|
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.
FYI
|
He is writing in a national newspaper about a concept ("the unitary executive") which he, from the context, clearly does not understand.
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.
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.
“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!
I don’t need any particular reason not to vote for McCain. Just ain’t gonna do it.
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.
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.
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.
Bob Barr is an ass and has as much chance of being elected President as I do.
