Questions for Obama.

[2centsworth]

George Will raised some interesting questions. If any other liberal has the answers please feel free to post them.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134316

Senator, concerning the criteria by which you will nominate judges, you said: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old." Such sensitivities might serve an admirable legislator, but what have they to do with judging? Should a judge side with whichever party in a controversy stirs his or her empathy? Is such personalization of the judicial function inimical to the rule of law?
• Voting against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, you said: Deciding "truly difficult cases" should involve "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." Is that not essentially how Chief Justice Roger Taney decided the Dred Scott case? Should other factors—say, the language of the cons utional or statutory provision at issue—matter?
• You say, "The insurance companies, the drug companies, they're not going to give up their profits easily when it comes to health care." Why should they? Who will profit from making those industries unprofitable? When pharmaceutical companies have given up their profits, who will fund pharmaceutical innovations, without which there will be much preventable suffering and death? What other industries should "give up their profits"?


• ExxonMobil's 2007 profit of $40.6 billion annoys you. Do you know that its profit, relative to its revenue, was smaller than Microsoft's and many other corporations'? And that reducing ExxonMobil's profits will injure people who participate in mu-tual funds, index funds and pension funds that own 52 percent of the company?
• You say John McCain is content to "watch [Americans'] home prices decline." So, government should prop up housing prices generally? How? Why? Were prices ideal before the bubble popped? How does a senator know ideal prices? Have you explained to young couples straining to buy their first house that declining prices are a misfortune?
• Telling young people "don't go into corporate America," your wife, Mic e, urged them to become social workers or others in "the helping industry," not "the moneymaking industry." Given that the moneymakers pay for 100 percent of American jobs, in both public and private sectors, is it not helpful?
• Mic e, who was born in 1964, says that most Americans' lives have "gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl." Since 1960, real per capita income has increased 143 percent, life expectancy has increased by seven years, infant mortality has declined 74 percent, deaths from heart disease have been halved, childhood leukemia has stopped being a death sentence, depression has become a treatable disease, air and water pollution have been drastically reduced, the number of women earning a bachelor's degree has more than doubled, the rate of homeownership has increased 10.2 percent, the size of the average American home has doubled, the percentage of homes with air conditioning has risen from 12 to 77, the portion of Americans who own shares of stock has quintupled … Has your wife perhaps missed some pertinent developments in this country that she calls "just downright mean"?
• You favor raising the capital gains tax rate to "20 percent or 25 percent." You say this will not "distort" economic decision making. Your tax returns on your 2007 income of $4.2 million show that you and Mic e own few stocks. Are you sure you understand how investors make decisions?

[jochhejaam]

From the Obama Camp;

"Barack will be fielding questions on the 6th Monday of each month, in the event that a particular month may not have 6 Mondays a list of questions may be submitted on the 3rd Monday of every month starting with the letter N.

Your understanding and patience are appreciated.

[smeagol]

• ExxonMobil's 2007 profit of $40.6 billion annoys you. Do you know that its profit, relative to its revenue, was smaller than Microsoft's and many other corporations'? And that reducing ExxonMobil's profits will injure people who participate in mu-tual funds, index funds and pension funds that own 52 percent of the company?

So because taxing companies hurts the value of their stock you are saying you should never increase taxes?

Pretty stupid concept.

[Anti.Hero]

LOL, far too much detail in those questions.


Ask something more like, "Lord Obama, how long will it take before Americans are ecstatic about standing in line behind 15 million illegal aliens while our family members are dying and need health service."

Then proceed to get out a chisel and stone tablet for his holiness' answer as glorious rays of sunshine shine down upon yourself.

So because taxing companies hurts the value of their stock you are saying you should never increase taxes?

Pretty stupid concept.

More like, Obama and the dems should quit brainwashing the ignorant by demonizing business, but instead educate them on how to profit off another man's profit. You see, our beloved government gets to enter into the back room deals with corps but tries to keep us away from making honest money. We're easier to control that way and don't clog up the boat ramps nearly as much!

Politicians are like celebrities. They are not restricted/affected by the policies they choose/endorse for us common folk.

