McCain The Judicial Conservative
John McCain came to Wake Forest University in North Carolina hoping to grab a headline during Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s protracted duel. He tried to gain the upper hand on a key presidential issue: The picking of federal judges, 3 Supreme Court justices are over 70 years old and hundreds of positions are open for federal judges. The next president will likely have the ability to shape the bench.
“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”
McCain will reaasure conservatives he’ll appoint strict constructionist judges who, as he says, will apply the constitution rather than create new law in their courts.
“My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power.”
Though McCain helped get Chief Justice John Roberts & Justice Samuel Alito (both conservative!) confirmed, some Republicans didn’t like that he led a gang of 14 moderates to broker the deal.
He calls Roberts and Alito models for the kind of judges he’d nominate, and rips Clinton and Obama for having voted against both!
“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 see it — and they see it only in each other.”
While McCain expresses respect for the federal bench, his disdain for activist judges for being arrogant and dangerous is most pointed.
“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.”
The next president could see as many as three (Stevens, Kennedy. Ginsburg) Supreme Court seats open up.
Though abortion politics can dominate such debates, McCain makes no mention of it in his prepared remarks. Like most Republicans, and unlike most Democrats, he has long promised he won’t have any abortion litmus test. He challenges Democrats to stop making confirmation hearings a partisan game of obstructionism and gotcha.
“Always hanging in the air over these tense confirmation battles is the suspicion that maybe, just maybe, a nominee for the Court will dare to be faithful to the clear intentions of the framers and to the actual meaning of the Constitution, and then no tactic of abuse or delay is out of bounds.”
Fred Thompson makes his first appearance on the trail with McCain since Thompson dropped out of the race. Thompson served as sherpa to both Roberts and Alito during their confirmation hearings, accompanying both men around the Hill as they courted senate confirmation votes.
Thompson has ruled out being both Vice President and Attorney General in a McCain administration.
Tags: Fred Thompson, judges, mccain
Share
Appointing the Judges on the Supreme Court is the single most important issue for any President followed by the support for the Second Amendment rights and then Peach through Strength. This is why I like McCain as we can count on him to press the issue of appointing strong, conservative Federal Judges. He has always pushed for conservative judges in the past; his record proves this, and we can trust that he will do it as well once he is President. Good job John McCain and this is the main issue of why you will get my vote.
Thank G_d! You are correct MIG….every other issue out there pales in comparison to this. The appointment of SCOTUS justices has an effect for decades, regardless of who the pres is!!!
No question about it. I shudder to think who Hillbilly and Obama would appoint. Why even bother having a Legislative Branch of Government in that case. Just let the Supreme Court do everything since they will change the law as they see fit regardless.
Politics in this country is so screwed up.
The Republicans claim to be “pro-Life”, yet they have little regard for the 4000+ US troops that have already died in Iraq.
The Democrats claim to be “pro-Choice”, yet they have little regard for life in the womb of it’s mother.
Our country is split over an issue which is not a political/legal issue. Abortion is a moral issue.
Everybody know abortion is morally wrong. But when a woman is raped or it has been determined that pregnancy jeopardizes the health of the mother, morally, their should be an ethical choice.
Choosing an abortion in this instance is something the mother will have to face morally, not politically nor legally.
This is more of a general question than a specific comment. Though I am against judges who blatently undercut established laws, I can’t wrap my brain around John McCains following quote:
“Always hanging in the air over these tense confirmation battles is the suspicion that maybe, just maybe, a nominee for the Court will dare to be faithful to the clear intentions of the framers and to the actual meaning of the Constitution.”
The latter part of the quote really interests me, especially: “…to be faithful to the clear intentions of the framers and to the actual meaning of the Constitution.”
The Constitution is not a very detailed document, especially when trying to establish a judicial baseline for an entire nation. Several centuries have passed since the Constitution has been written and our society has undergone significant change and will continue to do so going into the future.
