Posted on 05/06/2008 11:18:58 AM PDT by Red Steel
Winston-Salem, NC — Sen. John McCain slammed his Democratic rivals’ judicial philosophy and railed against “activist judges” who show “little regard” for the Constitution and even “less interest” for the interests of the American people, during a speech today at Wake Forest University.
“Some federal judges operate by fiat, shrugging off generations of legal wisdom and precedent while expecting their own opinions to go unquestioned. Only their favorite precedents are to be considered “settled law,” and everything else is fair game,” McCain said, addressing more than 2,000 University students, staff and faculty at the college’s Wait Chapel, before turning his attention to the Democrats. “”Senators Obama and Clinton have very different ideas from my own. They are both lawyers themselves, and don’t seem to mind at all when fundamental questions of social policy are preemptively decided by judges instead of by the people and their elected representatives. Nor have they raised objections to the unfair treatment of judicial nominees.”
McCain focused much of his fire at the Democratic frontrunner and continued to paint Sen. Barack Obama as elitist and out of touch–rebuking the Illinois Senator for using “vague words” to justify judicial activism and maintaining standards that “proved too lofty” to vote to confirm the “brilliant, fair-minded” Chief Justice John Roberts.
“He went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee,” McCain said, as he completed a two-day swing through the Tar Heel state partially meant to steal some attention from the Democrats competing in today’s primary. “Somehow, by Senator Obama’s standard, even Judge Roberts didn’t measure up. And neither did Justice Samuel Alito. Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they
(Excerpt) Read more at embeds.blogs.foxnews.com ...
What the hell is history for then bud? It boggles the mind to watch folks flail around as if they didn’t have any history to look at.
Oh, he voted for Ginsberg? Well, I’m going to support him because I don’t want more judges like Ginsberg!!!
These triple backward flips of logic are sure lost on me.
And yet:
1. He told a group of supporters that he would NOT appoint judges like Alito because “that guy wears his conservatism on his sleeve.”
2. He knows that judges in the Rehnquist-Roberts-Alito mold would be more likely to overturn his signature achievement, McCain-Feingold, given the chance.
3. He loves to accommodate Democrats and he knows that the Dimmycraps will NEVER allow judges like that to get coonfirmed; and
4. He was the leader of the so-called “Gang of Fourteen” which deraield the prospect of forcing through cofirmation of several of President Bush’s nominations — especially the ones most in the mold of the judges he now says he likes.
Let’s be honest: we’ve gotten these promises from every Republican Presiential nominee, then we’ve gotten justices like Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and so very many others.
McCain also says he’ll secure the borders, but at the same time he says he’d sign a bill like the amnesty bill that bore his name.
Juan McVain simply isn’t telling you the truth. There is no “straight talk” there — he talks out of both sides of his mouth, like any other politician infected with a bad case of Potomac fever.
Sen. John McCain slammed his Democratic rivals’ judicial philosophy and railed against “activist judges” who show “little regard” for the Constitution and even “less interest” for the interests of the American people,
What a pos!
This (blank) has NO ROOM to talk. He wants his freaking AMNESTY back.
"McCain said, and the lesson I learned from it is we’ve got to have comprehensive immigration reform.”You didn't LEARN anything you (blank)ing idiot! You and your buddy Kennedy's 'comprehensive immigration reform' was the whole dam problem.
Lotta luck getting elected with your moderate crossover Dem's and illegals, senator Sh*t For Brains.
You know, this actually gets downright comical. No matter what John has done, there’s an excuse for it.
Why is it that we excuse John but don’t excuse Ted Kennedy? Why don’t we excuse Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, Reed... hell, every Democrat? If it doesn’t matter what people do, we’re wasting our time here.
It’s truly shocking to come here to a conservative forum and watch the unmitigated gaul expressed by folks who are going to support John McCain no matter what he has ever done.
So why did he vote for Ginsburg?