Who is rich elite whitey? The one that works for a living, or the one that gets to tax the one that works for a living? Who holds the leash?


It's a god damned shame they trick so many people into believing the rich are getting punished, while the realty is they (the guvment) are only slowing YOU down.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm trying to find the posts from the 2cents regarding bush's contradictios over the last 8yrs. We all know he is objective and holds republicans to those same standards.... Can anyone help me find those posts? I am having a hard time locating anything related to this post about republicans..


Wait I just thought of something.. If there aren't any would that make him a hypocrite? Oh well I'll keep looking.

[jochhejaam]

I'm trying to find the posts from the 2cents regarding bush's contradictios over the last 8yrs. We all know he is objective and holds republicans to those same standards.... Can anyone help me find those posts? I am having a hard time locating anything related to this post about republicans..

Nothing resembling an answer to the questions posed, predictable. And of course, in every post you've submitted, you've been sure to present every other viewpoint out there...or have you?

Wait I just thought of something.. If there aren't any would that make him a hypocrite? Oh well I'll keep looking.

When did hypocrisy become a synonym for subjectivity?




And since you brought up "objectivity", was submitting a strawman argument, laced with ad hominem and sarcasm, meant to raises you to the level of standard bearer for objectivity?
And you have the gall to speak of hypocrisy?

Whatever you were attempting to prove here, failed, and miserably so.
The joke's on you <and how does that make you feel george?>

[Mr. Peabody]

Not mine, but the guy meets your qualification of being a liberal.

Q – "Senator, concerning the criteria by which you will nominate judges, you said: 'We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.' Such sensitivities might serve an admirable legislator, but what have they to do with judging? Should a judge side with whichever party in a controversy stirs his or her empathy? Is such personalization of the judicial function inimical to the rule of law?”

A – Mr. Will, you're taking Obama's comments out of context. He was talking about Supreme Court judges who, rightly so, must look at how statutes and their Cons utionality apply in the context of 21st century America. He never said or implied that a winning party in a dispute should be the side that does the best job of playing on a justice's sympathy.

Q – “Voting against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, you said: Deciding 'truly difficult cases' should involve 'one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.' Is that not essentially how Chief Justice Roger Taney decided the Dred Scott case? Should other factors, say, the language of the cons utional or statutory provision at issue "matter?”

A – Roger Taney and Clarence Thomas have a lot in common. Beyond that, Mr. Will, if you had bothered to read the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Framers, he would have seen great concern amongst the founders that future generations would understand that the Cons ution was not intended to be frozen in time. Yes, the language of the Cons ution is crucial. So, too, is putting the issue at hand in the context of what the Cons ution intended and what life is like in the 21st century.

Q – You say, 'The insurance companies, the drug companies, they're not going to give up their profits easily when it comes to health care.' Why should they? Who will profit from making those industries unprofitable? When pharmaceutical companies have given up their profits, who will fund pharmaceutical innovations, without which there will be much preventable suffering and death? What other industries should 'give up their profits'?

A – Out of context, again, Georgie boy. Obama never said the drug companies should "give up their profits." In the context of the speech he was making, Obama referred to the extraordinarily high profits phara companies make in the US, much higher than they happily earn in Canada, Britain and the EU. Drug prices are negotiated and regulated in every Western economy except the US, setting a fair margin that the drug companies are happy with based on the fact that they keep doing business in those nations. Moreover, Obama was also talking about giving Medicare authority to negotiate drug prices -- just as the VA does.

Q – ExxonMobil's 2007 profit of $40.6 billion annoys you. Do you know that its profit, relative to its revenue, was smaller than Microsoft's and many other corporations'? And that reducing ExxonMobil's profits will injure people who participate in mutual funds, index funds and pension funds that own 52 percent of the company?