Now, to take a overlyused yet important topic, abortion. No where in the Constitution is abortion mentioned, pro or con. There had to be some interpretation for Roe vs. Wade to be established and conversely there would have to be an opposing interpretation to overturn it. Doesn’t this fact in-of-itself establish some sort of de facto activism in the judicial branch and if so, where is the demarkation line between natural interpretation versus “an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors?”
michael in atlanta writes…
The Republicans claim to be “pro-Life”, yet they have little regard for the 4000+ US troops that have already died in Iraq.
The Democrats claim to be “pro-Choice”, yet they have little regard for life in the womb of it’s mother.<<<<
I have noticed that contradiction as well, however I would say that Republicans have tons of regard for the lives of soldiers but they believe that radical Islam must be crushed and the soldiers are doing their jobs that they signed up to do. I would also argue that Democrats have great regard for unborn life but view the issue as a Constitutional right of free choice and argue that making abortion illegal will not stop the practice, just make it more dangerous.
Personally, I guess you might suggest I have little regard for either as I support the war and I am pro-choice. The truth of course is that despite those positions I have great respect and caring about our soldiers as well as finding abortion a terrible practice.
Does any one really think that McCain has a chance with all his faults? I was for Huckabee, Then I was thinking McCain. But more and more, I think Hillary is the “RIGHT MAN” for the job! She has the most detailed plans and has proven she can work with republicans like Newt to solve problems and get the job done. This latest news from McCain is just sucking up to get a conservative vote.
If Republicans were true to their pro-Life position, they would have a higher regard for the “life” of our troops in Iraq. Republican support for this is not out of some high moral conviction, it is political.
If Bill Clinton started this war, Republicans would be against this war. Even John McCain ducks the discussion about how we got into this war. He is clearly embarassed by his party’s handling of the war and wants to change the discussion to “now that we ater there”, we need to send more troops to face the possibility of more death.
George Bush said over 5 years ago, that our military objective has been achieved in Iraq. Clearly, our military is the best in the worls at accomplishing a military objective. Anything other than that, our military gets bogged down. This is a lesson we should have learned in Vietnam.
i watched senator Mccain on CNN this morning & found his message thought provoking & refreshing. Why is it that the Rev Wright is allowed complete uninterupted air time on CNN & Fox News for his racist stage antics, while a pesidental candidate with a message all americans need to hear is given only a few soundbites.Media positions on broadcasting celeberty garbage instead of real issues of the greatest importance sickens me, do the right thing, not the wright thing.
I’m a practicing Catholic and unlike most religious right people (see James Dobson) I think very highly of Sen. McCain. This talk hopefully will break through the prejudice some have against him for working towards compromise in the Senate. His record in the Senate shows where he stands and the fact he is willing to work with the democrats is a plus in my mind since the democratic system is based on bi-partisanship. And because of the threat to the U.S from terrorism we need a President like McCain who will get the military what it needs and let it do its job. What we don’t need is a President who will interfere with the military by cutting down on military spending and trying to dictate how the military handles conflicts.
Comment by Ken Reilly
May 6th, 2008 at 11:53 am
I’m a practicing Catholic and unlike most religious right people (see James Dobson) I think very highly of Sen. McCain. This talk hopefully will break through the prejudice some have against him for working towards compromise in the Senate. His record in the Senate shows where he stands and the fact he is willing to work with the democrats is a plus in my mind since the democratic system is based on bi-partisanship. And because of the threat to the U.S from terrorism we need a President like McCain who will get the military what it needs and let it do its job. What we don’t need is a President who will interfere with the military by cutting down on military spending and trying to dictate how the military handles conflicts
____________________________________________________
Nicely said Ken. The irony of all this is that McCain would probably have the best chance at being a uniter based on his track record of reaching across the aisle.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=370520980
Join me, my friends~!
INDIANA , N.CAROLINA, don’t waste your vote with Obama.
For most of this election Obama was CNN golden boy shoving Obama into weak gullible voters throats, thus hurting unfairly Sen Clinton’s campaign. This is why unpatriotic Obama and his hatefull friends have been placed in a more favorable position so far.
