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 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
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.
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.
What kind of judge do you think the democratic senate will confirm?
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.
I’ll challenge you on these conclusions......only because that in 1976, if you’d tried to predict Ronald Reagan’s performance
in the presidency, you’d have to factor into your equation the fact that as governor of California he had signed the most liberal abortion law and the most restrictive gun laws in the history of the USA. And by that criteria alone, most of FR would have condemned him as a candidate.