Posted on 05/19/2008 7:44:51 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
John McCain and Barack Obama, the two leading presidential candidates, have set out sharply contrasting views on the role of the Supreme Court and the kind of justices they would appoint.
Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.), in a speech two weeks ago, echoed the views of conservatives who say "judicial activism" is the central problem facing the judiciary. He called it the "common and systematic abuse . . . by an elite group . . . we entrust with judicial power." On Thursday, he criticized the California Supreme Court for giving gays and lesbians the right to marry, saying he doesn't "believe judges should be making these decisions."
Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) said he was most concerned about a conservative court that tilted to the side of "the powerful against the powerless," and to corporations and the government against individuals. "What's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves," he said in response to McCain.
During one campaign stop, Obama spoke admiringly of Chief Justice Earl Warren, the former California governor who led the court in the 1950s and '60s, when it struck down racial segregation and championed the cause of civil rights.
Obama has also praised current Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. "I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through," Obama said.
It is not just a theoretical policy debate.
Whoever is elected in November will probably have the chance to appoint at least one justice in the next presidential term. The court's two most liberal justices are its oldest: John Paul Stevens turned 88 last month, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75.
McCain promised that, if elected, he would follow President Bush's model
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
See my tagline...
This is the most important thing at stake, except possibly the War on Terror.
Regarding your tagline: So how are Hillary and Obama doing? Convinced yet? :)
This is the most important issue of the election.
Puleeeaaase!
McCain will be facing 60 DemocRAT Senators. He wouldn’t even bother nominating a Roberts or Alito.
McCain will quickly cave and give us legacy of liberal SCOTUS judges for years and years to come!
Why would you assume that? A new President has a mandate and time to make appointments. He’s the mover. Congress can’t just sit there for years and do nothing.
I've been convinced that we can't "sit this one out" or "write-in a conservative" or "vote third party" or any other feel good alternative for some time. Out troops, our Supreme Court & other federal appointments and our nation are too important to let a neophyte proto-Marxist race-baiting Chance Gardener anywhere near the Oval Office. Was anyone here really under the delusion that President Bush was a "Reagan Republican" prior to the 2000 election? But did you vote for him? Of course! Half a loaf and all that...
Here is a telling excerpt from the article:
“If elected, Obama would be hard-pressed to create a truly liberal court. But by replacing the aging liberal justices with liberals, he could preserve abortion rights and maintain a strict separation of church and state.”
Enough said.
Can you imagine God forbid if something happened to Scalia and he was seat was filled by that pr**k Obama? Heck, even if Congress forced his hand on Stevens or Ginsburg to replace them with a moderate even McCain knows he would be expected to replace Scalia with a solid conservative and Scalia is of enough stature where even congress would not dare risk the public outcry of disrespecting Scalia’s successor.
Empty rhetoric. ...completely without substance. Obama couldn't cite one example of the conservatives on the court siding against "the powerless." In fact, the exact opposite is true -- Justices Affirm Property Seizures.
That was a 5 - 4 decision, and it was the liberals on the court that comprised the majority.
But as usual, reality means precisely squat to the Left. They just make stuff up, and the sheeple buy it unquestioningly.
If Tom Coburn can trust McCain on judicial picks - and word is that was the selling point for earning his endorsement - then it’s good enough for me. TOM COBURN for crying out loud!
I can’t wait to see the heads explode when McCain nominates Coburn for SCOTUS!!!
LOL!
John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg as headed for retirement, and it’s more likely than not that David Souter will leave also.
Not quite. It's the MSM that buys it unquestioningly. Then unblushingly repeats it as it were true.
Obama appointing Supreme Court Justices alarms me more.
One thing for ABSOLUTE certainty, the next SCOTUS nominations WILL NOT match Justice Ginzburg’s confirmation vote. The U.S. Senate confirmed her by a 96 to 3 vote and she took her seat on August 10, 1993 as Bill Clinton’s 1st SCOTUS Justice (2nd was Stephen Breyer).
