. Maybe you should get to work on a supercomputer to replace the Supreme Court, then we could get rid of empathy completely!
Richardo what difference does it make? Since when are legal decisions suppose to side with one of those groups no matter what?
Dave, TN,
Got a ruling to reference in you absurd post?  Or just spewing again?
By the actual definition the partial birth judgement is "legislation from the bench" and the Supreme Court should be more adamant in leaving those decisions to individual states.
More empathy from judges?  I hope nobody confuses Obama for a moderate.
I agree that our judges should have empathy. They have great responsibility in their positions and to carry out this responsiblity without empathy would be hazardous to us as citizens. I also believe that they showed tremendous empathy in their decision on partial-birth abortion. Their empathy was directed to hundreds of helpless children and the thought of those little babies having their bodies literally ripped apart. I have a teenage daughter and would hate for her to get pregnant. But I could NEVER condone the murder of a baby in order to make my daughter's life easier. I applaud the Supreme Court Justices on their decision!
Grimey: [[Do you really want judges to have "empathy"?]]

The current crowd on the Supreme Court has lots of empathy for Bush's wealthy campaign donors and his base of religious radicals at the expense of the public and the common good. That's what they mean by "compassionate conservatism."

[[Their job is to interpret the laws.  If a law lacks empathy, shouldn't it be up to the legislative branch to change the law?]]

I sometimes wonder why Congress bothers making laws at all. Bush just issues signing statements and then ignores the laws he doesn't like. And that's  most of the laws coming out of Congress these days, since the rubber-stamp Republican Congress was tossed out by the voters in disgrace.
So Obama is upset because the Court actually upheld a law passed by the legislature elected by the citizens??  Apparently, he would prefer activist judges who constantly override the wishes of the people in order to satisfy his own agenda.
Dave-Obviously you have no concept of jurisprudence and equal protection under the law which is slowly being eroded under this pathetic regime. I am so sick of indivivuals who have no idea of what discrimination is about because they are too busy being narrow minded and judgmental and resort to using the L WORD. Us so called progressive liberals are the true compassionate people. You need to get out of Tenn., more often.
R Strait - For the most part, I'm right there with you...PB is a horrible, barbaric practice. But...and don't take this the wrong way, I wish no ill will on your family in any way...what if giving birth would cause the death of your daughter? Or if complications involved with that birth would cause your daughter to be disabled the rest of her life? If I remember correctly, it was for that last part they were trying to overturn the ruling.
Dear Obama, what does empathy have to do with the constitution? Please point out the section where it is mentioned.
The definition of an activist judge seems to be "any judge that rules against what I personally believe in" around here. I tend to have alot of respect for SCOTUS judges even when I don't agree with them (FYI - John Paul Stevens was one of the first people to be affected by his own majority ruling when the town where he has his summer house used eminent domain to build a hotel =D).  

What concerns me is the partial birth abortion ruling that does not allow for exception for the health of the mother.  As it stands now, if you or your wife is pregnent into the third trimester and complications arrise that make a cescarian impossible while at the same time making carrying the child to term a severe risk to the mothers life... there is no remedy in Nebraska.  The woman will be forced to risk her life no matter how many doctors assert that an abortion is a safer move for her.  I'm pretty sure SCOTUS knows the law.  But I don't think they have any business telling doctors how to deal with late stage complications to pregnencies.  And I think that is what Obama was talking about when he says that justices should "have more heart".
+++ you have no concept of jurisprudence and equal protection

That would be the 14th Amendment, Section 1, for you little leaguers playing along at home.  That amendment is in place so "progressive" liberals (who are anything but progressive) like juan here don't get the idea that someone is special just because they are a certain race and/or gender.  That throws the entire Affirmitive Action debate (which is anything but Affirmitive) into the air.

Progressive doesn't mean "make crap up because it makes you feel good" juan.

It is YOU juan that don't have any concept of jurisprudence and equal protection.
Perhaps I should clarify...(although I have to admit that the supercomputer comment was a good one).  I see an opportunity for empathy in criminal type cases.  A judge can impose a lesser sentence, etc. if they feel there were circumstances that produce sympathy for the defendant.  But when it comes to the interpretation of passed legislation, they should be looking at it with regard to the Constitution.  It should be up to the legislative (and executive) branch to change the laws or write them in an unambiguous way.  For example, if Obama wins the Presidency , he should be working with Congress to repeal the partial birth abortion ban.
Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:02 PM)

Hi Grimey, you always ask the right questions.