A – ExxonMobile's profit annoys everyone because it was a windfall resulting from as yet-unexplained rocketing upwards of oil prices (which ExxonMobil and other oil companies drill, sells to itself to refine and then sells to itself to put in mostly company-owned gas stations (as well as stations owned by others). If one carefully follows the footnotes in Exxon's 10K and other SEC filings, one will notice that Exxon, like BP, Chevron and other majors, operate an elaborate web of holding companies inside subsidiaries inside divisions, the purpose of all of them being "petroleum trading and storage." In other words, hoarding and pure speculation -- much like Enron. In fact, the McCain sponsored "Enron exemption" allows oil companies to do this. By contrast, CITGO, owned by Penevesa, has maintained its typical and healthy profit margins despite giving away heating oil to poor nations around the world -- including in the Northeast and Gulf Coast US where people have been especially hard hit by rising prices.

Q – You say John McCain is content to 'watch [Americans'] home prices decline.' So, government should prop up housing prices generally? How? Why? Were prices ideal before the bubble popped? How does a senator know ideal prices? Have you explained to young couples straining to buy their first house that declining prices are a misfortune?

A – George, you really ought to look up the words "taken out of context." Obama made that statement in the context of McCain opposing a bill that would financially assist families who are in danger of losing their homes due to mortgage lender fraud and abusive practice. (See last week's FBI arrest of 409 mortgage traders, brokers and real estate agents; the FBI says the investigation is continuing and that "hundreds, perhaps thousands, more arrests may follow."

Q – Telling young people 'don't go into corporate America,' your wife, Mic e, urged them to become social workers or others in 'the helping industry,' not 'the moneymaking industry.' Given that the moneymakers pay for 100 percent of American jobs, in both public and private sectors, is it not helpful?

A – I'm getting really tired of putting things in context for a nationally published columnist. Obama, and his wife, have said repeatedly that Obama would propose a program to pay for university. In exchange, recipients of the tuition grants, would be required to work X-number of years in their community: Teaching, doing social work, community organizing, whatever, as the means of paying back the country.

Q – Mic e, who was born in 1964, says that most Americans' lives have 'gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl.' Since 1960, real per capita income has increased 143 percent, life expectancy has increased by seven years, infant mortality has declined 74 percent, deaths from heart disease have been halved, childhood leukemia has stopped being a death sentence, depression has become a treatable disease, air and water pollution have been drastically reduced, the number of women earning a bachelor's degree has more than doubled, the rate of homeownership has increased 10.2 percent, the size of the average American home has doubled, the percentage of homes with air conditioning has risen from 12 to 77, the portion of Americans who own shares of stock has quintupled. Has y our wife perhaps missed some pertinent developments in this country that she calls 'just downright mean'?

A – Figures can lie and liars can figure. Let's look at numbers that are more relevant. Since 2000, real per capita income has declined markedly; the spread between those earning at top levels and those at the middle level has widened dramatically; since 2000, wealth has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a shrinking number of people as the middle class shrinks;' infant mortality declined but remains the highest in the Western world, home ownership fell dramatically over the past 18 months. If I were you Mr. Will, I would not brag about the spread of "McMansions" because they are way beyond the price range of typical income earners. Mrs. Obama is right: The country has become downright mean for much of its citizens.

[Cry Havoc]

I find it amazing that the OP and subsequent posters dismiss answers before they are even posted. Yeah, like you guys are going to listen to any kind of dissenting opinion.

Must be nice to go through life with such a closed-brain, convinced in-advance of what you already know to be 100% fact.

I'm historically a republican, but even I can't ignore what has happened to our country. And it's saddening.

[Cry Havoc]

Nothing resembling an answer to the questions posed, predictable. And of course, in every post you've submitted, you've been sure to present every other viewpoint out there...or have you?

When did hypocrisy become a synonym for subjectivity?


And since you brought up "objectivity", was submitting a strawman argument, laced with ad hominem and sarcasm, meant to raises you to the level of standard bearer for objectivity?
And you have the gall to speak of hypocrisy?

Whatever you were attempting to prove here, failed, and miserably so.
The joke's on you <and how does that make you feel george?>

Well, some answers were posted. Care to respond, or were you just hoping that no one here was educated enough to know what they're talking about? I could field the questions as well with slightly different responses, but I'm not sure you'd listen to anything I have to say.

[2centsworth]

Not mine, but the guy meets your qualification of being a liberal.

I love the "how life is like in the 21st century".

[Mr. Peabody]

I love the "how life is like in the 21st century".

