The Judicial Stakes

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 5/08/08 | The Wall Street Journal

[LJayne]

John McCain is getting catcalls for his speech on Tuesday declaring his preference for Supreme Court Justices in the mold of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

[Always Right]

Finally, McCain doing some meaningful pandering to the right.

[ElkGroveDan]

It won’t be long before he issues an apology and at the same time praises Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[Question_Assumptions]

This is the key reason for conservatives to vote for McCain. Stevens will retire soon and our only chance this cycle of him not being replaced by another liberal Justice (rubber-stamped by the likely Democrat-controlled Senate) is McCain, like it or not. Even if he nominates a moderate, that's better than another Stevens which is what a Democrat President and a Democrat Senate could give us.

[veracious]

Judicial, taxes and Jihad watching are the reasons he's the better of the three; in all other things they are equally dangerous...

[Sybeck1]

McCain has been known to tell a bald faced lie every once in a while, i.e. Romney’s position on Iraq timetables down in Florida.

It’s all a craps shoot IMO, if Chuckie Schumer and Teddy Kennedy get his ear.

[at bay]

My mother began talking to herself in her early stage of dementia. I believe mc “isn’t Putin running Germany?”-will need a—Cain—shortly, is entering that stage.

[eclecticEel]

Judicial, taxes and Jihad watching are the reasons he's the better of the three...

Given his history you can certainly scratch taxes off that list. Unless you want to buy whatever a politician is selling during an election year - by all accounts the worst possible way to find out what one is really like.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Constitution requires that the VP be qualified in the same sense that the POTUS is qualified - native born American, over 35, not a felon - but adds the additional qualification that (s)he be from a different state than the POTUS (or else that (s)he win without the electoral votes of her home state, which was a pretty severe handicap back when there were very few states).

The position of VP nominally exists pretty much as a backup for the position of POTUS, but the added constraint on how the VP is elected is actually an incentive for affirmative action. Any nominee for POTUS has a constitutional mandate to use the VP nomination is to be made to send a message which will unify the country. Which is, after all, what the presidential nominee should want - to unify the country around his administration.

Clearly McCain is trying to unite conservatives with him over the issue of SCOTUS appointees, and just as clearly his intended victory over Obama would tend to disunite the country over race. It follows that the nomination of a black whom conservatives would respect if nominated for SCOTUS justice would serve McCain very well. Janice Rodgers Brown comes to mind, tho I would wonder if the first woman as well as the first black would be ground that you would want to break simultaneously, or if it might not come across as "too clever by half."

[marsh2]

“first woman?” Uh...there have been and still are women on the Supreme Court. (O’Connor, Ginsberg) I must be reading you incorrectly.

[Defiant]

The key question is not who he first nominates, but how hard he fights for his nominee. There is no doubt that any conservative will be voted down by a Dem Senate, on a party line vote if need be. A president trying to get his way would have to maneuver adeptly, using powers of vetoes over budgets and other threats, as well as using the bully pulpit to sell his choice. My guess is that McCain would not go to that level of effort. He would do a pro forma nomination, tell conservatives that he tried, and now a "moderate" nominee is required. Since Anthony Kennedy is not "moderate" enough for Ted Kennedy in this day and age, that means McCain will only be allowed to nominate liberals. He can probably find some Country Club northeast liberal GOP judges, a la Souter, and that will be allowed by the Dems.

Souter is not better than what a Dem would select. Kennedy is, barely. Conservatives need to be realistic on what McCain brings to the table--a whisper of a hope of conservative SC judges, and a likelihood of left of center ones. He is better than a Dem on judges but not by much. When calculating the benefits of a McCain win, this needs to be understood.

[Guenevere]

bttt

[Sybeck1]

Also known as the “Reverse Harriet Miers”?

[Defiant]

More like the Harold Carswell/Harry Blackmun switch that Richard Nixon gave us.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

“first woman?” Uh...there have been and still are women on the Supreme Court. (O’Connor, Ginsberg) I must be reading you incorrectly.

Yes, I'm talking about the VP nomination as a kind of a marker for SCOTUS. If named to SCOTUS, Brown would be about the third black and the third woman. But if elected to VPOTUS, Brown would be the first black and the first woman to attain that post. As I say, I think that first woman as well as first black might be a bridge too far. But naming the first black, and simultaneously naming someone who would be good on SCotUS, would IMHO be a coup for McCain from which Obama might very well never recover.

Said black would not have high-level executive experience - but, "Big deal - Obama doesn't either." So the very weakness of a Republican black VPOTUS nominee would turn out to be a strength if attacked. Because while that weakness would not reflect on the Republican who is running to be POTUS, it would reflect on the Democratic nominee for POTUS.