CNN can say anything they want now but SEN CLINTON SUPPORTERS will never vote for a questionable Obama. In November we will stay home or vote Macain at least he is an american war hero who respects his country Flag and National Anthem. He will protect America from terrorists and antiamerican hatefuls.
Hillary or Macain 08!
stand by me
[...] much authority over policy that we need to ensure conservative judges make it to the bench. Hence, the following is persuasive on behalf of McCain: “Senators Obama and Clinton have very different ideas from my [...]
I will love to have another optiom. But I have 2 choices no to vote in Nomber or to go along with McCain, even when he is more Domocratic than aRepublican. Maria V.
McCain can’t even unite the former republican presidential candidates much less is he going to uniote a divided America
Alicia Curran writes…
McCain can’t even unite the former republican presidential candidates much less is he going to uniote a divided America<<<<
The reason the EXTREME right can’t stand McCain is precisely because he has a history of being willing and able to work with the left. The same cannot be said for Obama or Hillary. In truth if your priority is unity McCain is exactly the person you should be supporting.
Comment by Scott919
May 6th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Alicia Curran writes…
McCain can’t even unite the former republican presidential candidates much less is he going to uniote a divided America<<<<
The reason the EXTREME right can’t stand McCain is precisely because he has a history of being willing and able to work with the left. The same cannot be said for Obama or Hillary. In truth if your priority is unity McCain is exactly the person you should be supporting.
__________________________________________________________________
Hello Scott
You beat me to the punch.
Michael in Atlanta writes…
If Republicans were true to their pro-Life position, they would have a higher regard for the “life” of our troops in Iraq. Republican support for this is not out of some high moral conviction, it is political.<<<
No offense Michael but like most Democrats you assume that just because someone supports the war that they do not have a high regard for the lives of the troops. Indeed I would argue that Republicans probably have a higher regard for them than Democrats. I mean let’s be honest here. A bad day for our troops is a good day for the Democratic party and they know that very well. However as I have tried to explain so many times on these blogs. Democrats tend to be micro-focused and they see troops being killed and they want it to stop and they disregard the long-term impact of abandoning Iraq. Republicans, being marco-focused, see that long-term impact very well so while they hate seeing our troops being killed just as much they see it as a necessary evil that must be accepted in order to avoid a worse situation later.
Now we can argue about the long-term impact vs. the short-term impact all you want, but frankly I find it offensive when Democrats suggest that Republicans have no regard for our soldiers.
This a**hole really needs to be brought down hard.
Scott919,
First off I am not a Democrat. I am a independent voter who wants to stop the abuse of our troops by the Republicans. Do you think George Bush could have sold us on this war if we knew it would mean we would still be there 5+ years later? Do you think we would buy into this war knowing there was no clear and imminent threat from Iraq? Do you think we fully understood the Sunni vs Shi’ite situation before we went in? We were so in a rush to punish SOMEBODY after 911, we did not really care who. So, in error we thought why not Iraq? It was only after we destroyed the Iraqi military that we thought, OOPS!!. Now what. Who do we leave in charge of the country?. Who will pay for the rebuilding of that country? Who will defend this country from Al Qaeda and Iran?
Yes, if you support the continued abuse of our troops, you should be offended by my comments. To take it a step farther, the Republican’s behavior is shameful. If the Democrats had done this, I would be as equally in contempt for their behavior.
I unlike a lot of people who protest this war would be against this war even if Bill Clinton had started it.
If any political party used our troops towards a political agenda rather than the interest of our country, I would protest.
Michael in Atlanta writes…
Do you think we would buy into this war knowing there was no clear and imminent threat from Iraq?<<<<
Ahhhhh…but there was Michael. You continuously refuse to accept the reality of the petrodollar and the economic catastrophe that would have resulted in allowing Saddam to trade oil for Euros. There was a VERY clear an imminent threat from Iraq. I take issue with the administration for not being up front about it, but then again no one admits that they are going to war for economic reasons. You just don’t do that. No nation does. And BTW if people knew and understood the full impact of losing the petrodollar you are d@mn right they would support the war. In fact they would say “do anything at all to win.”
