Bench marks: McCain, the GOP, and judges
The judicial debate will heat up this morning on two fronts: At 10am, McCain addresses the subject at Wake Forest University. Minutes later, GOP Sen. John Cornyn will speak on the Senate floor. Sen. Cornyn “will note that the simple fact thus far during President Bush’s final two years in office is that there have been a record low number of federal judges approved by this Senate. Since Democrats took over the Senate in 2007, a total of 7 circuit court judges have been approved—and only one this year.”
Here are McCain’s prepared remarks.
Questions for discussion: Do you trust him? Can you trust him?
***
ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain will deliver the following remarks as prepared for delivery at Wake Forest University, in Winston-Salem, NC, today at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Thank you, Ted, and thank you all very much. Dr. Hatch, I’m grateful for your invitation to this great university. And Senator Richard Burr, thank you for that warm welcome to North Carolina and to Wait Chapel. I’m honored to be here, and I brought along a friend. I’m sure you’ll recognize him — my pal, Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee.
We appreciate the hospitality of the students and faculty of Wake Forest University, and especially during exams. I know exam week involves some tough moments, like when you’re up at 3:00 a.m. and have to choose between studying or watching one of Fred’s old movies. Most of the students here look confident and ready, so you need no advice from me as final exams draw near. But for those of you who might be feeling a slight sense of panic coming on, all I can say is that a few bad grades don’t have to be end of the road — so just give it your best and move on. An undistinguished academic record can be overcome in life, or at least that is the hope that has long sustained me.
Your kind invitation brings me here as a candidate for president of the United States, and anyone in that pursuit has plenty of promises to make and to keep. When it’s all over, however, the next president will be compelled to make just one promise, in the same words that 42 others have spoken when the moment arrived. The framers of our Constitution had a knack for coming right to the point, and it shows in the 35-word oath that ends with a pledge to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution itself.
This is what we require and expect of every president, no matter what the agenda or loyalties of party. All the powers of the American presidency must serve the Constitution, and thereby protect the people and their liberties. For the chief executive or any other constitutional officer, the duties and boundaries of the Constitution are not just a set of helpful suggestions. They are not just guidelines, to be observed when it’s convenient and loosely interpreted when it isn’t. The clear powers defined by our Constitution, and the clear limits of power, lose nothing of their relevance with time, because the dangers they guard against are found in every time.
In America, the constitutional restraint on power is as fundamental as the exercise of power, and often more so. Yet the framers knew that these restraints would not always be observed. They were idealists, but they were worldly men as well, and they knew that abuses of power would arise and need to be firmly checked. Their design for democracy was drawn from their experience with tyranny. A suspicion of power is ingrained in both the letter and spirit of the American Constitution.
In the end, of course, their grand solution was to allocate federal power three ways, reserving all other powers and rights to the states and to the people themselves. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches are often wary of one another’s excesses, and they should be. They seek to keep each other within bounds, and they are supposed to. And though you wouldn’t always know it from watching the day-to-day affairs of modern Washington, the framers knew exactly what they were doing, and the system of checks and balances rarely disappoints.
There is one great exception in our day, however, and that is the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power. For decades now, some federal judges have taken it upon themselves to pronounce and rule on matters that were never intended to be heard in courts or decided by judges. With a presumption that would have amazed the framers of our Constitution, and legal reasoning that would have mystified them, federal judges today issue rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. Assured of lifetime tenures, these judges show little regard for the authority of the president, the Congress, and the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people. And the only remedy available to any of us is to find, nominate, and confirm better judges.
Quite rightly, the proper role of the judiciary has become one of the defining issues of this presidential election. It will fall to the next president to nominate hundreds of qualified men and women to the federal courts, and the choices we make will reach far into the future. 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. And the people of America — voters in both parties whose wishes and convictions are so often disregarded by unelected judges — are entitled to know what those differences are.
Federal courts are charged with applying the Constitution and laws of our country to each case at hand. There is great honor in this responsibility, and honor is the first thing to go when courts abuse their power. The moral authority of our judiciary depends on judicial self-restraint, but this authority quickly vanishes when a court presumes to make law instead of apply it. A court is hardly competent to check the abuses of other branches of government when it cannot even control itself.
