Posted on 05/18/2008 5:14:34 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Here's why: 1. Gang of 14. 2. Warren Rudman. 3. McCain said Alito is too conservative. 4. There is absolutely zero logic in thinking that McCain will nominate the type of judge that will overturn his signature bills.
They always paint themselves into the same corner.
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.
McCain voted for Alito, Roberts, Scalia and even Bork. He has never voted against a conservative being nominated for the Supreme Court. That is all I need to know.
“As an attorney for the ACLU, Ginsburg once questioned the right of state and local governments to arrest and prosecute pedophiles. She also provided pro-bono legal services to the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and co-authored a report recommending that the age of sexual consent be lowered to 12.”
“Although these startling truths were well-known during Ginsburg’s hearing, the Senate body — and McCain along with it — voted to confirm her. In McCain’s estimation, Ginsburg was not unfit; indeed, she was “qualified.” Such poor judgment compels one to wonder exactly what kind of judges McCain would appoint should he take over for Bush II.”
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/marotte/080511
What kind of judge do you think the democratic senate will confirm?
Great post.
Would Tom Coburn or Mark Sanford please you?
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.
That’s a damn good point that I failed to mention in my post.John McCain would be america’s first mexican president if elected in november.
But just to be clear, I was looking at this from a purely McCain standpoint. He himself is the problem when it comes to originalist judges. The D congress just makes it worse.
^^^^^^^^^^^^Souter, as horrible as he is, was not selected by Rudman and accepted by B41 on that basis.^^^^^^^^^^^^
To my knowledge, Rudman knew full well that Souter was no originalist and both Rudman as well as Souter lied to B41.
But of course, It’s been a while since I went down this road. :-)
But Rudman was one of the most blueblooded country clubbers of his time from what I remember.
^^^^^^^^^I don’t think McCain will find any Scalias. But I also don’t think he will sweep the nation for Ginsburgs.^^^^^^^^^^
Given his own signature bills that he loves to continue to legislate by, I think McCain would purposely seek out Souters; with Rudman’s help.
I’m almost certain that I did post this in general/chat. If I didn’t, I appologize to anybody and everybody. You, the mods, whoever. :-)
^^^^^^^^^^Secondly, I’m happy with the SCOTUS appointments from President Bush, as well as the thousands he’s saved me, personally, in taxes over the past eight years.^^^^^^^^
Yes, bush has been great on SCOTUS picks. McCain is the one that worries me.
^^^^^^^^^^^^Freepers need to wake up and get serious about being involved LOCALLY and on a State level and not get all wrapped around the axle over the Presidency. (You’re playing into the Media’s hands.)^^^^^^^^^^
I always try to do the best I can locally. But that’s just me.
constitution party?
My summarized is simply that with McCain Souters is the best you’ll get. Regardless of who runs the rest of the show.
Get back to me when you can point out how McCain voted for Clinton’s appointees.
Ginsburg and Breyer. Did McCain vote yes or no for them?
You’re falling for the rhetoric. McCain votes for Clinton’s nominees are noted.
Yes, my arguments do wash.
McCain’s votes for Clinton’s nominees are noted.
I’m not dead wrong. I didn’t just take ‘gang of 14’ and run with it. I’m trying to encourage some around here to get a grip on a history book.
^^^^^^^^^^^Souter was a mistake of the presidency not McCain.^^^^^^^^^
Yeah, and the guy who gave us Souter is a member of McCain’s campaign.
Do *NOT* Take my word for it, I challenge you to look it up yourself. Warren Rudman is the guy’s name.
Has he ever voted against a liberal judge?
He voted yes for Clinton’s nominees.
Ginsburg...... “yes” McCain
Breyer ....... “Yes” McCain
When McCain nominates Souter part 2, I think they would be too liberal and would get rejected.
That is the way I see it.
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.