John McCain and Barack Obama: Two visions of the Supreme Court

The Los Angeles Times ^ | May 19, 2008 | David G. Savage

[Clintonfatigued]

John McCain and Barack Obama, the two leading presidential candidates, have set out sharply contrasting views on the role of the Supreme Court and the kind of justices they would appoint.

Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.), in a speech two weeks ago, echoed the views of conservatives who say "judicial activism" is the central problem facing the judiciary. He called it the "common and systematic abuse . . . by an elite group . . . we entrust with judicial power." On Thursday, he criticized the California Supreme Court for giving gays and lesbians the right to marry, saying he doesn't "believe judges should be making these decisions."

Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) said he was most concerned about a conservative court that tilted to the side of "the powerful against the powerless," and to corporations and the government against individuals. "What's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves," he said in response to McCain.

During one campaign stop, Obama spoke admiringly of Chief Justice Earl Warren, the former California governor who led the court in the 1950s and '60s, when it struck down racial segregation and championed the cause of civil rights.

Obama has also praised current Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. "I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through," Obama said.

It is not just a theoretical policy debate.

Whoever is elected in November will probably have the chance to appoint at least one justice in the next presidential term. The court's two most liberal justices are its oldest: John Paul Stevens turned 88 last month, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75.

McCain promised that, if elected, he would follow President Bush's model

[Incorrigible]

Only if Republicans stay home in a huff, and don't get out and support Republican Senate candidates.

I hope your optimism is infectious SuziQ!

 

[Incorrigible]

And Obama will do what compared to McCain?

Obama will nominate a lib judge the first time around sparing us the drama of the eventual caving of a President McCain.

 

[Darren McCarty]

That's why I'm holding my nose.

Some say but it's a rat senate so McCain will cave..... That same rat senate WILL confirm another Breyer. Will. Not might. Will. But they can't confirm what isn't appointed.

[proudpapa]

Hopefully McCain will get the chance to name replacements 6 months before the midterm elections.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Thus, he would quickly cave an nominate someone from the 9th circuit.

Sadly you are correct. The only way for a president McLame to avoid media criticism will be for him to acquiesce to the democrat agenda. It may be better to have the dem win so the remaining Republicans will find their beytsim and get back to resisting an ever larger government.

[upchuck]

This is the most important thing at stake, except possibly the War on Terror.

Agreed.

There are a multitude of reasons to not vote for McShamnesty. We all know what they are.

But the SCOTUS situation is the only reason I have to vote FOR him. And then, only because the judges serve for life.

[Clump]

Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) said he was most concerned about a conservative court that tilted to the side of "the powerful against the powerless," and to corporations and the government against individuals. "What's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves," he said in response to McCain.

Aren't unborn children powerless against their all powerful mothers? Aren't they powerless against the Big Abortion providers like Planned Barrenhood? It is indeed difficult for these children to "fend for themselves". No thanks Barry, you offer change we can all live without.

[Clump]

He also voted for Roberts and Alito. He has not voted against a President’s choice for the high court. He believes it is the President’s call, and he respects that. That is how he has consistently voted. Just like almost ALL GOP senators. Dems are the only ones that vote against the POTUS nominee in mass numbers.

[DoughtyOne]

Okay, then you’re on the record that a sitting Senator should never vote against a Presidential nomination for the Supreme Court.

Then I guess our Founding Fathers were full of s—t. Is that about it?

[Clump]

I did not say that. I am repeating what he has said. It is not like the man voted against Roberts or Alito, or that he is using Ginsburg or Breyer as examples of nominees he would put up. He just said that he votes for nominees that are qualified, and that differences of opinion with the POTUS is not a legitimate reason for voting down a nominee.

My position is just that Dems should show the same respect for GOP nominees based on their qualifications. If senators only vote for who they would choose were it them doing the nominating, then we would never get a nominee through. The Founders surely did not want the controlling party in the senate to choose SCOTUS nominees just because they have the votes.