Obama: I Would Not Have Nominated Clarence Thomas

Back on the campaign trail, Sen. Barack Obama declared on Saturday that, had he been president at the time, he would not have nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. The crowd of predominantly evangelical voters clapped with approval

Speaking at the values forum at the Saddleback Church, the Illinois Democrat raised objections to several of the more conservative Supreme Court Justices and argued specifically that Chief Justice John Roberts (whom he voted against) had been too willing to grant powers to the Executive Branch. Obama's harshest critique, however, was saved for Thomas.

"I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas," said the presumptive Democratic nominee. "I don't think that he..." the crowd interrupted with applause. "I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution. I would not have nominated Justice Scalia though I don't think there is any doubt about his intellectual brilliance. Because he and I just disagree.

What about John Roberts, Rick Warren the moderator and minister interjected.

"John Roberts I have to say was a tougher question only because I find him to be a very compelling person in conversation, individuals," replied Obama. "He is clearly smart and very thoughtful. I will tell you that how I have seen him operate since he went to the bench confirms the suspicions that I had and the reasons I voted against him... One of the most important jobs of the Supreme Court is to guard against the encroachment of the Executive Branch on the power of the other branches. And I think he has been a little bit to willing or eager to give an administration whether it is mine or George Bush's more power than I think the constitution originally intended."

Comments

[Hammerkraut]

02:33 PM on 08/17/2008

So Obama is concerned about keeping the Executive branch from claiming extra-consititutional powers, but he votes for the FISA bill, which allows the Executive to trample on the Constitution's 4th Amendment. Has he even read the 4th Amendment? Last year he said the D.C. handgun ban was constitutional, this year he said it wasn't and applauded its overturning. Is a little intellectual consistency too much to ask? Obama is not qualified to judge who should sit on the Supreme Court if he can't keep his own legal opinions clear in his head.

[LouisianaLiberal]

12:28 PM on 08/17/2008

Note that although JanetE’s comment is not popular on this list, I believe the one or two issue ignorance of it is pervasive. As I listened to Obama I was proud that I had chosen him over Clinton early in the primary (although I began as a Hillary fan). Everything I think I know about him is true. Yep, he dropped the ball on FISA. Uh huh he’s now talking about off-shore drilling in order to get the “psychological” boost that the drilling will provide (I am ashamed of fellow Americans who know more drilling won’t help for nearly 10 years, but who cares, let’s drill the #&% out of our planet if it makes low or no information people feel better). But Obama is a leader we don’t have to be ashamed of. He’s intelligent (Hey JanetE, try to wrap your brain around the fact that McBush graduated dead last in his class of 250!) and will act in all of our best interests even if I don’t agree with him on all counts.

I was disgusted with Rick Warren. He said he didn’t want stump speeches and never called McBush on his tired old war stories. McBush looked like a doddering grandfather whose medication kicked in long enough for him to remember war stories to entertain his grandchildren with. Who knows if they’re true, remember his made up story about naming the Steelers front line?

Let’s just hope Obama found some young Evangelical supporters yesterday.

[eden4barack08]

01:02 PM on 08/17/2008

"...McBush graduated dead last in his class of 250!"

It's worst, he was 895 in a class of 899.

[optech007]

11:37 AM on 08/17/2008

Correction to previous post--

"I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation."

So basically 0bama is saying that he did not have enough experience for the job. I thought the 0bama people said that experience doesn't matter.

[Knowitall]

12:23 PM on 08/17/2008

Recall optechoo, Clarence Thomas had NEVER, EVER, stepped foot in a courtroom as a lawyer, prosecutor or judge. NEVER. He had absolutely NO judicial record AT ALL. That's why he sits like a stone on the bench--he knows he doesn't belong there. As far as I know, he never even taught law (as Obama has). I believe his only other claim to fame was the head of the Equal Opportunity Commission, with a mediocre to incompetent record there. That job was also an appointment that he was not qualified for.