John McCain, doing the Pandering that Conservatives won’t do!
I didn’t click the link - is this really from a SATIRE “news” site?
See post #22 for the REASONS you won’t get what you want.
>>It is almost a given that Ginsburg (health and family issues) and Stevens (88 years old) will be replaced next. Even if McCain only could get moderates to replace them, it would still shift the court to the right.<<
Thank you!
Thank you too!!!!
The biggest problem with the courts is actually the people. The people are the problem because ignorance of the Constitution and how the government is supposed to work is epidemic. Widespread constitutional ignorance is evidenced by the following links.
http://tinyurl.com/npt6tThe consequence of widespread constitutional ignorance is that the people are impotent to stop activist judges from walking all over our constitutional freedoms.
http://tinyurl.com/hehr8
The way that we got into this mess with respect to activist judges versus constitutional ignorance, in my opinion, is as follows.
Judicial activism took a turn for the worst in the days of FDR's dirty politics. This is because FDR got the USSC to give the green light to his constitutionally unauthorized New Deal programs; the Court scandalously politically repealed 10th A. protected state powers in order to give FDR what he wanted. And by politically nuking 10th A. protected state powers, FDR foolishly created a political situation where there's now "nothing" in the Constitution that stops corrupt justices from allowing the feds to interefere with state affairs. And decades of activist justices ignoring 10th A. protected state powers has ultimately weakened traditional family values.
As a side note, this post (<-click), while addressing tax issues, provides more details as to how the 10th A. stood in the way of FDR establishing his New Deal programs.
And this post (<-click) gives examples of how corrupt justices then began using FDR's "license" to ignore 10th A. protected state powers to eventually stifle traditional family values. The USSC's scandalous legalization of abortion and today's suppression of ID discussion in public school classrooms are examples of this corruption.
Again, because of widespread ignorance of the Constitution and its history, it seems that the best that response that people have given to Constitution-ignoring activist judges is to sit on their hands with their mouths wide open.
The bottom line is that, instead of blaming everything on activist judges, the people need to reconnect with the Founder's intentions for the division of federal and government state powers. The people then need to get in the faces of the feds, demanding that the feds start respecting the Constitution that they have sworn to defend, particularly where wrongly ignored 10th A. protected state powers are concerned. This not only includes allowing religion-related discussions in public schools while respecting people's 14th A. protections, but also putting a stop to all constitutionally unauthorized federal spending while appropriately lowering federal taxes.
And now we have basically an evenly divided court with most of the decisions going 5-4 our way. We may get hoodwinked on some, but lately we have been doing better.
Actually, we are. Dr. Alan Keyes will be on the ballot probably in every state. Barr or whomever the libertarians pick will likely be on most of them also. Pastor Baldwin will be on several. There are conservatives of all stripes for whom you could vote. You don't vhe to vote for Juan the RINO.
Actually, we are. Dr. Alan Keyes will be on the ballot probably in every state. Barr or whomever the libertarians pick will likely be on most of them also. Pastor Baldwin will be on several. There are conservatives of all stripes for whom you could vote. You don't vhe to vote for Juan the RINO.
Actually, we are. Dr. Alan Keyes will be on the ballot probably in every state. Barr or whomever the libertarians pick will likely be on most of them also. Pastor Baldwin will be on several. There are conservatives of all stripes for whom you could vote. You don't have to vote for Juan the RINO.
I’d believe this message coming from Fred Thompson. But McCain? Gimme a break.
Yes, JOHN, they are called 'LIBERALS'. Hint, Hint.
So do I. You're not going to get that from Juan McVain.
You know why. Because Johnny Boy has an R after his name, which means anything he does is right, whereas the others have Ds after their names, which means anything they do is wrong.
Moderates like Souter and Stevens? That's the kind of judge we get from Establishment RINOs, time afteer time after time.
Exactly! It’s sure nice to see that someone gets it. There are times when I almost feel like the only guy on the planet that does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.