Skip to comments.Judges Are No Reason to Vote for McCain
Posted on 07/17/2008 10:28:15 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
The judiciary is becoming an important election issue. John McCain is warning conservatives that control of today's finely balanced Supreme Court depends on his election. Unfortunately, his jurisprudence is likely to be anything but conservative.
The idea of a "living Constitution" long has been popular on the political left. Conservatives routinely dismiss such result-oriented justice, denouncing "judicial activism" and proclaiming their fidelity to "original intent." However, many Republicans, like Mr. McCain, are just as result-oriented as their Democratic opponents. They only disagree over the result desired.
Judge-made rights are wrong because there is no constitutional warrant behind them. The Constitution leaves most decisions up to the normal political process.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
He has never paid much attention to judicial philosophy, backing both Clinton Supreme Court nominees Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He also participated in the so-called "Gang of 14," which favored centrist over conservative nominees as part of a compromise between President George W. Bush and Senate Democrats.
What's more, Republican Court appointments have often turned liberal. Earl Warren, William Brennan and Harry Blackmun were GOP appointees to the high court. So are "liberals" John Paul Stevens and David Souter, as well as centrists Anthony Kennedy and former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. There is no reason to believe that a President McCain, once freed from the need to seek conservative support, would support more philosophically sound candidates. Even if he did, he would not likely prevail against a Democratic Senate majority.
Mr. McCain has endorsed, in action if not rhetoric, the theory of the "unitary executive," which leaves the president unconstrained by Congress or the courts.
He is writing in a national newspaper about a concept ("the unitary executive") which he, from the context, clearly does not understand.
So says Bob Barr! Yeah now ACLU Bob has convinced me to vote for him. NOT.
“Judges are no reason to vote for McCain”
Judges are the reason to vote for McCain and I’ll give you two reasons
You folks can have a regular love-in here.
Duh, written by Bob Barr, who is trying to get your vote. Of course, he wants to be the alternative to McCain, but in truth there is no alternative. The time for choice is long past. We will either have McCain or Obama as our president. That is a fact.
Would this “I want another 2 minutes of fame” a**clown just shut up.
Bob Barr has become a kook I sure don’t want him picking Supremes. Further, there is no way he can convince me judges is not an important dividing line between McCain and Obama. Think Obama’s favorite judge, Ruth Bader Ginzberg. And that tired line about McCain voting for Clinton’s appointments - 95 or more senators did so.
I think a Senator should vote for the President’s nominee unless there is corruption or some other reason besides judicial philosophy not to.
Bob Barr, working hard to get Obama elected.
Considering they passed with 87 and 97 votes, virtually no one fought these nominations. The GOP respects a presidents power to nominate judges, the Democrats do not. The GOP is stupid though on giving such a free pass, when the Democrats fight tooth and nail.
He also participated in the so-called "Gang of 14,"
Which in the end cleared the way for Roberts and Alito. You may not trust McCain 100% to nominate a conservative judge, but you know for a fact Obama will nominate American-hating ACLU type whackos who will fly through a Democrat controlled Senate. Anyone who says judges aren't a reason for McCain, are braindead or disingenious. Whether it is enough of a reason is a personal choice.
A recent poll sent out by Human Events to consrvative/GOP people comes out like this (Barr is ahead of McCain):
Who Are You Voting For?
Barack Obama 2051 votes (7.59%)
John McCain 11061 votes (40.93%)
Bob Barr 11722 votes (43.38%)
None of the above 2189 votes (8.10%)
Then I guess a lot of conservatives favor amnesty:
From AJC Online
Apparently, among some conservatives, theres been some dispute over where Libertarians stand on the issue of illegal immigration.
The Libertarian Party has not exactly been strong on the issue of controlling the Mexican invasion into this country, Boortz began.
Actually, they have been, Barr replied.
The two gentlemen moved to the matter of what to do with the paperless people who are already here.
You set a mechanism internally to determine who is here. And if you catch folks that are here unlawfully, and do not submit themselves to a background check that those coming into this country are going to be required to do, then you send them back to their country.
It sounds to me that youre saying, if you find an illegal immigrant in this country, and theyre willing to submit to a background check, that that could open the door to them staying here.
I think as a practical matter, that makes a lot of sense. Im not sure how you would go about rounding up millions of people and trying to deport them. The key here is security .
“Nor is it obvious that Barack Obama would attempt to pack the court with left-wing ideologues.” — says Bob Barr.
And if anyone else believes that, I have lots of land and bridges to sell.
The one thing we can be sure of, is that Obama WILL stuff the courts with far-left activist judges and the Dem controlled Senate will confirm every one of them. The country will never recover.
Judges are a hugely overrated reason to vote for McCain:
1. The most likely retirees are liberal, and there is no way Leahy, Kennedy, etc., would allow a conservative McCain nominee to replace a liberal. And, Obama would make no difference in the court replacing a liberal.
2. Kennedy and Leahy will not allow committee approval of any true conservative. McCain would have to sit down with Ted and Pat and agree upon someone in advance. And, we all know how great McCain is at reaching across the aisle. And they won’t agree on the conservative opposite of Ginsburg and Breyer. They won’t roll over on SCOTUS nominees as the Republicans did during the Clinton years.
3. Who believes McCain when he says he’d appoint conservatives in the first place?
In fact, let the Democrats appoint every judge in the judiciary at every level, everywhere, period. I mean, since there's no difference, why not just let them? It's no guarantee that anyone but the omniscient Bob Barr will get it right anyway, so why make it an issue? Plus the Democrats will filibuster any Conservative judge (unless, of course, Bob Barr nominates them).
McCain did not support the Clinton Justices - he did the Constitutional thing and voted based on qualification rather than political philosophy. Sometimes there is a Democrat President and it SUCKS. But to do otherwise is to take up the Dems’ banner that judges need to be of a particular politic to be fit to serve.
Seriously, let's give the Dems this election. That way, they can have the courts for another generation, the Presidency, both Houses of Congress, a majority of the Governorships during a time of redistricting (2010) - well, basically just unfettered, unchecked power. Then, after owning the judges, massive gerrymandering, and instituting election “reforms,” we can have a permanently Liberal country! Wow!
That'll teach those damn Republicans for nominating John McCain! Screw America and the future - We're mad at John McCain and that's what counts!
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.