Posted on 07/08/2008 2:05:44 PM PDT by Maelstorm
McCain: Bork Was No "Maverick Jurist"
John McCain is planning to be in North Carolina tomorrow where he is scheduled to give a speech on judicial nominations:
John McCain’s campaign said Friday that Fred Thompson and Sam Brownback will join the presumptive GOP nominee in North Carolina next week for a major speech on judicial appointments.
Both Thompson and Brownback have endorsed the Arizona senator, and both Republicans presented themselves throughout the Republican primary battle as “consistent conservatives,” particularly regarding social issues and judicial appointments.
The speech, to be held Tuesday at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, will be just one element of a broader outreach to conservatives next week, according to the campaign.
McCain is expected to discuss the kinds of judges he would appoint up and down the federal bench.
Why he is doing this on the day of the Democratic primary in the state is hard to understand. Perhaps he is hoping to work his way into the press coverage … or perhaps he is hoping to keep a rather low profile while he delivers remarks designed solely to, once again, assure the GOP’s right-wing base that he’ll appoint justices like John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court without attracting too much attention from the media.
Either way, he’s probably hoping that the press won’t bother to actually write about his record on judges as exemplified by, say, his 1987 support of Robert Bork [PDF]:
I would like to explain why I am going to vote of favor of confirmation [of Robert Bork], and why I do so without any hesitation … I believe that what the Senate should appropriately examine in a nominee are: Integrity and character, legal competence, and philosophy and judicial temperament. I believe Robert Bork is well qualified in all four respects … Judge Bork’s honesty, integrity, and diligence are above reproach … [he] demonstrates that he is not some intellectual “loose cannon on deck,” or a quixotic maverick jurist , but is a thoughtful, reasonable, jurist … [he] is hardly a radical, but is rather a very thoughtful judge in synch with the vast majority of his colleagues on the bench.
…
First, and most importantly, is the question of Judge Bork’s view of the role of the judiciary. Judge Bork is clearly a believer in judicial restraint. He believes that the courts should not create social policy or arbitrate social policy disputes unless the Constitution clearly speaks to the issues. He believes that in our republican form of government such decisions are properly left to legislatures elected by the people, not Federal judges appointed for life. I have no problem with that view, because I wholeheartedly agree with it.
…
I have no problem with my colleagues voting against Bork if they truly believe he is unfit for the Supreme Court – although I personally cannot conceive of how you could reach that conclusion … I believe Robert Bork will be an outstanding Justice and contributor on that Court … Robert Bork deserves our support and will be a great Supreme Court Justice.
In his endorsement, McCain delivered a lengthy defense of Bork’s controversial views, stating that Roe v. Wade is "the clearest example of judicial 'legislation'" and that the rules it set out are "nonsense." Nor did McCain appear to be a fan of the right to privacy, stating that it was entirely "created by Justice Douglas in the Griswold case."
Joining McCain will be Fred Thompson, who shares McCain’s affinity for Justices like Roberts and Alito and is already out making the pitch for McCain on the issue of judges, and Sen. Sam Brownback, who endorsed McCain after his own presidential campaign folded in the early-going, in part to help pay off his campaign debt, but also because he was promised that he “would play an advisory role in helping decide who he should nominate for the Supreme Court.” That undoubtedly appealed to Brownback because, as he repeatedly stated when he was campaigning, he wanted nothing more than “to be the president that appoints the justice that's needed vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade." While he won’t get that opportunity to do that directly, advising McCain on Supreme Court nominations will still allow him to play an important role in finding a Supreme Court nominee that will finally eliminate the right to choose.
Do you think the government will turn around without first going through a crisis of legitimacy? Barring miracles at both the Republican Convention and the General Election, I can imagine no plausible scenario by which that could occur.
If there is to be a crisis of legitimacy, I would suggest it would be better triggered by a big overreach than by a small one. The bigger the overreach, the more likely the enemies of the Constitution could be forced to surrender peacefully.
I do have a serious problem, with the tactics of distortion, hysteria, and politicized paranoia that many of the special interests have used and exploited to oppose this man.
If John McCain is not elected President, lets hope he doesn't get reelected in Arizona.
Jerry Doyle has been hammering away at the fact that
the FOUR SCOTUS judges that gave us the recent legislating
from the bench ... John McCain voted FOR them all!
Hey if it works. I do think there is a lot to vote for McCain.
1. He is committed to smaller government and the only tax on record that he has voted to increase is one on cigarettes. I don’t agree with sin taxes but this is a small thing in comparison to his other votes which I think most here would find admirable.
