- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Barack Obama is lighting political brushfires on a daily basis. It’s his strategy for keeping opposition divided, off-balance, demoralized.
It’s hard to keep up with all of his actions, his scandals, his war on America and the Constitution.
Even with a daily column (and how many people do you know who write a daily column?), I find it overwhelming to keep up with his abusive, condescending rhetorical assaults on free enterprise, his stonewalling of the facts and truth about his administration, his targeting of political adversaries and his lifetime appointments to powerful positions of ideological clones who will follow his Cloward-Piven, Alinskyite script for decades to come.
But let’s talk about one of the latter – the appointment of Pamela Harris to a lifetime job as judge on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Though most Americans still don’t know her name, her nomination to this powerful position was approved by the U.S. Senate without a single Republican vote and opposition from two Democrats.
It’s worth noting just how radical this constitutional heretic is because she represents a clear and present danger to our life and liberty for the foreseeable future – and she will do it in comfort at our expense.
In 2008, Harris explained how she views the Constitution. Read it carefully. Like so many radicals, indoctrinated into their views in academia, her thought process is truncated, dysfunctional and reliant on recalling the perverse lessons of Howard Zinn.
“I just don’t think that any account of the Constitution that even seems to – even seems to – privilege the Constitution as it was originally ratified, or even what people remember as it was amended particularly during the Reconstruction period, I don’t think it’s consistent with the way most people do – and the way we should – think about the Constitution. Yes, the values, the principles, on some level of generality, are there at the beginning, but they take their meaning – and they should take their meaning – from what comes after. And most particularly, and this is my source of legitimacy, most particularly, from what the people do at these critical junctures – the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the gay rights movement, when they reconstitute what it is we’re talking about when we talk about American constitutional tradition, when we say words like equality and liberty, when we change what they mean because of what the people themselves have done.”
She lets it all hang out there. This is the foundation for totalitarian thinking: The elite knows best. All others, go to hell. The letter of the law be damned. The rule of law be damned. The law is what we say it is.
Here’s another gem from her a year later:
“And I always feel unapologetically, you know, left to my own devices, my own best reading of the Constitution, it’s pretty close to where I am. Because I think the Constitution is a profoundly progressive document. I think it’s born of a progressive impulse. I think particularly, as amended in the Reconstruction era, it is committed to principles like equality and liberty and individual dignity, and I’m a profoundly liberal person so we [the Constitution and I] match up pretty well. I make no apologies for that. I think it’s a great document. And I think as amended, and as interpreted, and the method, with the people of good will … it is something we can all be really proud of.”
She’s in favor of she and her friends (people of goodwill) rewriting the Constitution in their own image. That’s what we got with this Obama appointment. Do you understand how important control of the Senate is in this midterm election year?
Here’s one more from Judge Harris:
“I sometimes wonder whether when we think about someone like Chief Justice Warren … whether we almost have, by now, a stunted sense of what the legal choices really are, what really is a liberal legal outcome, whether we sometimes almost think circularly: Well, if Chief Justice Warren came out that way, that must be as liberal as it gets, whether we’re reasoning backwards a little bit. … And so I worry that sometimes when we look back, particularly at the work of the justices in the 1960s and 1970s, there’s almost an inclination to assume that must be as liberal as it gets. That’s not right! I think that we’ve stunted the spectrum of legal thought in a way that removes the possibility that there could have been more progressive readings of the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment.”
You can read the plain text here, and if you are not a “progressive” thinker like Harris, you can understand what she is saying. But I’ll shorthand it for you: The Earl Warren Supreme Court was way too conservative. That’s the bottom line.
I could provide more amazing quotes from this hyper-activist judge, but I think you get the point.
We simply cannot allow Obama to continue to stack the judiciary branch of government in ways that will deprive our children and grandchildren of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in ways too innumerable to count.
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.