Obama, also a lawyer, has worked as a community organizer, taught constitutional law at the Univ. of Chicago (so he knows something when he talks about the Supreme Court , the constitution and other legal issues), I understand he was very popular at the law school, because of his intellect and thoughtfulnees, and was a sought after teacher and lecturer. He served several years in the Illinois State Senate, which led to his election as a US Senator. So even though he didn't hold national office before, he does have a record of public service. Finally, I think the vast majority of Blacks agree with Senator Obama about Clarence Thomas. He is considered a profound embarrassment. Thomas often decries affirmative action, but AA's know it's because he has never held a job in public service that he was qualified for, so realizes he is, in fact, the national poster boy for the arguments AGAINST affirmatiive action.

[Knowitall]

01:15 PM on 08/17/2008

Addition to above response--Obama was also a trial lawyer at one time. So with his law school, teaching and trial experience you could argue that Obama is more qualified to be on the Supreme Court now than Thomas was at the time he was elevated.

[optech007]

09:26 PM on 08/17/2008

Thomas was a judge on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for 18 months. He was also Assistant Attorney General of Missouri from '74-'77, an Assistant Secretary of Education from '81-82, and EEOC Chairman for '82-'90.

But you make my point exactly, you're saying that Thomas was not qualified to be on the Supreme Court due to his lack of experience as a judge. Yet you think 0bama is qualified to be president despite his lack of relevant experience.

[optech007]

11:38 AM on 08/17/2008

"I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation."

So basically 0bama is saying that he did have enough experience for the job. I thought the 0bama people said that experience doesn't matter?

[rodnacious]

12:12 PM on 08/17/2008

"I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution. Those are Obama's exact words... and I agree. As a Black man, the first thing that I thought when Mr. Thomas was selected as a jurist for the Supreme Court was - appeasement!

I don't have a propensity for the law, but I can tell you that Thomas has been an embarassment to me. He can't stand against the likes of Thurgood Marshall, even though he was selected to be the second coming of Marshall. His was less than truthful in the Anita Baker Affair, a factor that continues to be pointed out in the flaws that he has repeatedly made in decisions/positions that he has made thus far as a jurist.

Again, as before, experience is not the issue as to whether you will be a standout as a jurist on the Supreme Court or as President. What matters is how you interpret the Constitution, your ability to make sound judgements based upon the Constitution, and the compassion you display in performing your duties.

[Newkophile]

09:30 PM on 08/17/2008

If you read "The Nine" by Jeffrey Toobin, a great book about the Supreme Court as it has been constituted for the last two decades or so, one realizes more completely what a mediocrity Thomas is. Aside from the fact that he never participates in the questioning of the attorneys that come before the Court, an indispensable give and take necessary before a decision is rendered, Thomas has never written a significant majority opinion. Think about that, all those conservative decisions, and in 17 years, Thomas hasn't authored anything of real consequence. On top of that he has no respect for precedent, a stance that even prompted his colleague Antonin Scalia to state when asked about Thomas, "I am an originalist, I'm not a nut."

[eden4barack08]

01:10 PM on 08/17/2008

How do you people translate " not strong enough jurist" into inexperienced???
He could've had 100 years of experience and STILL be a weak candidate in one's opinion.

You should do more listening and learning and less assuming and fabricating.

[optech007]

02:17 PM on 08/17/2008

"At the time" makes it sound like he thinks Thomas had not been a judge long enough to be a strong jurist or legal thinker. He had not built enough experience to be elevated to the Supreme Court.

It would make sense that he said this, since Thomas had been an appeals judge less than two years when he was nominated to the Supreme Court. People criticized him back in 1991 for his lack of experience as a judge.

[BlackandProud]

11:09 AM on 08/17/2008

I thought the forum was very well done. Both candidates are friends of the pastor and the format was great for fairness.

For those who complain that mixing politics with faith or religion is a republican thing, let me remind you...

...Pastors like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been traveling the country for 20 years making sure that 90% of the black population (actually 91% in 2004) vote democrat.

