>> So? That is a valid ground for rejecting a candidate.
As a Senator Obama could reject him because he doesn't like the way he combs his hair. So, yes, those are valid grounds -- however, he makes it clear that he rejected the candidate because he wanted an activist, and specifically, one who would tilt Leftward.
The entire concept of stare decisis and strict constructionism is that a justice's ideology should not influence him; the law, including Court precedent should. I would also add that it is, in part, the concept behind lifetime appointments, i.e., such that justices are not influenced by political considerations.
That was from an interview in 2001. That quote is taken out of context. If you listen to the interview
I've listened to the interview repeatedly. And while it is true that I selected only the context that mattered, it in no way changed the meaning of what he said. He clearly blamed the Court for "breaking free" from the "constraints" of the Constitution. Anyway you read it or hear it, that means he wanted an activist court. It is true, as I pointed out, that he would have "preferred" a legislative solution, but absent that, he clearly wanted an activist Court to address these issues. |
