During the course of his campaign, Obama has often said that differing judicial philosophies among Supreme Court justices don’t matter in “ninety-nine percent of cases” because the “the Constitution…a statute…or congressional intent is…clear.” Conversely, he says it is only in about 1% of cases that differences in judicial bent really count.
What a giant crock of intergalactic BS.
As Obama very well knows – Harvard educated constitutional attorney that he is – and as Ed Whelan points out here (and I quote below), the ratio of unanimous decisions on the Supreme Court is nowhere near 95%:
According to the Harvard Law Review’s statistics for the past three terms, cases with dissents accounted for 64.4% (2006 term), 45.7% (2005 term), and 62.0% (2004 term) of all cases. Indeed, last term, cases dividing 5-4 accounted for over a third of all cases, and the three justices that Obama cited as justices he likes—Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter—agreed in the disposition of non-unanimous cases only 61%, 60%, and 63% of the time, respectively.
Yes, fellow citizens of the Republic: Obama-Wan Kinobi knows his claims are false. He knows the appointment of Supreme Court justices is crucial; he knows the fundamental changes he wishes to see in the Constitution and the court; and he knows that if elected he will probably have the opportunity to appoint at least two justices to the federal bench.
So, he passes his hand before our eyes and utters his lie with a smile.
Will his attempt at a Jedi mind trick lull Americans into thinking the appointment of Supreme Court justices is not really important, and they can therefore let him pass, unquestioned and unhindered?
We will know in four days’ time.
May the Force be with US.
Tags: constitution, decisions, judicial, justices, Obama, philosphy, Supreme Court
| JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, SEAT B |
| Precincts Reporting: 935 of 1149 (81.38%) |
| Candidate |
Graph |
Votes |
% |
| Allf, Nancy Lee |
|
26,226 |
26.94% |
| Chairez, Don P. |
|
28,925 |
29.71% |
| Pickering, Mary ‘Kris’ |
|
21,195 |
21.77% |
| Schumacher, Deborah |
|
15,940 |
16.37% |
| None of These Candidates |
|
5,058 |
5.20% |
So, unless the remaining precincts go for Pickering in a big way, it’ll be Alff and Chairez in November…
Tags: Alff, Blogs of Nevada, Chairez, election, justice, Nancy, Pickering, results, Seat B, Supreme Court
Here’s a worthy cut-and-paste from The Muthster re: Nancy Allf, a Nevada Supreme Court candidate with a case of chronic deceitfulness:
Nancy Allf, Nevada Supreme Court candidate and wife to a prominent Democrat campaign consultant, has a commercial running on TV in which she claims to have tried a case before the Supreme Court. However, on Face-to-Face this week, host Jon Ralston called her on the claim and the former head of Planned Parenthood in Southern Nevada had to admit that she never tried any case before the Supreme Court. So what we have here is someone who didn’t tell the truth wanting to sit on the state’s highest bench where everyone coming before her will be required to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yeah, that makes sense.
Speaking of Allf, an alert News & Views reader points out that the former head of Planned Parenthood, her law firm and her client were fined more than $50,000 for making statements in court that “are lacking any plausible legal or factual basis, are undoubtedly unmeritorious, do not abide by common sense, have been brought in bad faith, and have resulted in unreasonable, unnecessary and vexatious increases in litigation and other costs to the parties, together with a multiplicity of proceedings.” Don’t take my word for it, read all about it HERE
If you’re a Nevada voter, make sure you don’t punch the button for Alff in November!
Tags: Alff, Blogs of Nevada, candidate, censured, Court, Democratic, Face to Face, fined, John Ralston, justice, lie, lied, lies, lying, Nancy Alff, Supreme Court
