Obama and SCOTUS

Barack Obama had some interesting thoughts on two of the Supreme Court decisions this week that would seem to indicate he’s trending to the middle. First, the court decided that child rape was not a Capital Crime. Obama told reporters yesterday that his decision to oppose the ruling was an emotional one as he has two daughters around the age of the victim, though his statement disappointed death penalty opponents and some progressives. Obama previously said he’s a reluctant supporter of the death penalty, and he clearly didn’t fall into the Kitty Dukakis trap with this answer.

The second decision came today, repealing DC’s gun ban (we’ll all be wearing flak jackets soon). An unnamed Obama aide last year told the Chicago Tribune that Obama thought the ban was constitutional, a position the campaign later called “inartful”. Obama today said he supports the decision, though he’d like to close gun law loopholes (the campaign’s full statement is after the jump). Asked about Obama’s apparent change in position on a conference call with reporters, Bill Burton said: “Senator Obama has been 100% consistent in saying that the second amendment protects the rights for citizens to bear arms.” David Plouffe was quick to add, “We want to make sure sportsman and hunters understand that Barack Obama protects the second amendment.”

Of course, there’s little Obama would be able to do to about either ruling, even as president. So, his comments come purely as opinions that give voters an idea of where he stands on the political spectrum.

Update:
My colleague Massimo Calabresi has this smart take on the same subject.


“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.”

Subscribe to Jay Newton-Small on Facebook
Related Topics: child rape, guns, scotus, Barack Obama, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

blog comments powered by Disqus