More Active Posts
Front Page
McCain explains judiciary policy
 |
 4 Comments |
Trying to garner attention in an election dominated by Democratic shenanigans, Sen. John McCain spoke on judiciary policy Tuesday, calling it “one of the defining issues of this presidential election.” Yet, God-o-Meter says conservatives will be concerned by the themes that were noticeably absent in McCain’s address – Roe v. Wade, abortion, religious liberty, gay marriage – and will still worry about McCain’s seeming “lack of passion for hot button social issues.”
In the speech delivered at Wake Forest University, the presumptive Republican nominee sounded tones traditionally popular among conservatives, taking a hard-line Constitutionalist stance that criticized judicial activism and the unfair treatment of court nominees. McCain blamed the preemption of our checks-and-balances Federal system on the “common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power.”
McCain used this theme to distance himself from Democratic candidates Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton, assuring his audience that, “My two prospective opponents and I have very different ideas about the nature and proper exercise of judicial power. We would nominate judges of a different kind, a different caliber, a different understanding of judicial authority and its limits.”
Yet, exactly what the words “of a different caliber” mean to McCain remains vague. Some conservatives are eager to interpret his critique of judicial activism as an almost-definite promise to appoint pro-life nominees. Others note, however, that he has said no such thing.
McCain’s call for “strict constitutionality” in the courts may not be enough to ensure his judges will be pro-life, pro-marriage, or even pro-constitution. Daily Kos says McCain is equating judicial constitutionality with judicial cooperation with the Executive branch. In the American Spectator, Quin Hillyer complains that there was nothing in his recent speech “to evince an understanding that a good judge should be deferential not primarily to the elected branches, but to the Constitution.”
If this is the case, McCain’s position on hot button social issues is far from irrelevant to the type of judges he will nominate, and this statement is far more ominous: ”I have my own standards of judicial ability, experience, philosophy, and temperament.”
 |
Topic: Campaign 2008, Front Page, The Nation |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: John-McCain, judiciary philosophy |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |  |
Share this: |
Don’t blame racism
One of the things that McCain wanted to get across was that he voted to confirm Breyer and Ginsberg, the two most liberally socialist judges ever to be on the Supreme Court, yet Obama and Clinton did not vote to confirm Alito or Roberts.
He is making his point that he routinely works with and compromises with the other side of the aisle on all kinds of issues to unite the country and that Hillary and Obama do not, never have and never will work with any conservative or Republican on the other side of the aisle on any issues period.
McCain can point tot his judicial confirmations above, McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform where he took heat from the right, McCain Kennedy Education and Immigration bills where he took heat from the right, voting no on tax cuts with the left, voting no on the first Gulf War with the left, voting against Bush’s supreme court justices with the left.
McCain is as left as Hillary but slightly to the right of the Marxist Obama.
He has cut Obama off at the knees and Obama can no longer lie that he is the future hope of America who has and will work with the other side to unite the country rather than divide it. McCain has that turf clearly covered by himself - and he is not lying about it.
It sounds as if McCain is saying he favors judges and justices who apply “clear and rigorous constitutional reasoning.” He further indicates his displeasure with judicial activism. What is the problem here?
I agree with Llama that McCain has “that turf” –that he is willing to work with the other side. He is not lying. He has the proof. Now, I realize that’s going to upset a lot of super-conservative people, but the truth is, if you want to accomplish anything, you do have to work with the other side to reach a consensus. No one here is going to get everything they want — not the president, the congress, nor any of us.
I also agree with Gil, that if McCain is displeased with judicial activism, that this is a good thing. It means, to me, that he will appoint judges who won’t make things up. What more can you ask for?
The big issue is that if people want judges sitting on the bench that apply the Law in an unbiased manner, the President may nominate judges that may be what we would term “conservative”, but it won’t make a hill of beans if the Senate does not approve those nominees.
The Bottom Line is that the RNC sold the American people out when they got in bed with Jack Abramoff. The American people want leaders that lead by example. The Republicans have lost their base by not holding themselves to the same standards that we the American people are held too.
Is it any wonder that more people watch American Idol than go to the poles and exercise their sacred right to vote?
Washington is broken period! Fixing it can only be accomplished if we the American people send a clear resounding signal to power brokers in DC. We will not go quietly into the night.