One Justice of the Court remarked in a recent opinion that he was basing a conclusion on “my own experience,” even though that conclusion found no support in the Constitution, or in applicable statutes, or in the record of the case in front of him. Such candor from the bench is rare and even commendable. But it was not exactly news that the Court had taken to setting aside the facts and the Constitution in its review of cases, and especially in politically charged cases. Often, political causes are brought before the courts that could not succeed by democratic means, and some federal judges are eager to oblige. Politicians sometimes contribute to the problem as well, abdicating responsibility and letting the courts make the tough decisions for them. One abuse of judicial authority inspires more. One act of raw judicial power invites others. And the result, over many years, has been a series of judicial opinions and edicts w andering farther and farther from the clear meanings of the Constitution, and from the clear limits of judicial power that the Constitution defines.
Sometimes the expressed will of the voters is disregarded by federal judges, as in a 2005 case concerning an aggravated murder in the State of Missouri. As you might recall, the case inspired a Supreme Court opinion that left posterity with a lengthy discourse on international law, the constitutions of other nations, the meaning of life, and “evolving standards of decency.” These meditations were in the tradition of “penumbras,” “emanations,” and other airy constructs the Court has employed over the years as poor substitutes for clear and rigorous constitutional reasoning. The effect of that ruling in the Missouri case was familiar too. When it finally came to the point, the result was to reduce the penalty, disregard our Constitution, and brush off the standards of the people themselves and their elected representatives.
The year 2005 also brought the case of Susette Kelo before the Supreme Court. Here was a woman whose home was taken from her because the local government and a few big corporations had designs of their own on the land, and she was getting in the way. There is hardly a clearer principle in all the Constitution than the right of private property. There is a very clear standard in the Constitution requiring not only just compensation in the use of eminent domain, but also that private property may be taken only for “public use.” But apparently that standard has been “evolving” too. In the hands of a narrow majority of the court, even the basic right of property doesn’t mean what we all thought it meant since the founding of America. A local government seized the private property of an American citizen. It gave that property away to a private developer. And this power play actually got the constitutional “thumbs-up” from five m embers of the Supreme Court.
Then there was the case of the man in California who filed a suit against the entire United States Congress, which I guess made me a defendant too. This man insisted that the words “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violated his rights under the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit court agreed, as it usually does when litigious people seek to rid our country of any trace of religious devotion. With an air of finality, the court declared that any further references to the Almighty in our Pledge were — and I quote — “impermissible.” And it was so ordered — generations of pious, unoffending custom supposedly overturned by one decree out of a courtroom in San Francisco. And now it turns out the same litigant is back for more in the Ninth Circuit, this time demanding that the words “In God We Trust” be forever removed from our currency. I have a feeling this fellow will get wind of my remarks today — and we’re all in for trouble when he hears that we met in a chapel.
In the shorthand of constitutional discourse, these abuses by the courts fall under the heading of “judicial activism.” But real activism in our country is democratic. Real activists seek to make their case democratically — to win hearts, minds, and majorities to their cause. Such people throughout our history have often shown great idealism and done great good. By contrast, activist lawyers and activist judges follow a different method. They want to be spared the inconvenience of campaigns, elections, legislative votes, and all of that. They don’t seek to win debates on the merits of their argument; they seek to shut down debates by order of the court. And even in courtrooms, they apply a double standard. 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 sum effect of these capricious rulings has been to spread confusion instead of clarity in our vital national debates, to leave resentment instead of resolution, and to turn Senate confirmation hearings into a gauntlet of abuse. Over the years, we have all seen the dreary rituals that now pass for advice and consent in the confirmation of nominees to our Supreme Court. We’ve seen and heard the shabby treatment accorded to nominees, the caricature and code words shouted or whispered, the twenty-minute questions and two-minute answers. We have seen disagreements redefined as disqualifications, and the least infraction of approved doctrine pounced upon by senators, their staffs, and their allies in the media. 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, until the nominee is declared “in trouble” and the spouse is in tears.
Of course, in the daily routine of Senate obstructionism, presidential nominees to the lower courts are now lucky if they get a hearing at all. These courts were created long ago by the Congress itself, on what then seemed the safe assumption that future Senates would attend to their duty to fill them with qualified men and women nominated by the president. Yet at this moment there are 31 nominations pending, including several for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that serves North Carolina. Because there are so many cases with no judges to hear them, a “judicial emergency” has been declared here by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. And a third of the entire Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is vacant. But the alarm has yet to sound for the Senate majority leadership. Their idea of a judicial emergency is the possible confirmation of any judge who doesn’t meet their own narrow tests of party and ideology. They want federal judges who will push the limits of constitutional law, and, to this end, they have pushed the limits of Senate rules and simple courtesy.
