Posted on 05/18/2008 5:14:34 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Here's why: 1. Gang of 14. 2. Warren Rudman. 3. McCain said Alito is too conservative. 4. There is absolutely zero logic in thinking that McCain will nominate the type of judge that will overturn his signature bills.
2. Warren Rudman is the guy who is largely responsible for the nomination of Justice Souter.
3. McCain said this about Alito privately. So it comes down to who you trust given that it's sourced from Novak. But I don't trust McCain any further than I can throw him.
Ok, so you have four reasons why McCain won't nominate originalist judges, and you now have his current rhetoric that he will. Given the rest of McCain's own record, I believe he will end up trusting his advisor, Warren Rudman.
So does anybody around here see much difference in Obama nominating Ginsburgs or McCain nominating Souters?
McCain it is!
I think the best we can hope for from McLame is a Souter or a Harriet Myers. After all, he wouldn’t want to upset his friends on his side of (oops, I mean across) the aisle. Pathetic.
Unfortunately, I cannot disagree with anything you said.
Of course, and those that are in need of a good dose of flagellation, and are up this fine Sunday morning, should be right with you.
McCain is your typical left wing liberal and will promise anything you want and do what he wants if he wins and so I can not support just another Marxist liberal.
McCain will appoint the kind of judges that the Democratic-controlled Senate will allow him to.
Look on the bright side: McCain’s understanding of Constitutional originalism is so bad he might appoint a good guy by accident!
Now that's optimism!!
Appoint Arnold Schwarzenegger to the Supreme Court! Stop Bustamante!!
Either of the Democrats will seek out Ginsburgs. Obama already told you he would look for judges who would rule based upon their feelings and their political leanings, in so many words. What Hillary would do should require no explanation.
Souter, as horrible as he is, was not selected by Rudman and accepted by B41 on that basis. He apparently lied to the President, and his record on the NHSC did not predict that he would play for the other team.
I don't think McCain will find any Scalias. But I also don't think he will sweep the nation for Ginsburgs.
John H. Sununu, father of John E. Sununu and arch-conservative with an IQ of 180 is responsible for the Souter nomination. Rudman thought Souter would gain Senate approval.
McCain will appoint the kind of judges that the Democratic-controlled Senate dreams about.
For starters, why are these “opinion/vanity” pieces posted in “News?” This ain’t “News!”
Secondly, I’m happy with the SCOTUS appointments from President Bush, as well as the thousands he’s saved me, personally, in taxes over the past eight years.
Granted, we had to put up a fuss to GET those appointments, but I don’t have a problem raising a ruckus with any sitting President over any issue.
FWIW, I’m more afraid of American losing any more local, state and federal seats in Houses, Assemblies and Senates to the ‘Rats than I am of who’s in the White House.
Freepers need to wake up and get serious about being involved LOCALLY and on a State level and not get all wrapped around the axle over the Presidency. (You’re playing into the Media’s hands.)
I’ll NEVER vote for a ‘Rat or waste my vote on a Third Party. And yes, I sleep well at night. :)
What do the Bush tax cuts and the Bush SCOTUS appointments have to do with McCain?
It’s kind of irrelevant as a) I don’t think he can get elected; b) if elected, no way in Hades he possibly gets ANY conservative through an overwhelmingly Dem senate; and therefore c) I doubt he would even bother to nominate a conservative, even if d) he was so inclined (which he really isn’t, windbag that he is).
The old money eastern Establishment Republicans as represented by Eisenhower, the Bushes, et al, made a deal with the Communists AKA Democrats, to accept the New Deal, atheism as the State Religion, abortion, homosexual marriage, the selling of state secrets to the Soviet Union and the PRC, and every other sick and twisted thing the Demoncrats can imagine, as long as they could keep their positions of privilege. We are entitled to rule. We came over on the Mayflower, dontcha know.
Well said.
It doesn’t matter what kind of judges he appoints. It will take Souters at best to get by the incoming Senate.
I think who McCain will appoint to the SCOTUS is a moot point. The uninformed American Electorate is so enthralled by B. Hussein Osama-Obama, the Democrat’s Messiah, that I’m afraid we are going to have to get used to saying “President Obama”.
The American electorate could care less about issuses or Supreme Court appointees; they just wanna “feel good”. But then, God knows the Republicans, in the last four years, have given us very little to “feel good” about. But, I do get “shivers” when I fill my tank at the gas pump.
the benefit of electing McCain is that we get 4 years of probably less spectacular tax and spending increases. He will likely get his Amnesty passed to bestow upon =the country many millions of new Democrats and he will get legislation putting Kyoto ++ in place which will eventually accomplish all the tax-raising and new spending that the Democrats would secure for us, just a little less in the first years. The economy will actually enter a permanent decline with Cap-and-Trade and all the follow-ons. I cannot see any difference between the results of a McCain presidency and a Democrat presidency and after Amnesty it will be all Democrat from the next election on. The rhetoric will be a tad different and the results will be a little slower in coming with McC. if he doesn’t simply declare for the Democrats once elected. He is already talking about taking Democrats into his administration.
