h/t my reader cj:
In a sign that elections are coming, Obama is doning the “postpartisan” cloak again, using the Reagan lexicon about the excesses of the 60s and 70s.
Obama Times offers this unsurprising headline
Obama Says Liberal Courts May Have Overreached
WASHINGTON — In a seeming rejection of liberal orthodoxy, President Obama has spoken disparagingly about liberal victories before the Supreme Court in the 1960s and 1970s — suggesting that justices made the “error” of overstepping their bounds and trampling on the role of elected officials.
Here’s the Reaganesque quote
“And in the ’60s and ’70s, the feeling was — is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach. What you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.”
So, as NY Times reveals – here’s what he’s ceding to conservatives
Mr. Obama’s comments, which came as he prepares to make a Supreme Court nomination, amounted to the most sympathetic statement by a sitting Democratic president about the conservative view that the Warren and Burger courts — which expanded criminal defendant rights, required busing to desegregate schools and declared a right to abortion — were dominated by “liberal judicial activists” whose rulings were dubious.
Which makes perfect sense from the Jane Crow president – I have to admire the consistency. Even if Obama Times is trying hard to make believe it didn’t actually happened
Still, Mr. Obama, who formerly taught constitutional law, did not cite any specific decisions. He has long been a supporter of abortion rights, and repeatedly defended the court’s interventionist stance during the civil rights movement because minorities were cut out of the political process, even while saying that such a role would be inappropriate today.
Hey, NY Times – name one instance of “support of abortion rights” from Obama.
I didn’t think so, but nice try.
Still, good on you quoting those who make clear what the difference between the two brands of activism is
his effort to establish a moral equivalency between the Warren court and the Roberts court.”
And the president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, Nan Aron, argued that the Warren and Burger courts had helped make progress on economic and social fronts for people who lacked political power, while the Roberts court is “tilted in favor of those who already have power and influence.”
.Of course, we knew all along what Obama thinks of civil rights and progressive principles. What is surprising is that adopting this “post-partisan” attitude, he thinks people would have any reason to vote for the “D”s in November.
In B0botland they are confused, considering previous awakenings
Most are trying to blame the reporters for misreporting this – didn’t happen so stop saying that
Given how much the reporters mischaracterized his remarks here, I don’t accept their indirect quote.
“….even while saying that such a role would be inappropriate today.”
Sorry, Savage, you’ll have to show me the direct quote and context – I don’t believe for a minute that your interpretation is accurate.
19. The NYT strikes again.
We all know they will whore for the $ client.
or see the multidimensional chess again
16. actually, he didn’t say that
he used purposely vague rhetoric.
Here, he really is playing chess.
.But some do get it
1. That isn’t the hope and change I thought I was going to get.
91. With one comment he legitimized all conservative criticism of Roe v Wade and other landmarks
Does this guy have a CLUE when it comes to politics? The best interpretation is that he doesn’t. I don’t even want to consider the idea that he knows exactly what he’s doing.
.Well, he did that before the comment, with the Jane Crow EO , demanding that contraceptives be taken out of the stimulus, when he said abortion is not a matter of women’s freedom but a moral issue etc. But good on you to notice now.
Apparently Glen Greenwald who reported this yesterday also had people scolding him for misrepresenting Obama. In his original post he links the actual interview where the quotes come from. Here’s the whole thing:
Well, I mean, here’s what I will say. It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically. And in the ’60s and’70s, the feeling was, is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach.
What you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.
and just because I found this great list of logical fallacies, here’s the one applicable to what Obama is doing:
if one does not understand a debate, it must be “fair” to split the difference, and agree on a compromise between the opinions. (But one side is very possibly wrong, and in any case one could simply suspend judgment.) Journalists often invoke this fallacy in the name of “balanced” coverage.
“Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth lies probably somewhere in between.”
Television reporters like balanced coverage so much that they may give half of their report to a view held by a small minority of the people in question.