The level of empathy that is appropriate for a judge to use lessens as you go up the ladder. For instance, a local judge could definitely and appropriately apply empathy in a knowledgeable way (within, of course, limits of the law).

However, at the Supreme level, those decisions should and must be based solely on the law.

Watch for it folks, the "real"topic over the next 10-20 years will be SCOTUS.

You'll be hearing the term "judicial activism" a lot.

Re the post by R Strait, Nashville, Arkansas (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:38 PM)

It is not up to the Supreme Court to make decisions about whether these procedures are "murder". It is up to the Supreme Court to make decisions about whether or not the states have worked in this area within their constitutional purvue.

You'll be hearing a lot more of this kind of stuff in the next few years. It will be very painful but we must go through it. If there are laws about controversial topics, there must be some consideration made about the constitutionality of those laws. If they are not constitutional, the we are gonna have to get off our butts and change the constitution.

An example would be same-sex marriages. There is a lot at stake here that does affect the federal government: taxes (what is a dependent), assets (a spouse has certain rights) etc.

Sooner or later, there will have to be a constitutional statement about when life begins. There are far reaching impacts from the "right to choose". Can a "sperm donor" be required to pay child support when he wanted the "egg incubator" to abort. Can a person be tried for 2 murders when s/he murders a pregnant woman if the choice to carry that child is exclusively hers?  

We can't keep allowing the judiciary to do it for us. IMHO
that last line had me laughing so hard.  That was so perfect and with Hillary  around.  Bravo.
Hey, Grimey, between you and me.  What state is Springfield in?  I promise not to tell.
Well, I don't know. Those Federal judges who lost their jobs, were they "Active" enough or not "active enough" according to Bush and Gonzales?
Independent, you make some interesting points. However, the issue of abortion is one that strikes to the core of humanity, regardless of the appellate level of the court.

I agree with you in that there are far-reaching implications regarding the right to choose. But those same implications also apply to those who would apply the concept of right-to-life. For example, if a mother has complications and dies because she is unable to get a life-saving termination of the pregnancy, who is held responsible? And if a mother does not follow nutitional guidelines, etc. because she does not want the child in the first place, should she be charged with abuse?

As you can see, there is no easy way out here. And while I agree that there are some judges that seem to legislate from the bench, one must also consider that they are often attempting to deal with very real human emotion and circumstance in their courtroom. Circumstances that somehow usually manage to fall in the cracks of a law that was supposed to take care of the very issue they are legislating about in the first place. So to my mind, it is also an issue of the elected representatives of both the legislative and executive branches that we elect to office.
Independent in Texas...Thanks.  It looks like you and I are pretty much of the same opinion here.  It's a shame that the Supreme Court has become so political over the years.  In an ideal world, you'd never hear things like the conservative block of the Supreme Court or the liberal wing of the Supreme Court.  Sadly, we do.  

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court plays out as an issue in the 08 campaign.  A lot of it will depend on the status of Iraq and the war on terror.  But, I believe the 2 oldest justices are on the liberal side (Stevens and Ginsburg).  (I'm no Supreme Court expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong).  Depending upon who wins, you could potentially see a solid "conservative" majority, or the status quo.  Although, were a Republican to win the election, those justices would likely stick around for a bit longer I would guess.  Of course, we are a looooong way from the election.
Back in 2000, the Supremes had lots of empathy for G. W. Bush, They felt so sorry for this loser that they stopped the vote counting and selected him to be president. It was the worst decision since Dred Scott, although the new court may make even the Dred Scott decision look like the wisdom of Solomon before Roberts, Alito, and Scalia are through.
Culture Wars?  I've always called it 'Lifestyle Cleansing'.
To CJ, the Supreme Court is actually supposed to regulate laws. Congress wholesales, the Court retails.  Interpretation of laws is nontrivial, and this is where empathy comes in, because laws can be surprisingly nonspecific, and the intent of the law may not have been well captured while being written down.  

I can imagine writing a law to be unambiguous would be near impossible.   As far as intact dilation and extraction, which is the term for the medical procedure as opposed to "partial birth abortion" which was coined by a pro-life politician in '95, writing a law to ban this specific procedure or not may or may not apply to other procedures in the future.  And there are always exceptions that must be considered.  Even killing people has exceptions, like self defense, if you are a member of the military in combat, maybe if someone is on your property and refusing to leave, a police officer that feels threatened possibly.