I would feel better about him if he would promise to leave seats vacant rather than appoint lefties and souters. There is no Constitutional requirement for nine Justices. There can be fifteen of them or there can be two.
Actually I expect him to nominate at least nominally originalist or wtherwise Conservative judges but he will have his second choices already lined up and ready to go for when the Senate shoots hes “first choices” down. The seconds will pass, probably handily.
McCain voted to confirm the worst Justice sitting on the SCOTUS today. That is Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Sorry, this guy is out to lunch on this issue as well as just about any other issue he’ll face while in office.
Seminar poster?
Don’t know who McCain would nominate to SCOTUS. I do know how he, Obama and Hillary actually voted on Alito and Roberts, though:
Judges - Alito
Clinton: Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
Obama: Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
McCain: Voted YES on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
Judges - Roberts
Clinton: Voted NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
Obama: Voted NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
McCain: Voted YES on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
But lets not let something like actual facts get in the way of a good argument...
McCain is a fan of fellow Arizonian Sandra O’Conner’s time on the SCOTUS bench, I wasn’t wild about her, but she was far better then Souter or Ginsberg.
And keep in mind folks, this time around it will not be a Republican Senate in charge of the Nomination, it will be heavily controlled by Democrats, ones who had no problems sinking Robert Bork, a Alito or even a Roberts would have trouble making it through the process.
That too. The point is, does ANYONE expect McCain to FIGHT for anything conservative, including a judge? Against his “good friends,” the Dems?
McCain voted for them because there was no good reason not to.
He might try nominating a more conservative judge, but he will not win because he will never get it past a dem controlled Congress.
Best guess is that we will get a Souter so McCain can get things done, and work with Demonrats.
It’s kind of irrelevant as
I agree with all but a). It's doubtful if Hillary can pull out the nomination, and since blacks think Obama's nomination is a done deal there would be the devil to pay if she did. So it's far from certain that she can beat McCain.Rev Wright and Michelle Obama are on record as being bigoted against whites, and accordingly Obama couldn't draw flies in the WV primary. Obama might poll well before the election, but in the privacy of the voting booth his own grandmother would probably think twice about voting for him for POTUS.
Since we're cynical about McCain, neither of us thinks he'll choose his VP nominee wisely - but if we're talking can, McCain can KO Obama if he just selects a conservative, patriotic, conventionally Christian, black running mate. Since the Constitution provides for affirmative action in selecting the VP nominee, that is perfectly justifiable even if that nominee's resume is as thin as Obama's is. Think of the hornet's nest that can be stirred up by raising the issue of "reparations!" If Obama says he's for them, what sane white would vote for him? If Obama opposes them, what happens to his black support? (I do not assume that a black Republican VP nominee would attract noticeable black voting support - only the support of guilt voters who need an excuse not to vote Obama).
As did every other sitting Republican senator, but three (Don Nickles, Bob Smith, and Jesse Helms).
So what’s your point? Are you saying McCain is better than the three, or are you admitting there will only be about three votes against McCain no matter what he pushes through the Senate?
McCain, just like Hillary and Hussein has little patience for things like the law.
It is evident in the fact that he patterns himself after the “Progressive-ism” of Teddy Roosevelt. It is evident in the way Immigration law is flagrantly ignored by McCain.
The rule of law, a most precious component of this nation’s truly unique identity is bound for large setback.
McCain will nominate conservatives. He has voted for everyone of President Bushes nominees which are some of the most conservative nominated since Reagan. You might not like McCain because of Immigration and some of his love-ins with the left but his record on judges is conservative without a doubt and the only thing that will leave him in the position of having to nominate moderates will be a Senate ruled by Democrats. We desert McCain at our own peril. Those who do not see a dimes worth of difference between McCain and the Democrats need glasses.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-06-mccain-judges_N.htm
Yes, let’s not ignore reality. After all, John voted to confirm Ginsberg. I’ll bet you think Ted Kennedy was a louse for doing that.
Of course John was just going along with the majority, just like all great leaders do. /s
The only reason now I would even consider voting for McCain is if he picked a young conservative as his veep.
McCain voted FOR Alito and Roberts. He’s on record after his Wake Forest speech. Your “arguments” don’t wash.
Dead wrong. He will appoint who he says he will. You take the gang of 14 and say he will not appoint conservative judges. With the “gang of 14” we got Roberts and Alito. Souter was a mistake of the presidency not McCain. As to your last point, I do not know whether the statement was made or not but in the end result Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton will nominate someone horrible and there will be two seats for the next president. Are you sure you are not a “left wing” plant?
