McCain Slams Obama on Judges
Posted on May 6, 2008
There is no doubt that mistrust exist among conservatives when it comes to McCain appointing judges. This is one of the most important factors to folks like us, concerned with judicial activism and ACLU sympathetic judges creating laws from the bench. Depsite McCain’s history with the gang of 14, and his strange statement about Alito wearing his conservatism on his sleeve, he is our best bet when it comes to having conservative judges appointed.
All we have to do is consider the alternatives. Do we want the most liberal member of the Senate appointing more Ginsburg types? Can we trust Hillary with this? Unfortunately better conservative choices didn’t get the nomination. We have to look at what we have to work with.
Today McCain gave a speech and slammed his opponents on the issue:
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.
Obama was one of only 22 votes in opposition to Roberts. Chris Dodd and Patty Murray voted to confirm Roberts, and yet Obama and Hillary Clinton voted against him. Its pretty hard to go left of these two, yet our two democratic candidates did.
Hey, at least he’s reaching towards the right side of aisle this time. It is one of the driving forces that will allow me to pull the lever for McCain.
Fred Thompson is vouching for him.
Ed Morrissey sums up my feelings:
The question, as Michelle notes, is which candidate can we trust to nominate better judges. Given the votes on Samuel Alito and especially on John Roberts, we can see a marked difference between the three candidates still left in the race. If we expect to end judicial activism, then we have to have a President willing to nominate justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito. We can’t even get Obama and Clinton to follow the majority of their Democratic colleagues to confirm such choices, let alone appoint them.
I know who I don’t trust appointing jurists to the federal bench.
Indeed, you have to choose the choices your given. We can all keep our eye on McCain, but I think its obvious he is the safer gamble. The chances we will have a liberal judge retire or even pass on during the next four years is high, and I know I don’t want Obama or Clinton around to replace them.
Also see: Don Surber
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Activist Judges, Elections, News, Politics As Usual, Supreme Court, Uncategorized
Trackback URL
Comments
4 Responses to “McCain Slams Obama on Judges”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
He can talk till he’s blue in the face about he will do this and that, but I’m sorry I don’t buy it. Not one bit. Especailly when he’s speaking to “La Raza”. Yeah, sure, I believe ya Johnny.
Instead of holding up what someone says about “judges”, how about holding our Presidental Candidates to the same. Have our Presidental Candidates pledge to uphold the Constitution. Wow, What a Concept.
This whole election is a joke.
LOL….. there I was ready to go off on his Kerry style flip flopping and his La Raza (KKK) pandering…and then read the comment above.
Ditto.
Well, hate McCain all you guys want, but he is the lesser of the 3 evils, and I stand by my judgement that, while a gamble it is, he is the best gamble we have on judges.
[...] you need a reason to vote for McCain, Stop the ACLU and Don Surber explain why you should be a [...]