Skip to comments.McCain Gives the Right Its Judges
Posted on 05/07/2008 9:47:32 PM PDT by The_Republican
There is no mystery to the missing lightning rods. John McCain neglects to volunteer the names of Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as model jurists for an obvious reason.
The acid-tongued Scalia and the silent-but-no-less-extreme Thomas tend to scare the sort of moderate, swing voters upon whose good will the presumptive Republican nominee's reputation as a maverick -- and chances for the White House -- rests. So the straight-talker hit the delete button on Scalia and Thomas when he gave his speech on the federal judiciary at Wake Forest University on Tuesday. He inserted instead the names of Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito as his judicial icons.
This has all the significance of substituting Pepsi for Coke.
President Bush appointed Roberts and Alito to placate the partisans of the right, who fixate on the courts as the branch of government through which they can further their agenda for decades to come, regardless of those unpredictable elections that determine control of Congress and the White House. Roberts and Alito have been stalwart partners of Scalia and Thomas, the two justices candidate Bush held up as models in 2000. Together, they've pushed the high court further rightward. The four have voted together, for example, to make it all but impossible for a woman to bring a successful pay discrimination suit, and for school districts to voluntarily promote racial diversity in their schools.
The history of Alito's ascension to the Supreme Court reveals the meaning of the epithet "Scalito." After the right wing pummeled Bush for having nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor -- the first woman justice who incensed conservatives with her center-right moderation -- the Miers nomination was withdrawn and Alito was put forward.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
OK. I will vote for MCain, then.
So eager to believe the vote-stumping McCain....
In other words, conservative jurisprudence leaves much more leeway to the legislatures than left-wing jurisprudence, which appoints judges as elite, roving super-legislators who can impose their values regardless of the legislature's decision and regardless of what the Constitution actually says.
This author is a complete idiot. Scalia and Thomas believe in deferring to Democracy instead of an oligarchical activist court when answering difficult moral questions— I guess this means that the democrats are against democracy.
“McCain Gives the Right Its Judges”
He’ll give the right judges that Ted Kennedy approves of and nothing more.
Not without 60 Senate votes.
Even the cases of outrage that McCain recited from the conservative canon are suspect ... the five-member majority in that decision [Kelo] included three Republican appointees.
Notice his leaving out the pertinent fact that it was three of the four judges he just vilified that where on the right side of that one (Alito wasn't on the bench yet). Demonstrating why having Republican judges on the bench isn't good enough, we need conservative judges.
What agenda? All I want is for the courts to uphold the constitution, not usurp the power of congress. I'm not looking for the judges to make legislation, rather I want them to leave it to the states and the congress where it belongs.
I think McCain might nominate someone who is equal to or more conservative than Anthony Kennedy. The problem with McCain is that when the Dems denied him his nominee, Mr. Gang of 14 would say, “well, I tried” and then give us a Stevens or Blackmun, or worse, a Souter. His conservatism is not ingrained, it is convenient, and would be conveniently dropped.
Don't go counting on McCain to appoint originalist judges.
mccain has also flip flopped on amnesty saying it has to be “comprehensive” when he had said securing the border would come first .
Wait a minute, I like Pepsi better than Coke!
This post (<-click) goes into more detail as to why epidemic constitutional ignorance, even at the highest levels of the federal government, is giving corrupt justices the license to walk all over our constitutional rights. In fact, the off-target articles are evidence of this widespread constitutional ignorance.
You all three make good points here. At Bay is on the same wave length I am.
On January 20th, 2009, John McCain stands a good chance of being sworn in as President of the United States. As part of that oath, he will swear to abide by the Constitution of the United States.
Article IV Section Four of the U. S. Constitution states (paraphrased), “The President SHALL protect the states from invasion.” Right now we have between 20 and 35 million illegal immigrants inside our nation. Is John planning to enforce U. S. laws so that the states are protected from invasion? No. He is not only not planning to enforce those laws so they will leave, he is planning to reward them by turning them into U. S. Citizens, a complete betrayal of his oath of office.
Okay, who in their right mind could possibly say, “I”ll trust this guy to... (fill in the blank)?”
McCain is a no-go. I can’t trust the man on any single issue. Even his military bonifides are in question due to his stance on Gitmo, water boarding, Geneva Convention status, and granting terrorists admission to our court system.
The man is certifiably nuts. Even when it would be in his best interest to avoid the immigration issue so he can get elected, he still can’t help shooting his mouth off on the subject. He will not listen to Cosnervatives, even if they are only showing support for the U. S. Constitution itself. Anyone who can’t control himself better than that, should be the last person we want in the Whtie House, or to be the leader of the Conservative movement in the United States.
John is unfit to serve in the White House.
Before or after he cedes California to "La Raza"?