My view on the issue of judges using life experience and empathy in making decisions is that you want a judge that not only understands the law, but also understands the effect of the ruling that they make. These decisions are not made in theory or in a law school moot court; they have an impact on peoples lives. Given that, it'd be nice if a judge not only knew the law, but also understood how other people live and what motivates them.

I say that because I think all too often, we try to approach the law as simply an academic or formulaic exercise (Party X did Y to Party Z and in those cases we give judgment A). Which is fine for merely looking at law in the abstract, but in court you not just looking for a recitation of law, you are looking for justice to be done. And justice requires more than just looking at the law as it's written on the books. You have to take the parties particular set of facts into consideration. In order to truly consider the facts of a case, you do need have a certain degree of life experience or empathy on which to rely.

[Cry Havoc]

I love the "how life is like in the 21st century".

If the law is so cut and dried, why do we need "Judges"? Ever consider what that le even means?

[2centsworth]

My view on the issue of judges using life experience and empathy in making decisions is that you want a judge that not only understands the law, but also understands the effect of the ruling that they make. These decisions are not made in theory or in a law school moot court; they have an impact on peoples lives. Given that, it'd be nice if a judge not only knew the law, but also understood how other people live and what motivates them.

I say that because I think all too often, we try to approach the law as simply an academic or formulaic exercise (Party X did Y to Party Z and in those cases we give judgment A). Which is fine for merely looking at law in the abstract, but in court you not just looking for a recitation of law, you are looking for justice to be done. And justice requires more than just looking at the law as it's written on the books. You have to take the parties particular set of facts into consideration. In order to truly consider the facts of a case, you do need have a certain degree of life experience or empathy on which to rely.

that's how child molestors get probation. Break the law and pay the price, simple as that. Nevertheless, I'm all about forgiveness and second chances after the price has been paid.

[2centsworth]

If the law is so cut and dried, why do we need "Judges"? Ever consider what that le even means?

Judges are there to determine if the law has been broken or if a something is cons utional. Judges are not suppossed to create new law.

[Mr. Peabody]

that's how child molestors get probation. Break the law and pay the price, simple as that. Nevertheless, I'm all about forgiveness and second chances after the price has been paid.

Right, but when you say "pay the price," what's the price to which you are referring? Our penal code sets up a range of punishment, which in some cases includes probation. There is no set price to pay.

[FromWayDowntown]

that's how child molestors get probation. Break the law and pay the price, simple as that. Nevertheless, I'm all about forgiveness and second chances after the price has been paid.

If the price in the written law is that a child molestor gets probation, is imposing probation really a problem with the judge?

It's also funny to me how the sense that a judge should use life experience in doing his or her job depends significantly upon whose ox is being gored -- as is so true of other things. Conservatives hate "activist" judges until that activism benefits conservative causes -- in many ways, the Supreme Court of Texas (comprised entirely of 9 Republicans, almost all extremely conservative) is among the most activist courts in the nation, yet it is never pointed to as an exemplar of the activist problem. Meanwhile, courts that apply the written law, but do it in a way that is controversial to some (for instance, punishing a convicted child molester with probation) are decried for their activism. Converse examples of the same would be easy to find.

I might be inclined to find some sympathy for the activism complaint if it was at all founded in any sort of principled view of the law, but it isn't; it's wholly political and almost always indefensible in any fashion other than a dislike for a particular result.

[2centsworth]

If the price in the written law is that a child molestor gets probation, is imposing probation really a problem with the judge?

It's also funny to me how the sense that a judge should use life experience in doing his or her job depends significantly upon whose ox is being gored -- as is so true of other things. Conservatives hate "activist" judges until that activism benefits conservative causes -- in many ways, the Supreme Court of Texas (comprised entirely of 9 Republicans, almost all extremely conservative) is among the most activist courts in the nation, yet it is never pointed to as an exemplar of the activist problem. Meanwhile, courts that apply the written law, but do it in a way that is controversial to some (for instance, punishing a convicted child molester with probation) are decried for their activism. Converse examples of the same would be easy to find.

