Improperly Defining the Role of the Court

I just got this Tweet from ABC's Jake Tapper regarding a statement by Obama regarding what he's looking for in a Supreme Court nominee:

...emphasized law to next SCOTUS nominee shouldnt be "abstract legal theory" but way to improve peoples lives

This is so wrong on so many levels. It's not the job of the courts to "improve people's lives", it's their job to interpret the law according to the Constitution of the United States. And sometimes their decisions, when they properly interpret the law, may not improve people's lives. That's just the way it works.

Compare that statement to what now Chief Justice Roberts had to say at his confirmation hearing:

ROBERTS: I had someone ask me in this process, I don't remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, "Are you going to be on the side of the little guy," and you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that I'll look out for particular interests; I'll be on the side of particular interests. The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do.

That, my friends, is how it's supposed to be done. And that's exactly what the left hates because Roberts never agreed to rule based on his "feelings" or "political correctness".

One more thing while I'm on a rant. If you go into the Supreme Court building and walk along the bench where the judges sit you'll see 9 chairs. The one in the middle is designate for the Chief Justice but there is no special designation for any of the others. They sit according to seniority, but nothing else. There is no "black" seat, or "women's" seat, or "liberal" seat, "conservative" seat or "moderate" seat. The seats are not assigned according to political philosophy, race, gender, or anything else.

When Sandra Day O'Conner retired Chuckie Schumer insisted that Bush had to appoint another moderate to replace O'Conner. Bush went with a conservative. I haven't heard Schumer insist that Obama replace Souter with another moderate-to-liberal like Souter. I guess when a Democrat is president he gets to appoint whoever he wants.

If I were president my selection criteria would be very simple. Bring me the resume's and background information on the very best candidates we can find, but delete the name, gender, race, and anything else that might put that person in a particular box. Let me look at their qualifications without the trivial stuff.

I'm gonna get the best person I can get for the job and let the special interests groups go pound sand.

Wouldn't it be nice if someone did that today?

By the way, the lefties think they're particularly clever in suggesting that Obama nominate Anita Hill, calling it "Clarence Thomas' Worst Nightmare". Hardly. Based on what I know about Clarence Thomas it wouldn't matter a bit to him if Hill was on the court.

And according to her fabricated testimony, she's the one that has something to be afraid of.