Oh BTW: There is a huge difference between a judge like Souter that sometimes goes for the left side and the “make it up as we go long” judges of Obama/Clinton. Souter is socially liberal but is moderate to conservative on business issues.
They always paint themselves into the same corner.
If you want to know how a man will behave, study his past. And nothing in MacCain's past indicates he'd do anything but kowtow to the democrats and the MSM.
McCain voted for Alito, Roberts, Scalia and even Bork. He has never voted against a conservative being nominated for the Supreme Court. That is all I need to know.
“As an attorney for the ACLU, Ginsburg once questioned the right of state and local governments to arrest and prosecute pedophiles. She also provided pro-bono legal services to the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and co-authored a report recommending that the age of sexual consent be lowered to 12.”
“Although these startling truths were well-known during Ginsburg’s hearing, the Senate body — and McCain along with it — voted to confirm her. In McCain’s estimation, Ginsburg was not unfit; indeed, she was “qualified.” Such poor judgment compels one to wonder exactly what kind of judges McCain would appoint should he take over for Bush II.”
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/marotte/080511
What kind of judge do you think the democratic senate will confirm?
Great post.
Would Tom Coburn or Mark Sanford please you?
Now, about McCain and his USSC nominees...
Most people, including McCain, are, at best, hitting the side of the barn with respect to targeting justices concerning problems with our system. Justices and their special-interest interpretations of the Constitution are only a part of the problem with the system.
The main problem with our system, in my opinion, is that ignorance of the Constitution and its history is epidemic. Widespread constitutional ignorance is evidenced not only by McCain's part in the McCain - Feingold Act, but also the following links.
http://tinyurl.com/npt6tThe consequence of widespread constitutional ignorance is that the people are impotent to stop judges and people like McCain from unthinkingly walking all over our constitutional freedoms.
http://tinyurl.com/hehr8
As to how we got into this constitutional mess in the first place...
Tenth Amendment protected state powers were likely intended to help protect family values. The question to ask concerning the unwanted influence on family values by today's corrupt judges is what happened to the 10th A. protected powers of the states to regulate such things as abortion, pornography, gay marriage, etc.? Indeed, when was the last time that you heard anything about the 10th Amendment?
The key to understanding the mysterious disapperance of the 10th A. is to consider that constitutional flunky FDR foolishly encouraged the USSC to politically ignore the 10th Amendment. He did so so that the USSC could give the green light his constitutionally unauthorized New Deal Programs.
But what's worse is that corrupt justices then began using FDR's "license" to ignore the 10th A. and traditional family values to advance their special-interest agendas.
This post (<-click), while addressing taxes, helps to explain how 10th A. protected state powers were wrongly politically repealed by the USSC when FDR established his constitutionally unauthorized New Deal programs.
And this post (<-click) exposes how corrupt justices then began using FDR's politically correct license to ignore the 10th A. to unlawfully stifle traditional family values, including the USSC's scandalous legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade. Note that the post first references two non-abortion cases in order to show Roe v. Wade in a different, troubling perspective.
In fact, the states have the constitutional power (10th A.) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th A.) classroom discussions on the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and ID, as examples, regardless that atheists, separatists, pagan-minded judges and the MSM are misleading the people to think that doing such things in public schools is unconstitutional.
Again, regardless that Founder's reserved for the states the power to decide limits on our 1st A. freedoms to help protect family values, FDR's 10th A.-ignoring establishment of federal spending programs set off a chain-reaction of case decisions by special-interest, pagan-minded judges which have ignored such protections, tragically eroding traditional family values.
The bottom line is that the people need to reconnect with the intentions of the Founders where divided federal and state powers are concerned. The people need to wise up to the major problem that the 10th A. protected power of the states to protect family values is being ignored by corrupt judgus, and has been ignored for decades. McCain and the people need get in the faces of judges who are not upholding their oaths to defend 10th A. protected family values, demanding that they resign from their jobs.
That’s a damn good point that I failed to mention in my post.John McCain would be america’s first mexican president if elected in november.
But just to be clear, I was looking at this from a purely McCain standpoint. He himself is the problem when it comes to originalist judges. The D congress just makes it worse.
^^^^^^^^^^^^Souter, as horrible as he is, was not selected by Rudman and accepted by B41 on that basis.^^^^^^^^^^^^
To my knowledge, Rudman knew full well that Souter was no originalist and both Rudman as well as Souter lied to B41.
But of course, It’s been a while since I went down this road. :-)
But Rudman was one of the most blueblooded country clubbers of his time from what I remember.
^^^^^^^^^I don’t think McCain will find any Scalias. But I also don’t think he will sweep the nation for Ginsburgs.^^^^^^^^^^
Given his own signature bills that he loves to continue to legislate by, I think McCain would purposely seek out Souters; with Rudman’s help.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.