This strategy has worked incredibly for democrats to continually use religion and church to get votes. The black voting block is a huge base that dems need each election year.

Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama have spent countless hours in churches during election cycles to swing the black church-going vote.

Democrats are ALL ABOUT the church vote. Always have been, always will be.

I can be an instrument of God the same way all of you are." (Barack Obama)

"I believe the purpose of life is to glorify God" (Al Gore, Capital Hill testimony before the US Senate, March 22, 2007, audio available at npr.org)

"There must be room for religious people to live out their faith in the public square" (Hillary Clinton, Boston Globe, jan. 20, 2005)

[CRayD11]

12:10 PM on 08/17/2008

Your point is at best a bit confused. Politics and faith can't be separated, and I'm sorry you feel Democrats (Black or white and Christian or otherwise) have complained about this idea - it would be the height of foolishness.
To quote Pastor Rick Warren from his introduction last night, "We believe in the separation of church and state, but we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics, because faith is just a world view..."

[BlackandProud]

01:59 PM on 08/17/2008

Then we basically agree.

If you've read the Huff post bloggers in the past 24 hours, you would have read the amazing amount of hate and anger toward faith & spirituality mixed with politics.

I have no problem with it at all. I just think it's foolish when bloggers are blaming republicans.

This notion that their should be a separation simply because of a phrase in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 is ridiculous.

Many people forget that Thomas Jefferson attended church in the largest congregation in North America, and that church held its weekly worship services in the House Chambers of the U.S. Capital Building and in the Supreme Court Chambers.

Our forefathers most definately DID NOT separate church and state, but embraced it. (however, they did not want forced religion... and in America, thankfully, it is not forced)

I am a christian because I choose to be, not because I am forced to be.

[StillIRise]

03:09 PM on 08/17/2008

Neither Jesse Jackson nor Al Sharpton have ever made me, or any other African American I know, vote Democratic. I've been voting Democratic for 40 years, before Jesse Jackson came on the political scene and long before Al Sharpton showed up! Although the white media has glorified Jackson and Sharpton as the leaders of the black community, it may surprise you to know that most African Americans do not agree with this. We respect Jackson and Sharpton for their years of activist service to the black community, but there are many other black men and women we respect just as well, some even more. White America (via the media) has a tendency to identify our "leaders" for us, just as they identify our "place in America" or the problems or concerns of our community, but they are identifying these things through their eyes, not through ours, and as such, they often get it wrong.

Otherwise, I agree: Both Republicans and Democrats have pursued the "church vote" for decades, and in a country in which religion is the be-all and end-all, from a political perspective, they are merely doing what is in their best interest to do.

[BlackandProud]

03:36 PM on 08/17/2008

We basically agree. Jackson and Sharpton do not speak for me, nor many in the congregation I attend.

Regardless, they are a tool that white candidates use to their favor... and it does work. The forums jackson & Sharpton attend as you well know are PACKED with thousands of people. And, unfortunately, politics is always played on stage, regardless of the main message. They will continue to be a tool for democrats for years to come.

I try not to speak politics in church, but on occasion this year, I've asked a few members, what policies do you like most about each candidate. I usually get a blank stare. Most don't even realize that as a young married couple McCain's tax plan would be best (keeping the marriage pentalty removed and cutting taxes further for middle class incomes) or that Obama's plan is better if you are a retired couple (I think his taxing structure to protect the elderly is genius).

People don't even seem interested to learn. They just want a black president... and sometimes that embarrasses me & angers me because I take the time to read about the issues.

[littlepuffycloud]

10:33 AM on 08/17/2008

I find it mildly amusing when first O is criticized because of his phenomenal oratory skills, and then when he is simply speaking as one person to another, he is criticized because he thinks before he speaks. Again, Senator O is in the ultimate catch-22. I can't wait to see him and Michelle when he is sworn into office.

