Obama Slams McCain on Supremes

by: Daniel De Groot

Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 20:26

On Thursday, I praised Obama's statement about Boumediene, and noted that he should try and make the Supreme Court a unifying issue. Well, on Saturday he did (Not that I had anything to do with it).

Obama hits McCain, oil companies
WAYNE, Pa. (AP) -- Democrat Barack Obama told voters Saturday he would push an aggressive economic agenda as president: cutting taxes for the middle class, raising taxes on the wealthy, pouring money into "green energy" and requiring employers to set up retirement saving plans for their workers.

Oh wait. There's nothing about it in there. Yeah, it's buried in paragraph 14:

Obama said McCain would be likely to appoint Supreme Court nominees who would allow states to outlaw abortion. "You're just one justice away from that," he said, alluding to the court's narrow ideological divisions.

Still, not Obama's fault the media buried it. I only discovered it because DigitalJournal.com had a much better article title. They also cover some additional, praiseworthy remarks from Obama:

Daniel De Groot :: Obama Slams McCain on Supremes

"John McCain has basically said he would appoint judges who don't see a right to privacy, and as a consequence, would be likely to overturn Roe v Wade," Obama said to a small group at the town hall meeting. He added: "You're just one justice away from that."
Obama would cite John Stevens, Senior Associate Justice, as an example. He said that someone like Stevens could possibly retire soon. Obama said that it would happen when either he or McCain is in office. Then, he proceeded to explain who is elected will affect the decisions that are ruled on in the lower courts.

While I applaud the remark, I can't help but think he can easily transition from that right to privacy remark, into an anti-FISA cave-in statement sometime. A right to privacy should extend to upholding the literal and original intent of the plain text 4th amendment, with no interpretation required.

Anyway, this wasn't just a one time thing, as Obama brought this up again today, and it seems the media is catching on a bit:

Obama Hits at McCain's Appeal to Women
'He's Been on the Wrong Side' of Women's Issues, Obama Tells ABC News
[...]
"You know, he is in favor of judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. He has opposed equal pay. He has opposed the CHIP [Children's Health Insurance] program, that would make children insured," Obama said.

This hits on several of the issues we're all busy plugging in the SEO McCain campaign, so Obama is hitting the right notes, and combining more than one issue. Good for him.

Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, SCOTUS, media, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View Send As Email

Obama Slams McCain on Supremes | 4 comments

requiring employers to set up retirement saving plans for their workers (0.00 / 0)

seriously, love the guy, but this kind of stuff has to stop. give me my money now, in cash, ktnksbye.

after watching corporation after corporation back out of, whittle down, and undermine their pension funds why on earth would any worker ever ever ever trust an employer to create a retirement account. give me my money NOW.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

by: Will @ Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 23:15:57 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Employee-controlled (0.00 / 0)

Obama isn't arguing that companies are mandated to set up the traditional sort of pension plans they've been defaulting on. Instead, as I understand it, he's arguing that companies should be required to offer 401(k) or similar plans, and that part of workers' wages should be diverted to the plans unless they opt out. That's a very different sort of proposition, aimed at making participation rates in retirement plans much higher.

And yes, I think Obama should keep talking about the Supreme Court, and it would be good to see him come down hard on wiretapping as part of it.

by: BP @ Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 23:39:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the small business dilemma (0.00 / 0)

401K plans where employers would be required to pay in sounds like a good idea on the surface. But here is my concern with this sort of thing. This might become yet another item which gives big business an advantage over small businesses. This could work like Health Care and Soc Security contributions. These mandates from the govt make it harder for small companies to compete, above and beyond the usual. Big companies can shoulder these costs better through the number of people they are servicing. In terms of Health care they can buy pool plans at lower cost - so even if a small business wanted to offer its workers health care, it costs them more. With 401Ks big companies get the advantage of doing deals with companies like fidelity for managing those funds; small companies can get deals too I imagine, but they're not going to get a similar size kick back. Holding 401K dollars gives some nice financial options to companies - even small ones, but it scales up with the size of the fund. The social security split payout is simply a killer to individual operators and small businesses. The paper work is an incredible hassle, and the money is a steak to the heart. Especially for individual operators who generally are competing on hourly rates, but can't get enough of a bump to offset the double Soc Sec hit. For parity it would really be best if at least health care where universally provided so big companies could not get a purchase price advantage, and if all workers payed the full social security rate, rather than having an employer contribution. Its a fantasy that workers are getting "free" money from their employers, its just part of their whole compensation package; if employers were released of this burden then employees would get the money as salary and make the full payment to the govt. This would dramatically increase competitiveness for small businesses and individuals.

Lastly, on 401K mandatory contributions, its interesting - I understand the incentive. But I think it would be far far far better if employees were free to dictate which funds their money were put into. Just as an IRA works, including withdrawal penalties. The vast majority of people would likely just use whatever funds the company offers by default, but at least people would be free to control their own money if they want, and reduce the degree to which big companies can use this to gain a financial advantage.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

by: Will @ Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:58:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

just two days ago (0.00 / 0)

I was talking to my 60-something cousin in Florida who told me the Supreme Court is pretty much the only reason he'll vote for Obama (though it would help if Obama chose a VP he liked, such as Biden).

I've argued before that the Supreme Court is the trump card that has great potential to bring non-supporters on board with Obama:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by: desmoinesdem @ Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 00:49:39 AM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Obama Slams McCain on Supremes | 4 comments