Obama's scary take on the judicial system

There are many ways a person can pick which presidential candidate to vote for. Factors such as the candidate's stance on issues, their abilities as a world leader and their appearance all play vital roles. Personally, my decision is heavily influenced by what type of judges they will appoint.

It didn't used to matter which judges a president appointed. For example, you will vote for certain local judges this coming election. Does anyone talk about them? Have you even heard of any of them? Probably not. The reason why is that unless you break the law and appear before them, these judges usually don't have that much influence on your lives. It usually doesn't even make an enormous difference which judge you appear before either. The law is the law and they will carry it out. And that's how it should be.

However, more and more often, that is not how it is. Activist judges commonly disregard the law as they invent new rules for society to live by. One current controversial issue is the definition of marriage. In every single election the issue was raised in, without exception, voters decided to define marriage as between one man and one woman. However, judges in Massachusetts didn't take public opinion into account. In that case, three or four people imposed their will upon millions and changed the law as they saw fit.

By now, many people are confused about the definition of marriage and you might have your own opinions. But what about the definition of "parents?" You can't redefine "parents" can you? Let's say you have a kid and someone you don't like, and who is not related to you or your child, sues for partial custody. Should you as a parent be forced to surrender some custodial rights to this unwanted outsider? Certain judges in Colorado think so. By making up a term called "psychological parents," judges have given power to people who were "involved" in the child's life to demand rights normally reserved for real parents. Do any of you voters think this is a bad idea? Too bad.

It doesn't matter what you think. The judges know better than you.

Now let's examine what our presidential candidates think about how judges should make their decisions. McCain is pretty traditional, saying he will appoint judges who will strictly interpret the law and not use emotion as a basis for making decisions. Obama, to put it lightly, has the most radical view on the role of judges I have ever heard. Instead of strictly ruling based on law, he believes judges should decide cases based on their personal feelings and beliefs, especially if it is in favor of a minority.

To quote him, "We need somebody who's got 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."

Obama wants judges who make extremely powerful decisions based on their "feelings." Not only will civil lawsuits go through the roof, further destroying our economy, but more radical judges will have free rein to impose their agendas on us. Nothing is off limits; not gender, not children, not even Christmas. Not even the president has that much power, and they won't be gone in four years.

There will be change. And you won't have a say.

Hiromitsu Masuda can be reached at masuda.9@osu.edu