As my friend and colleague Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma points out, somehow these very same senators can always find time to process earmark spending projects. But months go by, years even, and they can’t get around to voting on judicial nominations — to meeting a basic Senate duty under our Constitution. If a lobbyist shows up wanting another bridge to nowhere, or maybe even a courthouse with a friend’s name on it, that request will be handled by the Senate with all the speed and urgency of important state business. But when a judicial nominee arrives to the Senate — a nominee to preside at a courthouse and administer justice — then he or she had better settle in, because the Senate majority has other business and other priorities.
Things almost got even worse a few years ago, when there were threats of a filibuster to require 60 votes for judicial confirmations, and threats in reply of a change in Senate rules to prevent a filibuster. A group of senators, nicknamed the “Gang of 14,” got together and agreed we would not filibuster unless there were “extraordinary circumstances.” This parliamentary truce was brief, but it lasted long enough to allow the confirmation of Justices Roberts, Alito, and many other judges. And it showed that serious differences can be handled in a serious way, without allowing Senate business to unravel in a chaos of partisan anger.
Here, too, 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.
For both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, it turned out that not even John Roberts was quite good enough for them. Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Senator Obama than it did the guy who can get things done. He went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee. And just where did John Roberts fall short, by the Senator’s measure? Well, a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it — and I quote — should share “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”
These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism — come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Senator Obama’s standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law, a nominee of clear rectitude who had proved more than the equal of any lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, and who today is respected by all as the Chief Justice of the United States. 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.
I have my own standards of judicial ability, experience, philosophy, and temperament. And Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito meet those standards in every respect. They would serve as the model for my own nominees if that responsibility falls to me. And yet when President Bill Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to serve on the high court, I voted for their confirmation, as did all but a few of my fellow Republicans. Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the president’s call to make.
In the Senate back then, we didn’t pretend that the nominees’ disagreements with us were a disqualification from office even though the disagreements were serious and obvious. It is part of the discipline of democracy to respect the roles and responsibilities of each branch of government, and, above all, to respect the verdicts of elections and judgment of the people. Had we forgotten this in the Senate, we would have been guilty of the very thing that many federal judges do when they overreach, and usurp power, and betray their trust.
The surest way to restore fairness to the confirmation process is to restore humility to the federal courts. In federal and state courts, and in the practice of law across our nation, there are still men and women who understand the proper role of our judiciary. And I intend to find them, and promote them, if I am elected president.
Harry Truman said that he gave “more thought, more care, and more deliberation” to the selection of judges than nearly any other duty of the office. I will bring that same level of care and caution to my judicial nominations, expecting in return that the Senate will do its own part, and confine itself to the duty of confirming qualified men and women for the courts. The decisions of our Supreme Court in particular can be as close to permanent as anything government does. And in the presidential selection of those who will write those decisions, a hunch, a hope, and a good first impression are not enough. I will not seek the confidence of the American people in my nominees until my own confidence is complete — until I am certain of my nominee’s ability, wisdom, and demonstrated fidelity to the Constitution.
I will look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint. I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist — jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference. My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power. They will be men and women of experience and wisdom, and the humility that comes with both. They will do their work with impartiality, honor, and humanity, with an alert conscience, immune to flattery and fashionable theory, and faithful in all things to the Constitution of the United States.
There was a day when all could enter the federal courthouses of our country feeling something distinctive about them — the hush of serious business, the quiet presence of the majesty of the law. Quite often, you can still find it there. And in all the institutions of government there is nothing to match the sight of a court of law at its best. My commitment to you and to all the American people is to help restore the standards and spirit that give the judicial branch its place of honor in our government. Every federal court should command respect, instead of just obedience. Every federal court should be a refuge from abuses of power, and not the source. In every federal court in America, we must have confidence again that no rule applies except the rule of law, and that no interest is served except the interest of justice. Thank you very much.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » McCain on judicial activism: Look no farther than Obama
- McCain Makes a Judicial Pitch for Conservatives | The Sundries Shack
- Three Words: Gang of Fourteen » Pursuing Holiness
- BipolarNation.com » Would McCain Nominate Strong Judges to the Supreme Court?
