Actually, unlike Giuliani, I tend to give McCain the benefit of the doubt on this one. He's made it very clear he opposes judicial activists on the court and has put up a strong fight throughout his Senate career to confirm conservative nominees. Yea, he also voted to confirm Darth Bader Ginsburg, but so did 97 other Senators (this just shows that Republicans need to grow a pair when it comes to stand up against far-left Dem appointments) There was an excellent thread on FR about what Obama appointees vs. McCain appointees would look like, citing the recent 5-4 Guetanmeno Bay decision and how Obama and McCain had completely opposite reactions and gave entirely different visions on how they'd like the next court to unfold.
Now, whether McCain will actually be able to get conservative judges through a RAT Senate is another question, but I do believe he'll make the effort to appoint what he believes to be conservatives.
>> It’s worth noting that Republicans have chosen some of the worst activist liberals in the 20th century for the courts. Jimmy Carter didn’t appoint Stevens, Jerry Ford did (and Ford, even up to his death KNOWING how leftist Stevens was, NEVER regretted his appointment). Ike appointed the ultimate judicial scum of the 20th century, Earl Warren. <<
Bob Woodward's book "The Brethen" covers the Stevens appointment. Basically, Ford was told he would never get a RAT Senate to replace liberal icon William O. Douglas with a conservative (they told him a Bork nomination would be voted down, and this became a reality when Reagan tried it in 1987), so he was hoping to appoint a woman and a "centrist". The only qualified prominent female lawyer in 1976 was one his cabinet members, and she would have been rejected because of allegations of cronyisms. Ford finally narrowed it down to Midwest lawyers, a flashy, boisterous one, and a humble Chicago corporate lawyer, and he appointed the "humble" one. That turned out to be Stevens. You're right that Stevens turned out to be a far-left moonbat and not a "centrist", and that goofy Jerry Ford never expressed regret over it.
We can thank John Sununu for David Souter, he was an old friend of Souter's who told Bush he was absolutely certain (just as he was absolutely certain that Fred Thompson never did legal work for an abortion group) that Souter would be a "home run for conservatives". When he got word he was under consideration, Souter assured Bush that he was a "strict constructionist" (as did the four Nixon appointees that turned out to be wobbly). Souter had only a year on the NH Supreme Court and had issued no rulings on hot button issues. So the buzz at the time was that Souter was "Bork without a paper trail" and he was confirmed over several Dems loudly objecting and claiming he was a Trojan horse for hard conservatives. Since then, they've been "pleasantly surprised" that Souter is a slimy liberal who simply told Bush what he wanted to hear to get on the court.
I think the Souter appointment and 3 out of 4 of the Nixon appointees show that a judge proclaiming to be a "strict constructionist" or an "originalist" means nothing, despite all the freepers demanding Bush appoint an "admitted originalist" regardless of their conservative track record. Republican Presidents need to appoint a lifelong CONSERVATIVE with a track record to match it, not a judge who just claims to be on their side and says he shares their judicial philosophy. I think conservatives we wise to oppose the Harriet Miers nomination, she had no ideological views and was simply a longtime "personal friend" of Dubya, and could have "evolved" into a leftist after Bush left office.
Speaking of bad GOP appointments, instead of listening to all the freepers who think things would be soooooooooo much better if we let government bureaucrats choose our Senators FOR us (I wouldn't trust my gerrymandered RAT state legislature to pick out what I'm having for breakfast, let alone pick my Senator for six years), perhaps we should go the opposite direction and consider having an ELECTED U.S. Supreme Court. In Illinois, our state Supreme Court is elected and the judges selected by the voters are infinitely superior to the kind of court we would have gotten over the last 30 years if Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar, George Ryan, and Rod Blagojevich had selected their judges. We don't have any Souters or Stevens on the Illinois Supreme Court because Republican judges have to make it thru the primary and any RINOs are weeded out at that time. For instance, in the 2nd district (DuPage Co. and western Illinois), establishment conservative judge S. Louis Rathje was appointed judge to fill out the remainder of someone else's term and then he faced a primary against "moderate, centrist" judge Bonnie Wheaton (whose family had founded and basically owned the town of Wheaton), and grassroots reform conservative judge Bob Thomas, a former Chicago Bear. Thomas energized the base, won the primary, won the general over a RAT, and is now Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, so we have a conservative leader on our court in a state otherwise dominated by Dems right now. In 2004, we also replaced the retiring ultra-liberal southern Illinois justice with a good conservative Republican, Judge Lloyd Karmeier. It's the first time we've held that seat in 30 years. Imagine if Blago had been the one to appoint the replacement. ::shudders::
Republicans hold 3 out of 7 seats on the Illinois Supreme Court, and all three of them are good conservatives. Cook County gets three seats at-large, and even though they're technically "elected", they are chosen by the Dem leaders behind closed doors and then run unopposed in the general election. Even those judges turned out to be not that bad, due to the Dem factions having to "compromise" they didn't get the moonbats they hoped for.
So, say what you want about it, but a Souter or Stevens would have a much harder time making it thru a primary election, and we could get Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court during an Obama presidency.
>> Conversely, JFK appointed Byron “Whizzer” White, who turned out to be a fairly model justice and was not a leftist. Another potential Dem appointee that almost ended up on the Supremes was former Virgin Islands Governor William H. Hastie. Hastie was a Black Conservative who was bitterly opposed by both Warren and racist Dems like MS’s Sen. James Eastland. Instead, the ultraleft imbecile Thurgood Marshall became the 1st Black on the court. <<
I agree with that, shameless self-promoter Ann Coulter was dead wrong (yet again) when she insisted no Dem President has accidentally appointed a conservative judge. Byron White had been a longtime donor to JFK and the Dems and a friend of big labor, so he was expected to be a reliable Dem vote on the court. Instead, he ended up being right of center. There would probably be more examples in recent memory except Clinton only appointed two judges and Carter appointed none. It's very hard for a President -- in either party -- to correctly predict how his judge will turn out unless they have a long paper trail.
“(McCain) has put up a strong fight throughout his Senate career to confirm conservative nominees.”
FALSE!!
Hear hear and well said.
Schumer is licking his chops at a possible sweep in November to near filibuster status. If obama gets in, the entire Federal court system will shift Massively Left.
This is quite possibly the worst election for conservatives in a generation and we need to wake up and do something about it!!!
You are right about electing judges. Here in Texas we have an elected Texas Supreme Court and it is reliably conservative.
Only problem here is how you’d even go about electing U.S. Supreme Court members. Running Presidential races is bad enough, but running judicial contests nationally would be a nightmare. They’d have to raise obscene amounts of money in their capacity as Justices, and I can’t see that being a good thing. Another alternative would be dividing the country into 9 distinct districts and electing a candidate from each, but you’d still have the situation with the fundraising. Perhaps a better alternative would be requiring members to retire at 75 (in the case of Stevens, he’d would’ve been compelled to have stepped down in 1995 — interesting how the liberal media never talks much about a nearly 90 year old, senile moonbat making crucial decisions effecting our country. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Stevens is the oldest SCOTUS member EVER).
If I were President, I’d line the court with strict Constructionist 30-somethings, assuring we’d have solid control of the court for half-a-century.