Think: Who would you want to replace Scalia (God forbid) - McCain or Obama? McCain would appoint a conservative - because the base and even congress would expect it. Obama would replace our beloved Scalia with Ginsburg II. NO WAY!
If only McLame was a conservative...
I think SCOTUS nominees is the most important issues in this campaign. The War on Terror will take a turn but SCOTUS rulings have lifetime effects made by people with lifetime appointments.
Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) said he was most concerned about a conservative court that tilted to the side of "the powerful against the powerless," and to corporations and the government against individuals. "What's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves," he said in response to McCain.
Supreme Court nominations and the War on Terror are the two most powerful reasons to NOT ALLOW A DEMOCRAT to take the White House, even if one IS pi$$ed at McCain.
Only if Republicans stay home in a huff, and don't get out and support Republican Senate candidates.
That's scary.
That's scary.
So there are still Republicans who will vote for Obama?
And Obama will do what compared to McCain?
When we go to the polls, the only thing we have to go on is how the candidate conducted himself during his years prior to running. John McCain voted for Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy and Souter. John also joined the Democrats to form the Gang of 14.
I don’t be voting for this first class jackass.
It doesn’t cause me concern that McCain will face 60 Democrat Senators. What concerns me is that when he proposes leftist legislation, only five or ten will disagree with him.
Can Operation Chaos be extended to the Senate — vote for enough Democrats so that they self-destruct in 2 years?
As I understand it, Operation Chaos was not intended to get Cinton or Obama elected. It was intended to keep Hillary in so that she and Barack could rip each other to shreads rather than focus on McCain.
That would strengthen McCain’s chances.
Electing Democrats to the Senate would not be a similar idea at all.
If ‘Bama wants to ban home heating and ration food that might be a big issue too.
An obstetrician for Supreme Court Justice?
Oklahoma has rat governor.
Let’s not kid ourselves. McFudd will give the liberals what they want in the end.
In that scenario the media would be bashing a President McCain non-stop. And remember, the media is his John McCain's primary constituency.
Thus, he would quickly cave an nominate someone from the 9th circuit.
I hope your optimism is infectious SuziQ!
Obama will nominate a lib judge the first time around sparing us the drama of the eventual caving of a President McCain.
Some say but it's a rat senate so McCain will cave..... That same rat senate WILL confirm another Breyer. Will. Not might. Will. But they can't confirm what isn't appointed.
Hopefully McCain will get the chance to name replacements 6 months before the midterm elections.
Sadly you are correct. The only way for a president McLame to avoid media criticism will be for him to acquiesce to the democrat agenda. It may be better to have the dem win so the remaining Republicans will find their beytsim and get back to resisting an ever larger government.
Agreed.
There are a multitude of reasons to not vote for McShamnesty. We all know what they are.
But the SCOTUS situation is the only reason I have to vote FOR him. And then, only because the judges serve for life.
Aren't unborn children powerless against their all powerful mothers? Aren't they powerless against the Big Abortion providers like Planned Barrenhood? It is indeed difficult for these children to "fend for themselves". No thanks Barry, you offer change we can all live without.
He also voted for Roberts and Alito. He has not voted against a President’s choice for the high court. He believes it is the President’s call, and he respects that. That is how he has consistently voted. Just like almost ALL GOP senators. Dems are the only ones that vote against the POTUS nominee in mass numbers.
Okay, then you’re on the record that a sitting Senator should never vote against a Presidential nomination for the Supreme Court.
Then I guess our Founding Fathers were full of s—t. Is that about it?
My position is just that Dems should show the same respect for GOP nominees based on their qualifications. If senators only vote for who they would choose were it them doing the nominating, then we would never get a nominee through. The Founders surely did not want the controlling party in the senate to choose SCOTUS nominees just because they have the votes.
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.