I might be inclined to find some sympathy for the activism complaint if it was at all founded in any sort of principled view of the law, but it isn't; it's wholly political and almost always indefensible in any fashion other than a dislike for a particular result.

it doesn't surprise me in the least that you would point out conservative activism and defend child molestors. So far, in my debates with you, you've defended porn shops and child molestors.

btw, I agree with you on conservative activism too. Texas is a joke.

[2centsworth]

Right, but when you say "pay the price," what's the price to which you are referring? Our penal code sets up a range of punishment, which in some cases includes probation. There is no set price to pay.

There is precedent. nevertheless, when it comes to supreme court justices, letter of the law rulings is what I believe George Will was referring to. When you begin to input your "modern day experience" in cons utional law, and then that's how you get the dred scott decision.

[FromWayDowntown]

it doesn't surprise me in the least that you would point out conservative activism and defend child molestors. So far, in my debates with you, you've defended porn shops and child molestors.

I'm not defending child molestors -- I'm suggesting that judges who follow the law in sentencing child molestors are not "activists."

But if your best retort to me is to decide for yourself what my views are and to attack me based on what you've decided my views are, then I suppose there really isn't much point in trying to actually engage you in any sort of meaningful debate. Using the most heinous examples as a means to probe your viewpoints is hardly advocacy for those examples; but you certainly run quickly to the idea that I believe those things.

btw, I agree with you on conservative activism too. Texas is a joke.

Yes, then I can see why that above paragraph of yours was at all necessary.

How it must pain you to actually agree with me!!!

[FromWayDowntown]

There is precedent. nevertheless, when it comes to supreme court justices, letter of the law rulings is what I believe George Will was referring to. When you begin to input your "modern day experience" in cons utional law, and then that's how you get the dred scott decision.

"Modern day experience" is the difference between separate but equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education.

But that's hardly a worthwhile change in the law, is it?

[2centsworth]

I'm not defending child molestors -- I'm suggesting that judges who follow the law in sentencing child molestors are not "activists."

But if your best retort to me is to decide for yourself what my views are and to attack me based on what you've decided my views are, then I suppose there really isn't much point in trying to actually engage you in any sort of meaningful debate. Using the most heinous examples as a means to probe your viewpoints is hardly advocacy for those examples; but you certainly run quickly to the idea that I believe those things.



Yes, then I can see why that above paragraph of yours was at all necessary.

How it must pain you to actually agree with me!!!

somewhat agree. I agree about conservative activism, but I will not defend it by saying liberals do the same thing. Both are wrong, and it seems that's where you and I disagree.

I'm not just giving lip service to my disagreement with the Texas Judicial System either, DA is a mess and uncons utional IMO.

[FromWayDowntown]

somewhat agree. I agree about conservative activism, but I will not defend it by saying liberals do the same thing. Both are wrong, and it seems that's where you and I disagree.

Again -- you and your assumptions. My point is that conservative claims of activism are ridiculous because conservatives are just as "activist" as liberals are. That's not an effort to justify one by pointing to the other; it's an effort to say that one argument is vapid because it is hypocritical. I'd say the same thing if the "activism" debate was one-sided with liberals accusing conservatives of such a thing.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm not just giving lip service to my disagreement with the Texas Judicial System either, DA is a mess and uncons utional IMO.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by saying DA is a mess and uncons utional.

[2centsworth]

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by saying DA is a mess and uncons utional.

sold as a dismissal, but it's treated as a lifetime conviction.

http://www.deferredadjudication.com/...ed_def_new.htm

[2centsworth]

Again -- you and your assumptions. My point is that conservative claims of activism are ridiculous because conservatives are just as "activist" as liberals are.

They are not ridiculous. They are valid, maybe hypocritical, but valid IMO.

That's not an effort to justify one by pointing to the other; it's an effort to say that one argument is vapid because it is hypocritical. I'd say the same thing if the "activism" debate was one-sided with liberals accusing conservatives of such a thing.

you will not hear that argument from liberals, because they agree with that type of judiciary. conservatives profess not to agree, so it would be nice to hear liberals hold them accountable. Instead, liberals are content with conservatives getting away with it as long as liberals get to do the same thing. The only people fighting for change are some conservatives, as one-sided as they may be.