AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > November > 07
Friday, November 7, 2008
What is the single most important ramification of the election?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
My favorite election night photo? The cheering crowds in front of the White House, our nation’s house, forever immune to foreclosure. It reminded me of a recent family trip to the capital, when I had the pleasure of showing my 6-year-old around D.C. Katie was particularly excited to see 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Yet instead of being thrilled, she was initially disappointed — with the guards, the gate and my explanation that we couldn’t just walk inside anytime we felt like it.
Barack Obama’s long, hard walk to that house has been elevated not just by his history-making status but by the overwhelming numbers walking alongside him. More people voted than ever before in our history, and a Democrat hasn’t reached this percentage since the Lyndon Johnson/Barry Goldwater landslide in 1964.
Indeed, the level and intensity of turnout in this election has brought all of us to an enthusiasm for democratic participation unprecedented in my lifetime. And just who has most inspired this development? A liberal who will govern from the center when he should, a former constitutional law professor who treasures that document too much to tamper with its timeless foundation.
Now is hardly the time to suddenly be concerned with leadership that “fundamentally changes our balance of power.” After eight years of Dick Cheney, most Americans are looking forward to a restoration of civil liberties, not further erosion. And despite partisan efforts at demonization through rhetoric, “activism” swings both ways. Recent appointments to the Supreme Court have brought us Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas—all far more ideological and passionate in their views than, say, Stephen Breyer — a Bill Clinton appointee.
Shaunti and I agree on one important thing this week: Obama’s election makes us proud to be Americans. The morning after, my youngest daughter Katie grinned upon hearing the results. Then a frown crossed over her face. “But how will Barack Obama get into the White House?” she asked me, clearly remembering our visit last summer. “He doesn’t have the keys and the gate is locked.”
I reached down and gave her a squeeze. I thought about the huge volunteer party I had witnessed the night before. Complete strangers, black and white, gazed at a television screen in disbelief before falling, crying, into one another’s arms.
“Not anymore” I told her.
Services »
Commentary
By Shaunti Feldhahn
Before I tackle this week’s topic, I must first congratulate Barack Obama. Even the election of a man with whom I deeply disagree makes me proud to be an American. I will probably object to his policy priorities, but the ascendance of our first African- American president - someone who worked hard for the quintessential American dream — is something we can all applaud.
But I also respect him enough to have no reservations about pointing out a critical ramification of his election. Obama’s presidency looks likely to push the Supreme Court and our entire court system in a direction that fundamentally changes our balance of power and how our Constitution is viewed.
As envisioned by the framers of America’s government, judges must dispassionately interpret the law or the Constitution - in other words, regardless of how they personally feel. Impartial judges with lifetime appointments were a balance of power to elected legislators and chief executives whose creation of law based on personal preferences had to answer to “we the people.” But in recent decades we’ve seen activist judges ascribe to the “Living Constitution” theory and essentially create policy based on how they feel the world should be - something supposedly reserved for elected representatives. Further, because activist judges are by definition less conservative, they are activist in only one direction, creating a purely ideological, not judicial, liberal check on the will of the people.
In a 2007 Planned Parenthood speech, Obama said judges should have “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. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” There it is: judges with empathy, not dispassionate impartiality.
Dozens of vacancies exist on federal appeals and district courts and we’ll see many more in coming years. Not to mention multiple retirements of activist Supreme Court justices who would have been replaced by strict constructionists had McCain won.
Obama’s election is history-making, and I sincerely congratulate him and those jubilant at his election. At the same time, I hope he - as a former constitutional law professor - will be willing to put personal preferences aside and do the right thing for our Constitution.