Comments about ‘Supreme Court being pushed too far away from rule of law’

Well said. Mr. Obama does indeed have a strange style of rhetoric; reminiscent of Humpty Dumpty. "Words mean what I say they mean."

But the empathy would be OK if it were directed towards religious groups and their policies, right?

Right. We don't want activist judges, who might, for example, allow religious symbols in public spaces that are guaranteed to offend at least 20% of the people who see them. And we don't want judges that rule in favor of narrow, parochial social and religious interests by torturing laws into "precedents" that are 180 degrees from what the intent was. And God knows, we wouldn't want some sympathetic judge who reads the spirit, not the letter of the law. NO! In fact, judging by this line of rhetoric, why have judges at all? Why not just AUTOMATE the courts for most things, so you won't have to worry about whether you have to convince anyone of anything. Wait, I have a better idea: why don't all you autocratic autobot-judge advocators GO TO RUSSIA OR WHEREVER IT IS YOU COME FROM, and stop trying to install judges the DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION OR PRIVATE PROPERTY, and think that cops can't be wrong and ought to confiscate YOUR stuff if they don't like your face.

Every Supreme Court is "empathetic" to certain groups. The Bush Supreme court was "empathetic" to Bush, giving him the 2000 election without counting all the votes. It was empathetic to the family that didn't want to disconnect ....from life support even though she told her husband she wanted to be taken off life support if she was brain dead. They were "empathetic" to the corporate interests that pursue profit without regulation. They are "empathetic" to the religious.
I'd like Obama to appoint some justices who are empathetic to the needs of the average citizen in this country, to those of all religions (or none), to the working stiff, and to all minorities. The present Supreme Court needs some balance.

.... it would also not be ok if the "empathy" were toward so-called "rule of law" right wing bigots - which this article supports.

Did you stop listening after the word "empathy"?

Why is it acceptable in a country as diverse as the US that the most absolute authority in the land be held almost exclusively by one group: white males? I'm sorry but if you want to avoid conflict, inclusion is the name of the game. It's true here, it's true the world over. At its most fundamental, inclusion can prevent war. Get a clue.

The idea was to have a government with checks and balances of power to prevent tyrannical governments from abusing it's citizens. If we say we like or will tolerate activist judges, then we don't need the legislature and are willing to allow judges to enact laws, instead of enforcing them. If we allow the President to overule the constitution, we no longer have a President, we have a dictator! This is serious business and Americans should get rid of those who would abuse and usurp power! Balance of power is a wonderful thing! Let's not esteem it lightly and let us insist it is ever present in our government of the people, not a government of judges, or of the president or of the congress! The day we allow this balance of power to become unbalanced, we have no freedoms!

I would like President Obama to appoint Anita Hill to the Supreme Court.

Obama is a brilliant Constitutional scholar. We haven't had any presidents with his depth of understanding in a very long time. I feel really sad that the ignorant of this country, many of whom hide behind religion, are so confused about how our democracy works and is supposed to work. Far better to uphold the *spirit* of the law than use flimsy logic to justify a position that panders to a constituency, but that's what the Republican powers-that-be have been doing for years.

I am hopeful but not particularly optimistic that eventually, people will see what it's like to have someone in office who genuinely wants to listen to *everyone* and make decisions based solely on what's best for the country as a whole, respecting individual rights and upholding our Constitution. Unfortunately, religious zealots are more interested in forcing their beliefs on the country as a whole than in following the law of the land, but I believe that everyone can learn and so I hold out hope that even the stupidest religious zealots can eventually "see the light" and work to uphold this great Country and its Constitution.

It's the Rebublican side of law?
Get over it, Obama won- one reason is because he has the power to shift the Supreme Court- what the MAJORITY of Americans voted for!

I don't recall Obama calling for justices that have empathy only for particular groups. This is a false, straw-man interpretation tailored to stir up anxiety and paranoia, in my opinion.


It seems clear enough that Obama's point was that justices should understand the "real world" consequences of their decisions, and how they impact ordinary people. How this gets twisted into group favoritism is puzzling.

What is essential for a Supreme Court Justice is that he, or she, follow the Constitution...period. If we do not support the rule of law then we must live under the rule of men and their biases.

The great majority of us can agree that the Constitution should represent the basis for all of our laws however, far too often, the Constitution has been simply ignored. I am willing to allow the legal chips to fall where they may as long as the law of the land is strictly adhered to. Any law that is not constitutional is not a law and no one is bound by it, no one!

With all due respect to the author of this article, (which frankly ain't much) your paranoid rants about our president's choice are as absurd as they are reactionary. The Supreme Court has always been the branch of gov't that has allowed this nation to move forward in spite of the small minded thinking of many such as yourself. Ideologues, and miscreants such as Scalia aside, this mostly august body has well served our founders purpose of making us a just and equal nation, under God, with liberty. and justice for ALL. There will always be those who hold us back as a nation, those who resist change that is inevitable - and while progress may be stymied and even setback by some administrations (Bush/Cheney) and individuals (such as yourself) I do believe that with the grace of God, we will persevere and triumph in the long run.

And for the record, I'm an old rich white guy who actually voted for R-Reagan and misses the Republican party for its fiscal conservancy, and deplores the neo-con movement for its clueless behavior.

Thats why there is more than one judge, a lot more. Doh! Guess why he is retiring now and not a year ago? Because he liked the chances of Obama picking his replacement better than Bush. Its not rocket science here. They judges for the most part pick when to retire, thereby allowing the best chance of a similar minded replacement.

A-A+A=A not B

Why not appoint an illegal immigrant?

The problem we now have is that those who run this country, at all levels of government and commerce, are caught up in the cleverly legal. The rule of law, quite frankly, is assanine in this environment.

Empathy would surely improve the Mormon church and therfore the editorial philosophy of the Deseret News

The Supreme Court today is the most conservative court we've had for the last 75 years. It is apparently not conservative enough for some people. Thirty years aga John Paul Stevens was considered a moderate, right in the center of the court. Today he is consistently the court's most liberal member, yet his positions have not changed. What has changed is that the court around him has grown far more conservative.

As long as Obama assigns someone to the Supreme Court that has a history of not being able to file his/her taxes with Turbo Tax we should be ok!!!!

It will be awesome to see a TAX INVADER standing side by side with Geithner with Obama backing them up in a photo shot and a teleprompter near by.