Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Michael J. Gaynor
Bio: Michael J. Gaynor
Date:  August 19, 2008
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Other/General

Obama, Do The Laura Ingraham Show

Since Obama had the audacity to diss Justice Thomas’ fitness as a United States Supreme Court Justice, I suggest he man up and debate the subject with Laura Ingraham on her show. I hope he does, but doubt he would dare. I’m sure he would be given ample time.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was man enough to appear on The Laura Ingraham Show when he was running for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

Is rookie United States Senator and presumptive 2008 Democrat presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. confident enough to do the same?

Don't count of Obama answering any questions from Ms. Ingraham, especially after dissing United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas when Rev. Rick Warren asked him during the Saddleback Forum which Justice he would not have appointed.

Time will tell whether that dissing will impact Obama’s (according to polls) all-but-uanimous black support.

But a couple of ladies privileged to clerk for Justice Thomas in the United States Supreme Court did not let the dissing pass unrebutted.

One of them was Ms. ingraham.

On her website (www.lauraingraham.com), this succinct, sharp, straightforward response was posted the next day:

”CLASSLESS, SHAMELESS OBAMA SLAMS JUSTICE THOMAS

“At the Purpose Driven forum Saturday night, Barack Obama took off on Justice Clarence Thomas for lacking the experience necessary to sit on the Supreme Court. That's a riot, coming from a man who decided he was qualified to be the leader of the free world after one whopping year in the U.S. Senate.”

The same day, Wendy E. Long, the other lady, currently counsel to The Judicial Confirmation Network (www.judicialnetwork.com), issued the following acute appraisal of Obama's comments on the Supreme Court at the Saddleback Forum:

"Obama's statements regarding the Supreme Court were ludicrous. They reveal that Obama is ignorant of facts and history, misunderstands the Constitution, and contradicts himself in his own alleged criteria for Supreme Court nominees.

"Americans who care about the future of the Supreme Court need to look very carefully at Obama's comments, because they show what poor judgment and criteria he would use in selecting Supreme Court Justices if he were elected President.

"It was clear last night that Obama's criteria for selecting Supreme Court Justices are fuzzy, lack intellectual coherence, and are subject to his own whims. He says Thomas 'isn't a strong enough jurist.' He says Roberts is 'a tougher question only because I find him to be a very compelling person, you know, in conversation individually.' Of Scalia, he says: 'he and I just disagree, you know?'

"All this speaks volumes about the kind of judges Obama would appoint, and the way he would fill several potential vacancies at the Supreme Court that could arise during the next President's term in office. Obama wants Justices who will do his bidding, who will implement the preferred policies of the liberal establishment - not Justices like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito, who understand that the role of a judge is not to legislate from the bench.

"Obama's answer about the three wisest people in his life, upon whom he would rely heavily in his administration, also sheds light on the way he would choose Supreme Court Justices. Obama said he would consult his grandmother, his wife, and Ted Kennedy. This is unlikely to yield the highest quality judicial nominees who understand the Constitution and the role of judges in our constitutional democracy."

"Obama started to say that Justice Thomas didn't have enough 'experience' for the Supreme Court. In mid-sentence, when Obama realized that he himself has far less experience for the presidency than Justice Thomas had for the Court in 1991, he shifted and said Justice Thomas 'was not a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time.'

"Obama is obviously ignorant of the fact - established through the Blackmun papers and independent journalists and scholars - that Justice Thomas has been a leading intellect on the Court from day one, including an influence on Justice Scalia, whom Obama credited with 'intellectual brilliance.'

"Has Obama actually read Justice Thomas's opinions? Can he point to any that reveal Thomas to be a weak jurist or legal thinker - as distinguished from Scalia, for example? This is all reminiscent of Harry Reid's comment several years ago that Justice Thomas was 'an embarrassment to the Court' and that his opinions 'were poorly written': Reid was exposed as the ignoramus then, and the Congressional Black Caucus asked him to stop using 'stereotypes and caricatures.'

"Apparently, Obama can do no better than to recycle discredited statements of Harry Reid when it comes to Justice Thomas. Like other liberal elites, Obama cannot stand it when a black man strays from the ideological plantation and refuses to implement liberal policies through the courts. But Obama will never point out any intellectual deficiencies in Justice Thomas's work, because he can't. Justice Thomas's opinions consistently reveal faithfulness to the Constitution, judicial modesty, and deference to the will of the people in our representative democracy. That is opposed to everything that Obama and the liberals are trying to do in grabbing power from the people and giving it to the courts."

Since Obama had the audacity to diss Justice Thomas’ fitness as a United States Supreme Court Justice, I suggest he man up and debate the subject with Laura Ingraham on her show. I hope he does, but doubt he would dare. I’m sure he would be given ample time.

If Obama is willing to meet with the world’s worst dictators without preconditions, surely he should be up for a discussion with the former Justice Thomas law clerk whom Bill O’Reilly calls Miss Laura.

But I don’t expect to hear Obama being interviewed on The Laura Ingraham Show, because Laura’s not an Obama shill and much too formidable and factual for him and Obama lacks the wisdom, wit and will.

Obama would be loathe to make it to Ms. Ingraham if he had a valid case against Justice Thomas, but the truth is that he doesn't and his attack on Justice Thomas was a disgrace.

But I’m not confident that the Congressional Black Caucus will be chiding Obama for it.

Should there be a race-based double standard: a pass for Obama but not for Reid?

Of course not.

But politics can trump principle, especially when Obama is involved.

Michael J. Gaynor

Send email feedback to Michael J. Gaynor


Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

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.

Gaynor's email address is gaynormike@aol.com.


Read other commentaries by Michael J. Gaynor.

Copyright © 2008 by Michael J. Gaynor
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]


© 2004-2017 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved