We might as well elect this guy.

But first, a joke:

"President Bush blasted Congress for not allowing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Democrats said it wouldn’t do any good, because it wouldn’t produce oil for 10 years. You know, the same thing they said 10 years ago." - Jay Leno

That joke is funny until you really think about the ramifications of all these years of inaction on ANWR and other domestic oil and energy production that has been blocked by the Democrats. Thanks for nothing, Dems. Hope you're happy now. What's that you always say about helping the little guy ? We don't need your kind of help.
====

Barack Obama's criteria for selecting Supreme Court Justices displays a serious lack of knowledge of how our system of government works. Obama would turn the judicial branch into a legislative branch who would judge cases according to "social and economic justice", as opposed to the rule of law. The following exchange between Megyn Kelly of Fox News and Rudy Giuliani captures the essence of it:

KELLY: It's funny you should mention that, Mr. Mayor, because Barack Obama in a statement responding to John McCain's point today said and I quote, "Barack Obama has always believed that our court should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves."

[Giuliani starts laughing]

KELLY: Why the laughter?

GIULIANI: Well, the laughter because that is not what a judge in the American legal system is supposed to do. That is not a really responsible definition of a judge. The judge is supposed to interpret the law. And the law is written by other people. It's written by members of the Congress. It's written by framers of the Constitution. It's written by the people when they amend the Constitution.

And then a judge has to have a certain, I would say, dedication to trying to interpret what other people mean and sometimes cannot put their social views into action. This is a very fair issue. John McCain would appoint judges who are more, I would call, originalists in terms of trying to define the meaning that other people had.

I think Senator Obama has made the case very strongly that John McCain has made that, he will appoint social activist judges, judges who tend to try to solve social problems rather than trying to figure out what does the law mean?

KELLY: Yes. Remember Mr. Mayor, during the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the Democratic senators asked him, "Will you stand up for the little guy?" And he said, "Only if the little guy deserves to win under the law."

GIULIANI: Of course. It's not about - this isn't about little guy, big guy, small guy or a large guy, it's about the law. It's about what's fair, what's just, what is the law say. A judge is the interpreter of the law in the American legal system, not someone who creates it.

KELLY: Let me ask you.

GIULIANI: If you end up — if you end up making a judge of somebody who creates the law, then you've made a judge into a legislator, and you really have totally distorted our separation of powers.

The President Of The United States must swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Obama has clearly stated here that he would not do so, and instead would seek to overturn the rule of law by appointing Justices who would judge cases based upon the social and economic status of the participants rather than the application of the law. This would undermine our entire Justice system, and subvert the power of the Legislative branch as well.

I know Obama supporters are more interested in those words 'hope' and 'change' than anything else, but this position of Barack Obama's should disqualify him from being the President. This is government 101, and Obama either doesn't understand it or intentionally wants to destroy it. Either way, it's entirely unacceptable.

YES WE CAN [say 'NO' to this fool]. This story should be ALL OVER the media airwaves, because it affects every american and our entire system of government. This is an issue that people SHOULD care about. We can't afford to let the Left hijack our system of justice in this way. On an importance scale from 1 to 10, this is a 10. We can't let Obama lead this undermining 'change'. Some change is bad, and this change would be very bad indeed.

Anyone who disagrees, please go read a textbook on America's system of government, asap. This is a public service announcement.

I'm sick of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright being all over the news. The racist old fool has already gotten far more air time than he deserves, so I'm not going to bother getting into Wright's latest rounds of silliness and nonsense with Bill "Neville" Moyers and the National Press Club. Hatemongers shouldn't get this much free publicity. Hatemongers shouldn't be treated as if they have legitimacy.

Instead, I'll just ask a simple question.

If John McCain attended the Rev. David Duke's church for 20 years, and Timothy McVeigh hosted a fundraiser for McCain at McVeigh's house (assuming McVeigh hadn't already taken the down elevator to his special place in hell), would anybody vote for John McCain ?