- McCain Slams Obama on Judges : Stop The ACLU
- McCain is a Rock Star on Judges | The Patriot Room
- McCain on Judges «
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Supreme Court
TigerHawk
» Markets, Obama, goose, ganderPower Line
» An appeal not to appealJustOneMinute
» James (Not Earl) Jones As National Security AdviserBelmont Club
» 2025Patterico
» New York Times: Secretary of State ClintonRiehl World View
» Observations: Hank Paulson On A PlaneWeekly Standard
» A Run on Guns, Just in Time for the HolidaysStop The ACLU
» Hillary Clinton Will Say Yes to Secretary of State Job
Nope, don’t trust him. He likes to reach across the aisle so much anyway, why wouldn’t he do that with judicial appointments, too? Its likely he, if he is President, will face even greater Dem majorities in Congress, and there is no way THEY will work with him on anything. I can just see Chuck Schumer now, tripping over himself to get to the nearest camera so his greasy head can pontificate and tell us how the nominees are “extremists”.
On a side note, the Dems have treated Bush’s judicial nominees with such contempt…I wish he’d make all of them recess appointments.
a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it — and I quote — should share “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”
Get him a onesie.
This reminded me of something. My brother, a lawyer, said he came across an interesting hypothetical the other day.
Let’s say you’re a judge, and you consider a goldfish a pet. If you came across a case in which a kid had a goldfish as a pet in an apartment which didn’t allow pets, and the law said either the kid had to get rid of his pet or the family had to move out, what would you do?
The two reasonable options are:
1. Say “that’s stupid, the kid can have his silly goldfish.”
2. Say “the law is the law,” and enforce it, even while you disagree with it.
Of course, activist judges would choose #1.
We need McCain to pick judges who would go for #2.
I bet La Raza does.
Given the above, not bloodly likely.
Justice=created by and for the benefit of the lawyers….and to uphold the rule of law as it suits them (Dickie Scruggs).
McCain’s concept of restraint of power is to just let the democrats tell him what to do. Or to diminish the power of citizens by watering its value with Shamnesty.
First point showing he is not very aware of the Constitution or history. Maybe History was one of the many classes he was mediocre in?
I wonder if ANY politician remembers that little caveat that states “The powers of the federal government are few and well-defined”? Am I the only one to take this at its value stating that the federal government has no rights other than the ones WELL-DEFINED in the Constitution? If ANY politicians understand this … why are they NOT defending our Constitution and constantly attempting to change it to meet their needs?
Hypocrites and … well I guess I cannot say that word here … ALL OF THE Politicians!
IMHO
Now it seems that pet is a minority therefore its rights are guarenteed. So the pet stays but the family must move out.
That’s if PETA doesn’t put it in a freezer first.
I don’t trust McCain. Of everything he said, the last bit struck me as being just plain wrong:
I would ask that if McCain believes in the rule of law so much, and justice should be done, then why does he support illegal immigration, letting those here illegally break in line and become citizens before those who have waited for years, and associate himself with people who support these policies?
Or, like Obama, does he just not know/realize who he’s associating with at this time?
While I respect McCain’s military service to our country, and thank him for that, I believe him to be dishonest and disingenuous in most other matters.
No! I have to respectfully disagree with you here. He does not “reach” across the aisle. He jumped across and stayed there and wants us to believe we are racist, out of touch and intolerant because we do not believe that it is a living and breathing aisle that moved all of its own accord based solely on the will of
we the peoplepolitical expediency!The reason Ayers is out - walking the streets- stomping upon the flag- and is a professor at a college is……
our socialist court system.
WEAK Republicans have allowed it by –well….BEING weak!
This is what we get for voting for the LESSER OF TWO EVILS for the past 40–50 —- 60 years.
If you want want more of the same —keep doing the same!
But what if that family was here illegally? We must be compassionate; we can’t ask them to leave, because they would be deported, and separated from their dearly loved family pet.
No, both the family and the fish stay. The landlord is arrested for racial discrimination and hate crimes for imposing such a draconian, harsh rule on a poor, hard-working familia. The family is given a new, state-of-the-art 100-gallon aquarium with all the equipment, paid for by the other residents.
“Do you trust him? Can you trust him?”
About as much as I trust the operator of a carnival ride.
I don’t trust McCain, he needs a very short leash if elected.
When McCain gave us the UnConstitutional Gang-Bang of Fourteen any trust or respect I had for the man vanished.
