Jeff Schreiber brings up some very valid and salient points regarding Sen. Obama’s views of radical judicial activism in the following 2001 video:

Obama actually takes the stance that while the US Constitution shows what the government cannot do, it doesn’t stipulate what the government can do.

Do we really want to go down this slippery slope any further than we have?

Whatever happened to simply proposing a Constitutional Amendment if we really want the document changed?

-Phil

---

Update: 
“…John McCain’s campaign has put its imprimatur on it…”

---

Update:
Fox News’ Megyn Kelly absolutely takes off on Obama spokeman Bill Burton:

---

 Update:

• Redistribution flashback: 1996

---

Update:
Now it’s Fox Business News’ Neil Cavuto’s turn:

---

Update:
Jeff provides a link to a wsj.com article concerning how the SCOTUS and Federal bench could change under an Obama administration (excerpt of a few last paragraphs):

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a “tax cut” to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” Mr. Obama’s emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation’s courtrooms.