by James Oliphant
In a wide-ranging interview Thursday on CNN's Situation Room, Democratic front-runner Barack Obama outlined his vision for the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary.
"My first criteria is to make sure these are people are capable and competent," he told Wolf Blitzer. "Ninety-five percent of the time the law is so clear that it's just a matter of applying the law. I'm not somebody who believes in a bunch of judicial law-making."
He cited Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter as examples of the kinds of justices he would appoint to the high court, noting that Souter was appointed by President George H.W. Bush. (Obama, as a constitutional law professor, undoubtedly knows that Souter was a bit of a tabula rasa when chosen and has been a huge disappointment to conservatives ever since, but he didn't mention that.)
Continuing, Obama said:
What you're looking for is somebody who is going to apply the law where it's clear. Now there's gonna be those five percent of cases or one percent of cases where the law isn't clear. And the judge has to then bring in his or her own perspectives, his ethics, his or her moral bearings.
And In those circumstance what I do want is a judge who is sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can't have access to political power and as a consequence can't protect themselves from being being dealt with sometimes unfairly, that the courts become a refuge for justice. That's been its historic role. That was its role in Brown v Board of Education.We've got to make sure civil rights are protected. We have got to make sure civil liberties are protected. Because oftentimes there are pressures that are placed on politicians to want to set civil liberties aside, especially at times when we've had terrorist attacks. Making sure we maintain our separation of powers so we dont have a president who is taking over more and more power.
It's an interesting, if not shocking, exercise to match Obama's remarks up against those made by John McCain on judges earlier this week.
Obviously, McCain favors more conservative judges, such as Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
More than that, however, at work is a fundamentally different view about the role of courts in society. Where McCain seemed to suggest that courts should involve themselves in controversies only when necessary, Obama clearly views their duty more expansively, especially in terms of leveling the playing field between rich and poor.
McCain also had harsh words for judges who rendered rulings based on their "own experience." Obama tracked that phrase exactly Thursday, but arrived at the opposite conclusion, saying that judges should fall back on their own viewpoint, ethics and "experience" in deciding cases. That could be seen as espousing a belief that judges need to go beyond the rigid language of a statute or a constitutional provision in fashioning a decision.
Posted by Jim Oliphant on May 8, 2008 7:30 PM