Not a chance.

So, why are people still voting for Barack Obama ?

As Obama himself has said repeatedly, judgement counts. Indeed, judgement is paramount. Obama has displayed very poor judgement.
====
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of voter id law in Indiana by a vote of 6-3 (I can't imagine what those 3 justices in the minority were thinking). Of course voter id law is constitutional. This one wasn't even a close call for the Supremes. Republicans applauded the decision, saying it will reduce voter fraud, while Democrats said it squelches their long and storied history of voter fraud keeps the poor and elderly from voting.

In a related story, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the requirement to buy rods, reels, and bait places an undue burden on the people when it comes to fishing. Justice David Souter enthusiastically agreed, adding that the requirement for oars also places on undue burden on rowboaters. The ACLU is expected to bring lawsuits against fishing and boating manufacturers shortly. "It's an issue of social justice," added candidate Barack Obama.

Alright, maybe I made that last paragraph up, but it still sounds about right to me.
====
Speaking of the Supreme Court and "social justice," get a load of Obama's qualification list for appointing justices to the Court:

Obama opined that deciding the "truly difficult" cases requires resort to "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." In short, "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

Obama has explicitly declared: "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 criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."

As the Weekly Standard so very correctly observed, you couldn't have a broader call for lawless judicial activism than what Obama has just described there. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a dispassionate interpreter of the U.S. Constitution. Obama openly seeks to turn the Court into a political instrument of social justice. Heaven help us if this man becomes president.

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account." –Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, Oct 31, 1823

It sounds like Thomas Jefferson was against activist judges in 1823. So is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who was interviewed by Lesley Stahl of CBS on 60 Minutes. Scalia also doesn't care for the phrase "living Constitution," preferring instead the concept of "originalism", which is the interpretation of the Constitution as written and intended by those who wrote it.

Scalia supplies the reasoning:

"It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend," [Scalia] says.

"But what you're saying is, let's try to figure out the mindset of people back 200 years ago? Right?" Stahl asks.

"Well, it isn't the mindset. It's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution," Scalia says.

"As opposed to what people today think it means," Stahl asks.

"As opposed to what people today would like," Scalia says.

"But you do admit that values change? We do adapt. We move," Stahl asks.

"That's fine. And so do laws change. Because values change, legislatures abolish the death penalty, permit same-sex marriage if they want, abolish laws against homosexual conduct. That's how the change in a society occurs. Society doesn't change through a Constitution," Scalia argues.

He's on a mission as an evangelist for originalism, at home and around the world.

For example, he visited the Oxford Union in England.

"Sometimes people come up to me and inquire, 'Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?' As though it's some weird affliction, you know, 'When did you start eating human flesh?'" Scalia told students, who replied with laughter.

They may be laughing, but in the U.S. Scalia is a polarizing figure who invites protestors and picketers. There haven't been many Supreme Court justices who become this much of a lightening rod.

"I’m surprised at how many people really, really hate you. These are some things we've been told: 'He’s evil.' 'He's a Neanderthal.' 'He’s going to drag us back to 1789.' They're threatened by what you represent and what you believe in," Stahl remarks.

"These are people that don't understand what my interpretive philosophy is. I'm not saying no progress. I'm saying we should progress democratically," Scalia says.

Back at the Oxford Union, Scalia told the students, "You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Pass a law. And that law, unlike a Constitutional right to abortion created by a court can compromise. It can…I was going to say it can split the baby! I should not use… A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change."

The most important words in the above exchange were Scalia saying, "I'm saying we should progress democratically." The Supreme Court is not the lawmaking branch of government (or at least it shouldn't be). Laws regarding abortion and gay marriage should be decided by the people, not by 9 black robes. If the people want to amend the Constitution to reflect changing values, then they can amend it (with great care), but don't use the Supreme Court as an end run around the legislative process.

This should not be a conservative vs. liberal matter (even though it seems to be). This should be a matter of understanding the role of the Court and understanding what it's limitations are supposed to be.

