Tellingly, Obama slipped and showed his hypocrisy when talking about United States Supreme Court Justices during the Saddleback Forum.
Have you been wondering why rookie United States Senator and presumptive 2008 Democrat presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. avoided the ten Townhall debates around the country that veteran United States Senator and presumptive 2008 Republican presidential candidate John Sidney McCain proposed?
The joint appearances by Obama and McCain at the Saddleback Forum hosted by Rev. Rick Warren showed that McCain is ready to be President of the United States and Obama is not fit to be.
Obama IS a superb tele-prompter reader.
But the position at stake is President of the United States, not news reader for NBC News.
Obama wants to substitute audacity for ability, presumption for preparation and eagerness for experience.
That's a recipe for disaster.
Tellingly, Obama slipped and showed his hypocrisy when talking about United States Supreme Court Justices during the Saddleback Forum.
Rev. Warren asked Obama, "which existing Supreme Court justice would you not have nominated?”
Obama chose Justice Clarence Thomas.
That's not a surprise: a conservative black man who thinks for himself, embraces constitutional fidelity and eschews judicial activism and legislating from the bench is anathema to Obama and his ardent supporters.
Wikipedia:
"From 1974 to 1977, Thomas was an Assistant Attorney General of Missouri under then State Attorney General John Danforth. When Danforth was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1976 to 1979, Thomas left to become an attorney with Monsanto in St. Louis, Missouri. He returned to work for Danforth from 1979 to 1981 as a Legislative Assistant....
"In 1981, he joined the Reagan administration. From 1981 to 1982, he served as Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education. From 1982 to 1990 he was Chairman of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission....
"In 1990, President George H. W. Bush appointed Thomas to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit."
Obama to Rev. Warren on why he disapproved of Justice Thomas: “I don’t think he was an exp . . . a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation.”
That's right: inexperienced Obama, who aspires to be President anyway, swallowed most of the word "experienced" that he started to say.
Rev. Warren did not ask Obama that if he did not consider Justice Thomas experienced enough to be elevated from federal appellate court judge to Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, one of nine Justices, why did he consider himself experienced enough to be elevated from one of one hundred United States Senators to become the one President of the United States.
If Rev. Warren had asked the question, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's remote chance of being nominated as the Democrat presidential candidate at the upcoming convention would have increased greatly.
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez on the hypocrisy of Obama's choice of Justice Thomas:
"Was it that Barack Obama didn’t like Justice Thomas’s vote on the recent child-rapist case, Kennedy v. Louisiana? No, that couldn’t be it. Barack Obama agreed with Thomas on that decision. Justice Ginsburg, meanwhile — a liberal favorite on the Court, whom John McCain listed as one of his least favorite justices during the same forum — opposed giving child rapists the death penalty. So what’s so wrong about Thomas and so right about, say, Ginsberg, Senator Obama? Explain the logic. He can’t, of course, and still win an election — which is why he agreed with Thomas."
Stated simply, Obama is a phony trying to fool the voters to win the power of the Presidency.
Lopez: "Was it that Barack Obama didn’t like Justice Thomas’s vote on the recent D.C. gun-ban case? Nope; that couldn’t be it either. Barack Obama wound up ultimately agreeing with Thomas and the majority on that one too.
"Justice Ginsburg, on the other hand, had issues with the Second Amendment in that case. But you would nominate Justice Ginsburg, Senator Obama?"
The truth is that Obama was FOR the draconian D.C. gun-ban before he was against it...and he publicly became against it after his private remark about rural Americans clinging to religion and guns out of bitterness over economic circumstances was made public."
The truth is that Obama is a political panderer who cannot be trusted.
Lopez: "Did Obama disagree with Justice Thomas on the recent cross-burning case, Virginia v. Black? Obama’s favorite justice, Justice Ginsburg, wrote that cross-burning bans are constitutionally suspect. Justice Thomas disagreed and wrote a passionate dissent. During oral arguments he said: 'There’s no other purpose to the cross, no communication, no particular message. . . . [It] was intended to cause fear and to terrorize a population.' Does Obama take issue with the impassioned Thomas dissent?"
Obama really takes issue with Justice Thomas for being both black AND constitutionally faithful, as illustrated by Justice Thomas's recognition that the Constitution did not include a right to abortion and judicial activists simply created one.
Obama is special interest Planned Parenthood's guy and prone to lie.
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