What really helps is if we're clear on what it is we really want to make legal or illegal.  If there wasn't a will to criminalize abortion, we wouldn't be talking about this.  Basically the intent of all this to require that all pregnancies are carried on to birth, or to require all fertilized eggs to be carried on.  For those looking for unambiguous laws would have a better time going along these lines.

As Independent says, Roe will most likely be rolled back if not reversed to the point where the issue will be back with the legislature - state or federal - to decide when life begins.  It is inappropriate and impossible for judges to make that particular decision.
Who the hell cares about abortion?  Telling a woman about her body is like telling a man to get himself fixed.  
Lisa - Fort Worth TX (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:18 PM) You couldn't be more WRONG!!!!
Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. O'Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108
jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:05 AM)

well Jerry, now that you mention it.......
Jerry, how many unwanted babies have you adopted?  Do you support financial assistance for women forced to have children they do not want?  Or do you think those "sluts" should be punished with poverty for their transgression?  Your answer will determine whether you are a hypocrite or if your anti-abortion position is about "saving babies" or about punishing women for having teh sex.
JJ in NJ (Sent Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:10 AM)

JJ - I think you may have misread Jerry's post. He has been consistent on his point that abortion is the decision of a woman and not the government.

Right Jerry? I have been reading you correctly, haven't I?
Bruce, that was a funny line. Where does the Constitution say anything about empathy? I don't think it stands up on analysis, though. The Constitution doesn't say anything about mindsets, approaches nor legal philosophies for the judicial branch.

And if you want to go down that road, where does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to do half the stuff it does? The 10th Amendment seems focused on limited the growth of federal powers, and we've pretty much ignored that as we've gone.
There are lines miles long to adopt babies.  People are going to China, Russia, South America, and Europe to adopt babies because the wait is too long for them in the US.  I know a woman who went to Moscow on Christmas Eve for the CHANCE that a child would be avialable for adoption.  She came back empty handed.

So be a little careful when you start talking about 'unwanted babies'.
Does anyone really believe that 50 million abortions were the result of rape, insest, or forced sex?
A womens choice to chose murder over responsibility. Roe v Wade.
Desmond, you realize those were US attys, and not judges that got fired, don't you? Judges can't be fired.
Bush stacking the Supreme Court with corporate flunkys is another transparent move to keep the system stacked in favor of the owners of the casino. It is the most difficult to undo act a conservative can saddle the country with. Many of Bush's stupid acts can be repaired, but the next prez will just be wasting time undoing Bush screwups instead of running the country.
Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA (Sent Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:28 PM)

OH Grimey - SCOTUS has always been very political. Very very interesting reading about how it came to be what it is. Fascinating.

Try reading The Brethren, The Majesty of the Law, and  The Supreme Court.

I, especially, like to read biographies about presidents and how they related to the court over the years.

Just simply amazing. SCOTUS really does represent, IMHO, the most profound judicial body in the world. They really do keep our whole judicial system in check. The largest threat that I've seen (since The Sedition Act) has been BushCo's assault on the constitution specifically as the Dept of JustUS run by Mr. Gonzales.
Uhh,Obama[and the rest of the studio audience so supporting his stand on DxX or ''partial birth abortion'']can ye take the time and read back to me the final decision in ROE where it states that a fetus that can easily exist outside of the womb can be carved up like a sirloin steak at the 3d trimester?Obama needs to give his ''God''trip a rest if he desires to pander in such a fashion.And even if ''God''plays no part in this,what does ROE,say?Indicate specific fetal maturity that the judges set as a deadline.Further,if polls regarding Iraq are to be taken as gospel[or those of Bushs support for this matter],what do Americans say regarding partial birth abortion? More importantly,does a voluntary abortion performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus beyond ROES original scope ''roll back''abortion rights?
This country is full of contradictions. A person can be charged for murder when a pregnant womans fetus dies as a result of assault, but the very next secon you have a woman that couldn't make up her mind to get an abortion in the first trimester and now is choosing partial birth abortion which is a gruesome act towards an unprotected baby that can feel. what the hell is the difference. the difference is one is not wanted.
my rights were violated were do a old women goes for help   is no justice in the usa
The supreme count in the past has been politicized..and agendas have been enacted by them. I can't remember the specific incidents, but it has happened.
I was am Obama supporter before this.  Last time I checked, Barack wasn't an MD either.  I read the full court case and have to say, I dont appreciate Barack pandering to PP for few votes.  In this case, as in most, the Partial-Birth was murder for convinience.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=274143

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google