[jupitor]

11:40 AM on 08/17/2008

I watched to see where mccain stood on christianity, family, church, F-values, economy! I found out almost nothing, but he lied! He voted for the four judges he said he wouldn't nominate! Than I heard about war Pow, himself, little antidote story's, and the evation of faith,family and church! His idea of fixing the economy is not to tax, and he wants every one to be rich. His idea of energy is stolen from Obama speech of alternative fuel, but he got in drill,drill,drill with Pow,Pow, War storys and how his adm would be shaped width people like Gen. Patreas! Not family value, wife, mom or christian idea's or etc.

[susan2589]

10:26 AM on 08/17/2008

So, experience does matter Senator Obama?

[rodnacious]

12:20 PM on 08/17/2008

Right... it is the ability to judge. Judges do that - they judge, and in this case, they judge based upon the depth of their knowledge of the Constitution and how we apply the Constitution in a Court, which he points out is lacking in Thomas, the jurist.

[eden4barack08]

01:18 PM on 08/17/2008

One could be in law for 50 years and still not be considered strong enough for that elevation.
What you call experience, others may call ability or judgement, which does not require years of experience.
Obama did not refer to Clarence's experience.

[NCRESIDENT]

08:29 AM on 08/17/2008

I found it odd that McCain kept answering the questions as if he was at a town hall meeting and I thought the forum was supposed to be open and honest. Everytime he answered a question I saw pandering in it utmost.

[NoSandwiches]

10:50 AM on 08/17/2008

not just pandering.
wandering.
Wandering into his same old anecdotes. With Obama we got to see the man behind the "Celebrity" and he was a very thoughtful person. With McCain we just saw Uncle Bob at he barbeque enjoying telling the same old war stories that every one has already heard. We got no insight into the man at all.

[runnerin1]

11:25 AM on 08/17/2008

Notice, we got one of those war stories, just when he was to answer how christianity worked in his everyday life. He never did answer the question.

[mi]

07:39 AM on 08/17/2008

Obama is so right re. Thomas, Scalia.
Appreciated his open response to these questions.
Take note, he is more interested in Constitutional rights
than his own potential power.

[landoffools]

02:10 AM on 08/17/2008

JanetE :

See what happens when your sole source of anything current is FOX !!!

Your posting, like yourself, was a calculated joke !!

Your Dismissed !!!

[RepugsOut08]

02:49 AM on 08/17/2008

Yep, didn't check JanetE out before I replied to her post. Won't make that mistake again.
How many Republicans are posting as Democrats on this sight?
I guess that's like asking how many Republicans are pretending they supported Hillary?

[reliant1]

09:20 AM on 08/17/2008

the threads are rife with this new patter from the pumapubs - lots of sighing and hand wringing over obamas poor performance, astonishment at the poor choice of nominee yada yada

the point -

they think it will sway sd's at the convention into changing their votes.

no sublety. no surprise. the tactic is a dead give away - like the dusty old patter about - oh you're all too young to know better.

just obvious agit prop.

[bb922335]

06:41 AM on 08/17/2008

wow...your a class act.

[JanetE]

12:58 AM on 08/17/2008

Tonight Obama seemed like the stuttering old man who went around and around and around to answer a question and then still didn't give a precise answer.
McCain seemed like the energetic one with the immediate concise and excellent answers! I was shocked! I didn't think he had it in him!

Obama's major gaffe was his answer to the question about when life begins. McCain quickly said "At conception" and I agree. That IS when life begins! Now whether or not a woman has the right to end that life is another story, but that IS when life begins! Obama "answered" that question by saying that the answer to that question is "above his pay scale". There was an audible gasp in the room. Is he kidding? The guy who wants to be president of the United States can't have a straight opinion about this? Doesn't he want to make big decisions as president and he can't decide when he thinks life begins??? Of course he can't because every answer is measured against polls and he is afraid to alienate ANYONE.

Every single one of his answers was like that. He triangulated around and around to touch on all points (well some think THIS and some think THAT) and then landed somewhere in between if he landed at all. It's easy to tell he comes from the WINDY city.