* A 2006 amendment to cut $74.5 million for various agriculture programs[17]
* A 2006 amendment to cut $6 million for sugarcane growers in Hawaii[18]
* A 2003 amendment to reduce funding for the Yazoo Basin Backwater Pump Project in Mississippi[19]
* A 2002 amendment to eliminate $2.5 million for coral reef mapping of the waters off the coast of Hawaii[20]
* A 1998 amendment to cut $78 million in projects from an emergency supplemental appropriations bill[21]
* A 1994 motion to kill an amendment to provide $40 million for the conversion of a New York City post office into an Amtrak train station[22]
* A vote against the 2003 Medicare prescription drug plan[23]
* A vote against the Farm Security Bill in 2002[24]
* A vote against the 2005 Highway Bill, one of only four senators to object to the pork-stuffed bill[25]
* A vote against providing Amtrak with an extra $550 million for the fiscal year 2007[26]
* A vote against $2 billion in milk subsidies[27]
* One of fifteen senators to vote for Senator Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) amendment transferring $223 million for the “Bridge to Nowhere” to the repair of a Louisiana bridge damaged by Hurricane Katrina.[28] Senator McCain was also one of only thirteen senators to vote for an amendment by Senator Coburn to eliminate $950,000 for a parking lot for the Joslyn Art Museum in Nebraska[29]
* A vote for welfare reform[30]
(* The above came from the Cato Institute)
2. He has strongly opposed special rights for sexual activists in employment and supports the marriage as being being a man and women. He believes that the legislature and the people not the courts should decide this issue.
3. He has been a consistent Pro-Life vote. There may be some who question his purity but his voting record shows someone who clearly believes in the Right to Life.
I think I’ll stop there. He does have black marks especially on immigration and campaign finance but for those who think he doesn’t have clear redeeming value other than the fact he is running against Obama should take a look with an unbiased eye. No one is saying McCain is perfect but the more I look at his record the more it becomes clear that he is more conservative than GW Bush especially on the key issue of government spending. Wouldn’t be to nice to reclaim some credibility on that issue as a party?
Thanks for an important post.
“Obama will kiss the ass of Islam. McCain will kick it.”
Not the most important issue in this election.
Someone should ask Senator Maverick if he regrets any of his votes.Works for me. I'd LOVE to hear his answer to that one.
“Leahy on the judicial comittee will just say “no” and then we get the Juanito doing what he does best, working with his (actual) political party to (once again) screw America.”
I stand by it.
I'll vote for McRINO, but will hold my nose big time.
“He is committed to smaller government”
How does that wash with him wanting to give those leeches sneaking in here from the 3rd world amnesty, which will be followed by every tax payer give away that you could think of?
If we get another Souter on the Court, it won't be the fault of the Senate; it will be the fault of McCain. If McCain were a real conservative, it wouldn't matter what the Senate tried to do--we'd get a 4-3-K or 4-2-K court.
I agree McCain's likely to Souter us. As such, I fail to see why he's better than Obama. Better an openly leftist Democrat than a phony "conservative" Republican.
“I agree McCain’s likely to Souter us.”
You give him too much credit. I doubt his picks would turn out to be even THAT good.
So you think the future President’s handling of the War on Terror is not the most important consideration.
Incredible.
I had heard that Bork was clueless on the Second. Fortunate that his eventual replacement, Kennedy, did vote the right way in the recent Heller case.
“So you think the future President’s handling of the War on Terror is not the most important consideration.”
The election will be decided on gasoline/energy costs and the economy/jobs. IOW, it will be decided on that which Americans actually face every day, rather than some camel-jockey boogeyman half a world away. Research any poll you wish to see the truth of what I say.
That would be a good argument, with one major problem.
It would work, PROVIDED that you have a president with strong, consistent principles who refuses to buckle to the liberals in the Senate. Go ahead and let Chuck Schumer and Co. vote down conservative nominee after conservative nominee. In the meantime, the liberals die off, giving the conservatives majority control. In the meantime, an enraged GOP base takes out its revenge on any 'Rats or RINOs who get in the way.
All in all, a win-win for both conservatives and the GOP!
Think back a couple of years. This is EXACTLY the scenario we faced as Bill Frist prepared to enact the Constitutional Option ending the unconstitutional filibustering of judicial nominations. It would have worked to, except seven RINO senators "reached across the aisle" to stonewall efforts to bring conservatives to the judiciary.
I probably don't have to remind you who led the Gang of 14. It was one John McCain, supported by his girlfriend (and likely VP nominee) Lindsay Graham.
Therefore, your argument is invalid.
The most likely scenario is this: McCain nominates what he calls a "mainstream conservative," most likely a Kennedy/O'Connor type. The 'Rats promptly announce the "right wing extreme" nomination is dead on arrival.
McCain then shrugs his shoulders, says there is nothing he can do and thus, in the interest of comity and bipartisanship, he will reach across the aisle to his good friends Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer to determine an acceptable nominee. Said nominee will likely be from David Souter-land.
People who expect McCain to actualy nominate AND fight to confirm conservatives to the SC are purposely ignoring history.
Many Republican senators who voted to confirm Ginsberg and Breyer have said that they would not have appointed them themselves, just that they were the best nominees one can reasonably expect from a Democratic president.
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.