I unlike a lot of people who protest this war would be against this war even if Bill Clinton had started it.
If any political party used our troops towards a political agenda rather than the interest of our country, I would protest.<<<<
Protest your little heart out but the military of any nation past or present exists to protect not only the homeland but the economy and ideology of that nation. This war is no different than any war that has ever been waged. Now if you want to argue that war is a disgraceful practice I might agree with you however that is an idealistic perspective and we as a global culture have not evolved to the point where war can be avoided.
I hope McCain is serious about the kind of judges he will nominate. He is anything but conservative on every other issue. It’s disheartening that the republican party can’t come up with a true conservative statesman to lead this country. McCain is a pathetic excuse for a republican, somewhat of a wolf in sheep’s clothing if you ask me.
Nice article, Carl. Jerimiah Wright, lapel pins, and the Weather Underground aside, there are going to be clear, pronouced philosophical differences between John McCain and his opponent in the Fall, who I still think will be Barack Obama. (Even if Hillary does pull off the miracle comeback, she’s almost as liberal as Obama, so it doesn’t really matter.) One of the widest gaps between the candidates concerns judicial philosophy. McCain is for strict constructionist judges who interpret the law rather than try to make it themselves. Most Americans approve of this approach as opposed to the “activist” judges that liberals have advocated for years as a back-door way to impose their views on society when they couldn’t get their bills passed in the legislature. Seeing as how the next president will probably get to appoint at least two new Supreme Court justices, this should be one of THE key issues in the election this Fall.
Also, for all of Barack Obama’s soothing talk of “reaching across the aisle”, in reality it is John McCain, not Barack Obama, who has shown the political courage to seek compromise with the other party while angering his party’s “base”. Barack Obama has never done so.
Oh, and “Michael in Atlanta”, here’s a short film clip that you should view, along with anyone else who still insists on calling the Iraq conflict “Bush’s War”:
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
“I hope McCain is serious about the kind of judges he will nominate. He is anything but conservative on every other issue.”
Sorry Ginny, but that’s pure crap. John McCain has a lifetime rating of 83 (on scale of 1 to 100) from the American Conservative Union.
http://www.conservative.org/archive2/2008potus.asp
John McCain, on balance, is plenty conservative, although he’s admittedly not the foaming-at-the-mouth hard core right-wing ideologue that a small minority of the population would prefer. But that’s precisely why so many moderates and moderate conservatives like myself like him and why he is so competitive against both Clinton and Obama.
You really need to learn to think for yourself and do your own research as opposed to being told what to think by the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.
John McCain will make a great President over Obama or Hillary, I think that I will stick with McCain to run this country and to keep us safe from terrorist. Obama is in bed with to many friends in low places such as William Ayers. There was a good report on Fox News tonight about Liberals and Conservatives and it was so good that I used parts of it in my blog!
http://goodtimepolitics.com/2008/05/07/conservatives-happier-than-liberals/
Keep up the good work Carl!
McCain is the biggest friggin’ racist and the GOP supporting him simply clarifies that the “Grand Ole Party” is just a group of old
racist men that believe the white man reigns supreme. I still can’t believe that any minority would ever call themself a Republican.
I remember reading an article about the stupid racist things he’s done and said in the past…just makes my blood boil!
Check it out…
http://www.rabbledabble.com/details.asp?sID=58
“…can’t believe that any minority would ever call themself a Republican.”
Perhaps someone can enlighten me on this one but I believe that a conservative (Republican, if you will) is one who believes that personal effort and self reliance is the American way.
The opposite of this is for the government to provide ‘programs’ to feed, cloth and house its citizens which takes away personal initiative.
It follows that a ‘minority person’ expects the government to take care of him.
If I were a minority person and this is how I was categorized, I would be truly insulted.