McCain said…
“Harry Truman said that he gave “more thought, more care, and more deliberation” to the selection of judges than nearly any other duty of the office. I will bring that same level of care and caution to my judicial nominations, expecting in return that the Senate will do its own part, and confine itself to the duty of confirming qualified men and women for the courts.”
Interesting that he quotes a Democrat (albet a GOOD one), and puts the Senate on the hook as well.
What does McAmnesty know of the Constitution ? What a pandering waste of time to even read his lies .
The real question is ! How many CFR team writers did it take to write this Crap-o-la ??
And i Still don’t have any body to vote for
McAmnesty will appoint judges Schumer likes. Don’t be fooled by the jive talking, both parties do it. If you can’t get the judges approved what good is all this …
For the longest while, GOP candidates said they were pro-life and that was supposed to be enough for people who were pro-life to vote for them. As the years went by, nothing happened. Same with guns … same with … And government grew and grew and became more intrusive and more intrusive.
Eventually people realized the grand bargain, your rights were inexplicably connected to your responsibilites. As your responsibilites were taken over by the nanny state, your rights just seem to go poof.
We are all mavericks now…
Jive Talking, a Bee Gees album, listen to it, read the lyrics, you will need it in the near future.
Wow, what an incredibly boring speech during exam time at Wake. I guarantee you that those students have every right to be concerned about the exams. Wake Forest will flunk you out in a second. It isn’t like most Ivy league schools where it’s tough to get in, but they’ll work with you once you get there. Tons of my friends flunked out. Wake ain’t no cushy school afraid of flunking people out.
And I also hope that McCain realizes that Wake is used to having Presidential debates like in 1988 and in 2000 in Wait Chapel where he is now. I’m just saying Wake isn’t impressed by his presence.
McCain won’t appoint any different judges than Hillary or Obama. Well I take that back, they might be less liberal judges that Hillary or Obama might appoint. But it’s going to be Bush’s third term and McCain will have as much success as Bush has had with the Democrat controlled Congress. McCain will ask them who they will approve, and that’s who he’ll appoint. Why? Because he really does not care.
McCain will still be voting on the judges, he just won’t be appointing them. . . His role in the process of judges won’t be any different if he wins this election or not. He’ll still be in the Senate when he loses the presidential election and 82 million dollars of taxpayer money. . . . I wonder. . . if I run for president can I get 82 million dollars for my campaign? I could probably win with that money.
I’m having trouble figuring this out. What’s the beef you have with this? I only just heard about it, and it looks like it got Alito to the up or down vote.
No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,
No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,
No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,
No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,
No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,No,
You can’t trust any of them, if it’s a politician the answer is No! sadly.
And by the way, I would not be surprised if McCain loses this primary here. . . or at least does not get more than 50% of the vote. He should be concerned, but he’s to egotistical to care. Viva el juan.
If Juan McAmnesty said the sky is blue and the grass is green, I’d go outside to look for myself!
He’s said what he thinks people want to hear while doing whatever he wants for so long I take everything he says with a grain of salt!
It goes back to behind the scenes discussion. They get 14 people who they think will be most influential to decide for the entire 100 person body (there’s only 100 senators who all need to be involved since they all represent people who elected them).
They should have open debate about it. If they are making deals in a back room, they should be made on the floor of the senate. They shouldn’t have anything to hide in discussions of politics in the senate. The Constitution allows for a GANG OF 100! There is no ‘gang of 14′ in the Constitution. McCain formed that separate from the Constitution.
Alito and Roberts were both confirmed when the Republicans had control of congress. The Democrat controlled congress will be much less forgiving.
McCain should not talk about Federal Jusdges and appointments after his Gang of 14 deal that kept the Nuclear option from occuring and thus has caused far more harm then good.
Let’s see, gang of 14, comprehensive shamnesty, ethanol, mad made global warming and on and on, but he will nominate conservatives judges…hmmmmm…no doubt he will. How can you not believe him. /sar off
I cannot vote for him, he does not represent my values and beliefs in this great country. Please do not tell me I’ll be voting for the democrapic candidate if I don’t vote for McShame…ALL 3 of THEM ARE LIBERALS. I’ll guarantee you a dem will have a harder time in congress than Juan would…with most all republicans being RINO’s. The reason I quit the party.