This lifelong Democrat is feeling sick to her stomach over our poor choice for a nominee.

[jelly450]

01:20 AM on 08/17/2008

"above his pay scale" Simply means that it is NOT a question for man to answer but a question for God. He did pretend to know the answer to the question when life begin. I think that was a well thought out answer. Man is not God ans has no idea when "life" begins.

All of his answer were well thought out, and measured as they should be. Do you really want a President that doesn't think though his decisions? He was not "preaching to his base" but still showed he was not afraid to answer the questions honestly, even if they would not be well received.

[goldnchyl]

01:35 AM on 08/17/2008

jelly, don't u know the religious right speak for God?

[Smirk]

03:41 AM on 08/17/2008

It's sad but true that many in the US do NOT want a president who thinks through his decisions. They prefer a leader who acts instinctively, without thought. Perhaps they equate instinct with divine guidence. Whatever the reasons behind it, I wish their mindset wasn't so prevalent.

[RepugsOut08]

01:50 AM on 08/17/2008

While I don't think Obama's replys were as abysmal as you do, I agree that our candidates need to quit pandering to people who will never vote for them.
McCain was energetic and quick because he was with his constituency. The Republican response to these folks is so pat, Republican candidates can mouth them in their sleep. McCain offered his wife up to a stripping contest at a biker rally. Whatever it takes to win. I'm supprised he didn't say he knew Moses personally, and that Obama was no Moses.
Obama had to at least make the attempt to get these people to see another way of handling the abortion issue, and I believe he gave it his best shot. It's up to them whether they want to be compassionate or punitive. Support the least among us, or the most affluent. Compensate our veterans, or use them and throw them away. Cave in to fear, or face the future with a positive agenda. By their actions will they be known.

[rinz]

12:47 AM on 08/17/2008

When I heard McCain loudly and proudly announce his pro-life position and his intention to nominate pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, I couldn't help but wonder what all those PUMA women will do if they sit out the election or vote for McCain and then watch the nightmare begin. Just wondering.

[Pressmatters]

01:44 AM on 08/17/2008

Word Up Rinz! You might want to take a gander at this Tim Wise article that articulates - in feverishly lucid terms - how deluded those Clintonite Women are:

http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/WhitenessShowing.html

[RepugsOut08]

12:33 AM on 08/17/2008

Obama articulated his faith without compromising on his principles, and offered a TRUE Christian agenda of caring about the least among us. He respected the pro-life point of view, and challenged them to unite with him in finding ways to limit abortions through meaningful programs. A challenge to educate and employ compassion, rather than the current pro-life agenda of criminalizing women's reproductive choices.
John McCain, when he wasn't reminding us how really really scary the world is, offered only the same Republican pro-life platitudes that get them elected. He praised our military leaders without mentioning that he consistantly votes against every bill supporting veterans that comes to the floor. He was funny and grandfatherly, and teared up when he told about a prison guard drawing a cross in the sand while he was held captive.
Intelligent solutions and a challenge to act out their Christian faith, versus fear and platitudes from a grandfatherly fellow who'll keep women in their place. Hmmmmm. I wonder who they'll vote for?

[ann1]

12:15 AM on 08/17/2008

Me neither

[freeman88]

10:47 PM on 08/16/2008

It is refreshing to hear an articulate politician speak the truth instead of what we have been subjected to for the last 8 years.

What I mean is this, for the last eight years we have not gotten one single bit of truth from the guy who promised that very thing in his campaign. Instead of uniter, we got the most divisive administration in our history. From a guy who campaigned against nation building, bush has done little else since invading an unarmed Iraq based upon lies and fake intelligence.

I'm enthusiastic about Obama. I believe he is the real thing. Not perfect. Not a complete fix-it. But, Mr Obama seems to be a man of his word, and a world leader this nation can really be proud to call our own.

After 8 years of Mr potato head, Mr. Obama is like a cool breeze on a 120 degree day.

[CRayD11]

10:32 AM on 08/17/2008

Mr Potato Head?!? lol !!!