Posted on 06/02/2008 11:33:26 AM PDT by JZelle
If you ask Americans what issues matter most to them in choosing a president, the candidate's judicial philosophy is not likely to make it into the top 10. But a president's power to nominate judges is, in fact, one of his most powerful tools - and often leaves a legacy that lasts far longer than any policy initiative.
President Dwight Eisenhower was no liberal activist, but his appointment of Earl Warren as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically shifted the nation leftward for decades on everything from criminal justice to separation of church and state to legislative reapportionment.
Similarly, President Ronald Reagan was far more successful in reshaping the courts than in reducing the size of government. So it's important to know how each of the current candidates will go about picking judges when one of them becomes president.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are graduates of Ivy League law schools, Harvard and Yale respectively, and Mr. Obama taught constitutional law for a decade. Both approach the Constitution as a "living document," which they believe must constantly be interpreted anew depending on changing circumstances, mores and values. The literal meaning of the words themselves are no more important in their eyes than the judge's interpretation of what is right and just. Thus, the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law without regard to race or color can be interpreted to permit discrimination against whites if it benefits blacks or Hispanics because, as a group, the latter have faced discrimination in the past and remain, on average, economically disadvantaged.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I don’t know if Roberts and Alito would be able to be confirmed in today’s Democrat senate. And if Dems gain Senate seats in November, it will be that much harder for a President McCain to get conservative judges confirmed by the Democrats. I’m concerned because judicial confirmations, esp. to the Supreme Court, have become just another political battle to be fought.
His yea votes to Ginsburg and Souter not withstanding, right?
“I don’t think McCain would nominate judges in the mold of Alito or Scalia, but I do know Obama and Hillary’s picks would be unsavory.”
It does not matter what judges you or I believe that he would nominate. With his “good friends” in the Democrat party in charge of the Senate, ole Johnny will be more than happy to give them all the Ginsburgs they want.
That is ALWAYS in my top ten.
FMCDH(BITS)
If you’re hoping for some sort of a reasonable nomination of judges from McCain, Boy! are you in for a sorry awakening.
“If you ask Americans what issues matter most to them in choosing a president, the candidate’s judicial philosophy is not likely to make it into the top 10. But a president’s power to nominate judges is, in fact, one of his most powerful tools - and often leaves a legacy that lasts far longer than any policy initiative...”
Most Americans, due to a lack of education or purposeful ignorance, have no idea the impact a candidates judical views will have on their children’s lives. In 1999 and 2000 it was always my view that the Whitehouse was important only to the extent that the SCOTUS was the REAL prize. If we have another Souter or Ginsberg the Constitution that I swore an oath to protect and defend won’t be worth the paper it’s printed on.
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.