Good luck and we need it, BIG TIME
I didn’t have a chance to read all the posts, but I did watch some of the speech that McCain gave. I also heard some of Thompson’s comments. Afterwards, I checked my emails and had one of the weekly newsletters that Gingrich sends out about the problems with the Rep. party. He stressed how important it is that the right judges are put in place and I think he nailed the problems that are in the Rep. party today. I don’t trust McCain. I don’t think he has this country’s best interest apart. I hate that he recently got money from the Rothschild’s. The thing is, true Republicans don’t have anyone representing them. They wonder why their fundraising stinks???? The party has done this to themselves. I’m sure I’m rambling, but everytime I think that I might be able to hold my nose and vote for McCain, he says something or does something that reminds me of exactly why I can’t vote for him.
Sorry… I don’t think he has the country’s best interest at heart. I was typing too fast.
Let’s see, gang of 14, comprehensive shamnesty, ethanol, mad made global warming and on and on, but he will nominate conservatives
I’m just confused about the nuclear option and how exactly the gang of 14 fits into this. I’m against amnesty, ethanol, man made global warming etc… but I’d rather see some evidence to NOT trust McCain rather than “mah, gang of 14! mah!”
“McCain won’t appoint any different judges than Hillary or Obama”
which is contrary to his overall record, which he just went and made a speech stating how that was, is, and would remian contrary to what he shall do [of which Michelle was intellectually honest enough to post the prepared text] and you simply dismiss his statements and their supporting evidence?
and then, of course, you continue with the whining and the insults …
/hell, go vote for your heroes b.o. and shillary then — and be prepared fer what yer gonna get!
Short answer, no. Longer answer; he torpedoed several good conservative judges.
David Souter rings a warning bell.
What is most-likely from a McCain Presidency is a replacement of like for like, which would mean the liberals would be the young ones on SCOTUS. Indeed, it’s more likely McCain will screw up like your typical Republican President (who has but a 1-in-3 shot of nominating a judicial conservative) than listen to us and jettison his blank-slate affirmative action choice for a second judicial conservative.
I am somewhat surprised by the invective here. Did I stumble into the HuffPost? While I have a hard time forgiving McCain for the Gang of 14 debacle, any McCain-appointed judge would be far better than what we can expect from Hillary or the other socialist. They have both vowed to pack the court with Ginsburgs, and look at the damage the Carter judges are still inflicting on this country.
I hope that I will like to see the day when a Republican President nominates Janice Rogers Brown to the SC just in order to watch the steam come out of Schumer’s ears.
Oh, and the reason there have not been any recess appointments is that Reid has kept Congress “in session” in order to prevent any such appointments…an unprecedented act of obstructionism.
Uhhh…really, Michelle…do you have a serious question…?!?!?!
Bipolar, here’s an excellent article on what the Gang did - minus all the revisionist history that’s been pushed since then. McCain and his RINO buddies shafted conservatives, but good. Which makes it all the more ironic that he now says:
given how he flipped off President Bush and all conservatives on the bolded part of that quote.
Every time I want to make up my mind to give him my vote - given the nightmarish alternatives - he inadvertently flips me off again.
RE #11:
Oops, sorry…you’re right. McCain doesn’t just “reach across the aisle”, he lives there.
RE #31, Buckaroo:
Everything in his political history, especially recently, suggests he will accomodate the Dems on judgeships. And as far as the whining and insulting goes, McCain isn’t providing a whole lot of reason to go out and support him. Look at the NC GOP ad fiasco…he criticized them more than he ever does the “other side”.
“Everything in his political history”
um, like his votes for roberts and alito?
/there is no REASONING with you people …
If any fence straddlers reads these post, they definitely won’t vote for McCain, and as of right now, Obummer would beat him in a landslide. When he goes in, this Country will cease to exsist as we know it now, because no Republican, nor Independent will ever control the House, Senate, or the Oval Office again, because the Dems will maintain both houses, and eventually the United States Supreme Court. We’ll be a Socialist Nation,and there’s no way the recipients of all those handouts, health care, and illegal aliens will put another Republican or Independent in office. I’ll venture a guess and say we’ll probably be too busy,dodging bullets and bombs to even vote in 2012. No, I’ll stick with McCain, unless of course the Republican Delegates choose someone else at the convention, since McCain wasn’t my first choice to start with.
If Mrs. Maulkin was looking for negative feedback, she’s hit the jackpot.
Thanks LauraC. I wrote about it on my blog.
The question I ask, and I think Ms. Malkin was asking in her original post, was whether or not this means we can still trust McCain. If we’ve seen him misuse the Senate, does that mean he’d nominate bad justices?
I’ll admit it doesn’t help his case.
