Whoopi’s reaction to McCain’s call for “strict constructionist” judges is remarkable. After watching this clip I would love to hear some of your thoughts? And before you chime in, please do understand what EVERY intelligent human being knows when someone refers to a strict or liberal interpretation of the constitution.
Whoopi to McCain: ‘Should I Be Worried About Being a Slave Again?’
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
I think Whoppi’s remarks were idiotic. Last I checked, the Constitution included its amendments, and Amendment XIII directly addresses her question in a way that should give her reason not to worry.
I’m sure she knew that, and just wanted to say something spectacular in a manner that would create a good sound bite and make it difficult for McCain to respond in a sound bite-friendly manner.
Chris, — I honestly don’t really understand the difference between a strict and liberal interpretation of the constitution. Don’t judges of all stripes engage in interpretation? How exactly are we to know who comes closest to some notion of how the Founding Fathers would have viewed matters from a legal perspective. I agree that Whoopi’s statement is a non-starter, but it seems to me that her point is, in part, that the Founders view of the Constitution clearly differs from our own when referring to slavery. The Constitution did allow slavery and the slave trade to continue.
I’ve caught a couple of reenactments of the Dred Scott case, which could be seen as an example of “strict” interpretation. Again, I understand the difference in terms of how the distinction is in theory, but I just don’t see how it functions in practice. As far as I am concerned both sides believe they are strictly interpreting the constitution.
Man, the ladies really went after McCain on that show. Why the hell did he even agree to go on?
Greg I completely agree, Whoopi’s comment was idiotic. Her comment is full of sensationalism and a complete loss of understanding of what she speaks of… surely a product of the public educational system
…
Kevin, as a government teacher, I can tell you there are differences between what we call a “strict” and a “liberal” interpretation of the constitution.
This whole debate goes back to what we call the “Judicial Review” ruling and Marbury vs. Madison; a decision which gave the judicial branch the right, though never mentioned in the constitution, to decide the constitutionality of a government action.
Judicial Review can profoundly affect how the constitution, the law of the land, is understood. By “strict” we are saying this non-elected official, a judge, simply looks at the constitution and decides whether or not IT is in there or not. By saying “liberal,” we are saying this non-elected official decides what he/she “thinks” was “meant” by the words in the constitution.
So, the problem is about non-elected judges legislating from the bench, perhaps unconstitutionally (?), when that is what and why we elect congressmen and women. They are after all our legislators and are to make the law. The role of the judicial branch is what is at stake. A fairly important and serious issue, frankly.
Did that help Kevin?
And as far as McCain going on that show, it displays he is not afraid to take hard questions and place himself in a VERY uncomfortable situation. It’s up to the American people to decide if that was a good or bad thing, and how this compares to his opponent?
Thanks all for your comments!
Chris
I think some folks call themselves “strict constructionalists” when they can be quite adventurous—to the right.
Certainly some African Americans, from Thurgood Marshall* to apparently Whoopi Goldberg, have a jaundiced view of the “original intent” of the founders.
As far as Senator McCain being roughly handled, well, nobody forced him to run for president, or say some of the things he has. As I’m sure he would be eager to remind you, he has suffered worse.
Of course, I’m about as qualified to speak in an informed way, on the Constitution as Whoopi is. But more learned scholars have asked the question: Was the Constitution a proslavery document?
*Marshall famously described the original Constitution as a flawed document, that required the Civil War to fix. I’m sure I’m misquoting him, but words to that effect.
I AM qualified to speak on the issue, and Chris, your own personal bias certainly comes through in your definition.
Eric
Eric, please explain. How do I have a bias in this and how is that expressed? I mean you could not make that comment in a court of law and get a way with it, without evidence at least. So please tell me? And am I to assume that if someone was bias then that kind of conjecture on their website is to you obscene or improper, which you imply by commenting? You know, I read your blog a regular basis and do recall some pretty pointed and one can say nonobjective posts. So you need to let me know how I am bias and how I express that cuz reviewing my answer, I am at a loss.
Whoopi’s comment would’ve deserved to be soundly ridiculed if it had come from someone other than Whoopi Goldberg. Does anyone really take anything a second-rate comedian turned daytime talkshow host says seriously? I hope not, but maybe I’m giving John and Jane Q American a little too much credit.
As Greg the previous commentor noted the Constitution includes all of its ammendments, thereby rendering Whoopi’s remark superfluous and uninformed.
Chris,
Your statements about legislating from the bench are the ones that reflect the bias.
Eric
“Whoopi’s comment would’ve deserved to be soundly ridiculed if it had come from someone other than Whoopi Goldberg. Does anyone really take anything a second-rate comedian turned daytime talkshow host says seriously? I hope not, but maybe I’m giving John and Jane Q American a little too much credit.”
Wow. this may be true, but everyone is title to their on thoughts and opinions which may vary and be disapproved due to their logic, which ofcourse brings me to the subject that Whoopi isn’t certified enough for my logic. Her comments fail to me.
I get a little tired of the “everyone’s entitled to their own opinions” line for defending every absurd utterance. Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinon, but that doesn’t mean some opinions are not utterly idiotic. Of course, that’s just my opinion, which I am entitled to.