Naturally, during the Scalia interview, the topic of the 2000 Bush v. Gore Supreme Court ruling came up.

"You wanna talk about Bush versus Gore. I perceive that," [Scalia] replied. "I and my court owe no apology whatever for Bush versus Gore. We did the right thing. So there!"

"People say that that decision was not based on judicial philosophy but on politics," Stahl asks.

"I say nonsense," Scalia says.

Was it political?

"Gee, I really don’t wanna get into - I mean this is - get over it. It's so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn't even close. The vote was seven to two," Scalia says.

(CBS) Moreover, he says it was not the court that made this a judicial question.

"It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question. It was he who brought it into the Florida courts. We didn't go looking for trouble. It was he who said, 'I want this to be decided by the courts.' What are we supposed to say? 'Oh, not important enough,'" Scalia jokes.

"It ended up being a political decision" Stahl points out.

"Well you say that. I don't say that," Scalia replies.

"You don’t think it handed the election to George Bush?" Stahl asks.

"Well how does that make it a political decision?" Scalia asks.

"It decided the election," Stahl says.

"If that’s all you mean by it, yes," Scalia says.

"That’s all I mean by it," Stahl says.

"Oh, ok. I suppose it did. Although you should add to that that it would have come out the same way, no matter what," Scalia says.

Somehow, I don't think Democrats have gotten over it, but Scalia is correct, they should. There was only one decision to make, and the Court made the right one.

I don't always agree with Scalia. I think his logic on cruel and unusual punishment as pertaining to torture is, well, tortured. But I agree with Scalia more often than I do most of the other Supremes. Anyway, read the interview. At the very least you should find it interesting.

There is a case about Indiana voter ID law coming before the Supreme Court. Under voter ID legislation, voters would have to show proper photo ID in order to vote. Conservatives generally support this law, saying that it will reduce voter fraud. Liberals generally oppose the law, claiming that voter fraud is their constitutional right.

Okay, liberals don't actually cop to their intent to perpetrate fraud. Instead, they dream up illogical and imaginary arguments to oppose voter ID, like the one NY Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse gave to PBS host Gwen Ifill on the program Washington Week In Review. TimesWatch has the story. Following is an excerpt:

Gwen Ifill: "What is objectionable about that (Voter ID) ? It doesn't seem unreasonable on its face."

Greenhouse: "Well, what's objectionable about it is what kinds of IDs are people likely to have? If it's state issued, it's a driver's license — not everybody has one. If it's federally issued, it's a passport. There's not a photo on your Social Security card. There's not a photo. So the disparate impact of a law like this falls on the elderly, the poor, people with disabilities, and so on. And the Indiana law is a tough one. If you show up without the requisite ID you can cast a provisional ballot which will only be counted if within 10 days you get yourself to a county courthouse, a county clerk, and you either get the ID or you get a substitute ID from the Motor Vehicle's Office, for which you have to show ID to show you're entitled to that. So the federal judge, Judge Posner, who wrote the majority opinion upholding this law for the Appeals Court said, yes, it will have a disparate impact and it's going to hurt Democrats because poor people are more likely to be Democratic voters. It will hurt them, but it won't hurt them much. The individual vote isn't that important and the state interest in preventing voter fraud is substantial enough that it's worth the price. That was his way of tackling it."

Evidently, Greenhouse has never heard of a state ID, which is a photo ID for people who don't drive a car (Indiana offers them for free). Maybe she just forgot, LOL. Or maybe she's full of….well, you know. And who are these people who supposedly don't have ID's ? Do they really exist ? Greenhouse cites the elderly, the poor, and the disabled. I never met an elderly or disabled person in my life who doesn't have ID. They usually have LOTS of ID, unless Greenhouse is talking about people who are severely mentally disabled. Then she may have a point, but I don't think those folks are really flocking to the polls. Even if they are, they need a companion to guide them through the process, and that companion can bring the ID. That leaves the poor. Are there legions of poor people who are engaged enough in the political process to get out and vote, but not engaged enough to get an ID ? I seriously doubt it. A photo ID is pretty important these days for all manner of things apart from voting. I doubt you can even get food stamps without one.