Whether or not we trust him for this is really important. I feel like I’m trying to evaluate a college quarterback’s probability for success in the NFL.
How does he square that with his stance on illegals? How does he square that with his open borders (no sovereign nation, no laws)? I am tired of being jerked around by this lying double tongued liberal. What has happened? I am serious I will be voting Constutional Party.
# 40
and hillbama thanks you for your vote …
/sigh
“um, like his votes for roberts and alito?
/there is no REASONING with you people …”
Great, he voted for those two…and so did some Democrats, especially in Roberts’ case.
I like his stance on the Iraq war and abortion, but I can’t ignore the other things that he voted against (tax cuts) and the other things he has voiced support for (amnesty, campaign finance reform, etc).
But, beyond that, it is how he goes out of his way to appeal to moderates and Democrats, and by extension the msm, that has me extremely hesitant.
BipolarNation is very correct about the situation.
I believe the next POTUS will be the guy who has the VP running mate that is perceived by the voters as being the most “conservative”. If Obama picks either Gov. Strickland of Ohio or Senator James Webb of Virginia, Obama will beat McCain.
If McCAin on the other hand picks a nonMCCain “conservative” as VP then he will win. IF McCain picks someone like Tim Pawlenty or Charlie Crist of Florida-thus 2 of the same kind, he’s toast unless Obama picks Bernadine Dhorn as VP.
As for McCain’s outreach for the illegal alien vote, he needs to remember that they could just as soon go to the democrats-he doen’t have as good a hold as he would like,
The best thing to happen for us conservatives is for the race to be neck and neck….at that point McCain will have to reach out to us-like GW Bush had to reach out to gunowners for his re-election in 2004 even though he wanted renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapon ban, Bush realized that politically Iraq was becoming a millstone around his neck and Bush needed the people he had chosen to quietly scorn.
The show is not over yet, folks!
Thanks for the link, Bipolar!! I’m linking back; your post was excellent.
That’s the question of the year. I will probably vote for him. I’m trying to make myself believe he won’t screw us again. But where McCain is concerned, I think we’ve all got battered wife syndrome. We want to believe him this time, but deep down, we know His Maverickness can be only be depended on to do exactly what he wants.
“Rule of Law.” “Judge me by the people I associate with.” McCain will NOT appoint the judges we need.
McCain CANNOT get strict constructionist judges.
He, with the other Republicans that were part of the Group of 14, already voluntarily offered absolute political cover on that to the Democrats in the Senate.
Unless he admits to betraying the Constitution and willfully violating centuries of precedent just to stab Bush 43 in the back, he would have to live, as President, with the precedent he stuffed down our throats.
To wit, that the Democrats of the US Senate, unlike the Republicans of the Senate, are permitted to vet candidates based upon political views and deny them a vote based upon that criteria alone without political repercussions.
He supported it then. Heck, he manufactured it back then.
He would have to live with it as President.
He would not be able to get non-liberal non-activist judges into the Federal Judiciary.
So where does it leave credibility for a spurious claim that he could get non-activist judges?
#37 said,
um, like his ‘yea’ votes for ginsburg, souter and breyer? I’m not certain what point you’re trying to make, perhaps if you tried REASONING it through?
those three gathered from 87 to 96 votes each! and with souter, at the time, it was warranted.
hence, yer gonna throw virtually every single gop senator under the bus for that too?
/whatevs
HE11 NO!! I DO NOT TRUST JOHN McCAIN!!!
point being what he said in his speech, “For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise.”
in other words, in his view his votes for alito and roberts were no different than for souter, ginsberg and breyer. Bringing up the two former when trying to make a point about who he’d nominate doesn’t work.
hmm, as for your last line, if we throw them all under the bus maybe the new ones will vote in term limits…
“vote in term limits”
we can only hope …
What kind of huckleberry trusts Senile McCain?
Why on earth does anyone believe he would make conservative appointments, when he cares not one shred about our border.
McCain is not getting overconfident…he’s just getting more obnoxious (if that’s even possible).
AND his wife is unattractive.
” his wife is unattractive.”
and you would prefer mrs. grieveance?!
I don’t trust him to build the fence that the Congress voted twice to fund. But, I do trust him on the GWOT as well as on these judicial appointments. I do believe that he believes strongly in the rule of law, but definitely question his judgment when it comes to applying the rule of law on illegal immigration.
Exit question: Do we have a realistic choice?