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!
“Bob Barr, working hard to get Obama elected.”
BINGO! You hit the nail on the head.
I don’t need any particular reason not to vote for McCain. Just ain’t gonna do it.
Stop holding Obama up as a bogeyman to distract folks from the fact that McCain is just another Big Government neocon who frequently colludes with left-wing Democrats.
You have so little faith in your countrymen...it's disgusting.
“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!”
BRAVO for your excellent post!
I don’t have one of those “Applause” pictures, or I would post it.
It appears that the "unprincipled Republican party-liners" are already here.
Thank you sweetie!
Fine, if Obama is elected, then don’t bitch about it and don’t beg me for money because Obama is promoting or implementing some left wing cause.
I sure as hell don’t want the guy who said this - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2046701/posts - nominating any judges.
Amnesty? Nice try. You dare compare anyone to McCain on Amnesty. Barr is a loser, I agree, but his record on immigration is a whole bunch better than McCains.
McCain was a POW. That’s the ONLY thing he has going for him that anyone can’t find a flip flop or liberal position on. And conservatives aren’t buying what he’s selling. Have you noticed?
Oh, hush. He's being a maverick, just like Juan.
“Stop holding Obama up as a bogeyman...”
He’s one hell of a bogeyman.
“... the fact that McCain is just another Big Government neocon...”
So is McCain.
“... so little faith in your countrymen...”
Our presidential nominees don’t exactly foster confidence.
It wasn't until Robert Bork that the process got nasty, courtesy of Teddy the Swimmer and his Democrat buds. The Republicans have usually done what the Constitution gave the Senate the right to do, as McCain did with Ginsburg and Breyer.
Supreme Court Justices are extremely important, because if we get more judicial activists, we'll only continue with the societal breakdown we've experienced over the last 35 years. The only way the liberals have been able to implement their agenda is through decisions of the Supreme Court. They knew that the voters wouldn't approve, and they couldn't get laws passed, so they took their issues up through the judicial system until they could get to the Supremes, where they knew they'd have symapathetic judges to rule in their favor, regardless of what the Constitution had to say, or not, on the matter.
Nope, sorry. I don’t base my votes on fear of another candidate. That’s how we ended up with McCain in the first place. First if was fear of Hillary, now Obama. If McCain should lose, which I doubt, the fearful idiots in the GOP will only have themselves to blame. My choices aren’t limited to Obama, McCain or even Barr. I don’t owe the Republican party my vote.
Me neither. But I owe my Country. That’s why I want to spare it Obama.
I really really care what Bob Barr has to say about anything.
1. Republican presidents nominate judges that are liberal and conservative. (see: Ronald Reagan's Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia or George H.W. Bush's David Souter and Clarence Thomas)
2. Democrat presidents ALWAYS nominate judges that are liberal (see: Bill Clinton's Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg and Stephen "let's decide our laws by imitating foreign countries" Breyer)
3. NOTHING in the Constitution prevents a firmly controlled Democrat congress and a President Hussein Obama from deciding to expand the size of the Supreme Court from 9 to 11 or 13 justices, then loading it with liberal hacks...thus nullifying the firm conservatives put on the court by President Bush 43.
After all these considerations, I will be voting for McCain. He isn't a guarantee of a more conservative court, but he IS necessary for one.
They want Ron Paul.
.....Thats how we ended up with McCain in the first place....
No, you are wrong there. There were several candidates in the primary and McCain attractred the most voters. The vote was positive, not negative.
You have chosen to make yourself irrelevant in the Presidential election by not making the hard choice between the two real candidates. As Freeper friends, we can only hope reason pragmatically prevails.
That is an entirely specious argument. You can't justify the wholesale refusal of this current Supreme Court to obey the Constitution as a necessary thing in order to enforce the First or Second Amendments. Barr is simply trying to rationalize the abuse of power we've seen from this 5 vote majority. If Obama is elected, the aging abusers will retire and be replaced by young abusers of even worse character.
Yes, it would be nice if the Supreme Court activism were actually used to enforce the meaning of the Constitution, but historically, that is not what has happened. It has instead been used to undermine the Constitution.
Although I will not vote for Barr (Libertarians are weak on border and national security, and weak on illegal alienism), this article rings 100% true on McCain
Only the most delusion liberal GOPer believes that McCain would really appoint conservative justices.
Too many have bought the “If we dont vote for McCain, Obama wins” crap.
Point blank: You are not a conservative if you are voting McCain. Deal with it
The GOP is useless as a party if the only reason to vote for their candidate is that the DNC candidate is not as liberal
Bob Barr is an ass and has as much chance of being elected President as I do.
What gets me is those that fall blindly into formation behind McCain.
Why shouldn’t we voice our concerns? Why shouldn’t we light a fire under his feet?
We should keep the pressure on him. We need him to see and grasp the reality of just how low he’s polling with us. We need to make him nervous, worried, and fearful of a loss at our hands.
He must be made to feel forced to make public promises to support Conservative Core Values, promises we can hold him accountable to. That’s the goal. It’s not to just fall in line and give freely our support.
At this point, he doesn’t deserve our support, or our votes. Only when he makes a bond with his word, and nominates a truly superior Conservative to ride his coattails to a promotion, will he deserve what we have to offer him...our loyalty and votes.
Until that happens, he can go pound sand.
DUUUHHHH. And just what does that say about just about EVERY freaking Pubbie in the Senate at the time? These clowns are simply members of the two branches of the Demopublican party.
And could that explain why we're probably going to get BO as CEO of what will shortly become the largest national socialist operation in the world.
George Wallace got it right: "There isn't a dimes worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats."
Only now, thanks to the Demopublican INFLATION, it's up to 6 bucks or more.
A pox on BOTH their houses.
I used to respect Bob Barr, but he seems to be full of himself, much like a large-eared candidate from Chicago whose middle name is Hussein.
The way I see it, I can decide to vote for McCain for whatever reason I decide is important to me. I don’t need Bob Barr to tell me why my reason is not valid.
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.