The other non-argument argument Greenhouse throws out is that voter fraud isn't a big enough problem to justify a remedy like voter ID. She attempts to portray voter ID as suppressing the individual vote, which is specious, and then uses that to say the state interest to protect against voter fraud isn't compelling enough to override it. The first time I heard this tactic from the left, I thought my head was going to explode. They've been telling us for 7 years that Bush stole presidential elections, but now they do a complete 180 degree turn and say voter fraud is no biggie, all because it's the convenient position for them to take at the moment. Such hypocritical statements belong in the political Hall Of Shame.

So, Greenhouse and the left's objections to voter ID law are a sham. They are a mirage to distract from the truth (like so many of their other positions). You see, there ARE people in america who don't have valid photo ID's, and they ARE all part of the Democratic 'base'. Illegal aliens come immediately to mind. Convicted felons are another. They may have photo ID's, but they will be fake ID's. Liberals want to save these folks the time and trouble of getting that fake ID made up. That's pretty much what people like Greenhouse mean when they speak of the 'disparate impact' of voter ID legislation. Voter ID discriminates against CRIMINALS, and criminals apparently make up a big enough Democratic voter bloc for liberals to fight for. If they didn't, they wouldn't be making up all these phony arguments, would they ?

The next president may get to nominate several candidates for the Supreme Court. Here are the ages of some of our current Justices:

John Paul Stevens is 87. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 74. Anthony Kennedy is 71. Antonin Scalia is 71. Stephen Breyer is 69. David Souter is 68.

Supreme Court appointments are not supposed to be partisan affairs. I know that sounds pretty naive given the combative nature of the Court nominations these days, but they really aren't. We aren't supposed to be looking for judges who are liberals or conservatives. We are supposed to be looking for judges who will apply the law as written. In fact, if we get Supreme Court justices who do anything other than that, who put their own ideology into their rulings, we have big problems, because that subverts our democratic process. It subverts the will of the people, the Congress, and the president. It nullifies the separation of powers, because the Supremes are not answerable to the people. We can't vote them out of power. They are appointed for life. They are the final word, short of amending the Constitution. To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, 'when the Supreme Court says it, it's pretty much like God said it'. For once I agree with Nancy.

And we should be pretty careful about the Gods we pick.

There have been nominees who were rightly rejected because they were not good picks, like Harriet Miers (why Miers, when Brownie was available ?!?!), and others who were rejected because they didn't fit the correct partisan profile, like Robert Bork. The former is good. The latter is bad. Excessive politicization is harmful here.

When you hear politicians advocating for judges who are strict contstructionists (like Romney does), you have politicians who are on the right track, because those judges will uphold the constitution as written. When you hear politicians advocating for judges who hold specific positions on specific issues (like Hillary does), you have politicians who are definitely on the wrong track, because we don't want judicial partisans or activists. That is not the role of the Supreme Court. That should be left to the other branches of government. There's a good reason justice is supposed to be blind.

As an example, look at the poster boy for all judicial activist decisions, Roe v Wade. Regardless of one's views on abortion, due to the original judicial activism displayed by the Supreme Court in that case, where the constitutional right to abortion was magically and incorrectly created out of thin air, the issue of abortion has become a litmus test for all future Supreme Court judges. It has led to a politicization of the Court where there should be none. What the Roe v Wade decision did was overrule all state law regarding abortion. In effect, Roe legalized abortion through the back door, by making anti-abortion laws unconstitutional. It trumped the will of the people. That ain't supposed to be how it works.

In summary, we want Supreme Court judges who will outlaw moveon.org and mandate a balanced budget………………..Gotcha ! Just wanted to see if you were paying attention.