Q: On the Supreme Court, you have said you will make nominations of strict constructionists in the mold of Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. If such nominees are “borked,” defeated for confirmation in the Senate, will you promise to continue to send similar constructionist nominees to the Senate for confirmation?
A: Absolutely. I will send [judicial nominees] to the Senate with a record of strictly interpreting the Constitution of the United States. That’s what the founding fathers said they should do. It’s not an idea of mine. That’s what the founding fathers said when they called for the separation of branches [of government] -- executive, legislative, and judicial. I mean to somehow think this is a departure of what our fathers have clearly stated is really a continuing puzzlement to me. My point is that judges who legislate from the bench are not within their line of responsibility as clearly cited by the Founding Fathers.
Q: Now the four justices you cite as models for nomination -- Roberts, Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia -- have all at different times voted to overturn parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign legislation you co-authored. Would you appoint justices who would do that?
A: Well, obviously, I wouldn’t impose any litmus tests. No justice that I would nominate would I expect to agree with me on every single issue. The majority of justices just made a ruling on detainees I didn’t agree with. That was very disturbing to me. And so, I can’t say I would agree with every decision. But if I can count on every justice that I name to share my view of the judiciary, then in the long run, things should come out OK.
. . . . .
Q: So will you send the Senate a “border security only” package?
A: I’m still open to a comprehensive package. But I understand we have to sit down on this. We must secure the borders, we have to have a temporary worker program, we must round up and deport 2 million people who are here illegally and have committed crimes. But people who have gotten here illegally, obeyed the laws, learned English, lived here all their lives and have lived decent lives -- they have to go through the naturalization process. They are God’s children.
. . . . .
Q: My colleague Allan Ryskind, who worked with you to defeat Morton Halperin’s nomination to a Pentagon position in the Clinton years, said he wouldn’t mind Joe Lieberman as secretary of defense or state, but would very much mind Al Gore or [Democratic New York Attorney General] Andrew Cuomo in your Cabinet. Are you seriously considering Gore and Cuomo for a McCain-Administration?
A: Not necessarily those two. But you’ve got to reach out. You’ve got to work together and you’ve got to be inclusive. Look, I know that I disagree with HUMAN EVENTS on the issue of climate change. But there are Democrats who have areas of expertise that all of us agree on. For example, Warren Buffett is a Democrat, pro-choice, a lot of things. But I think a lot of Americans would approve it if Warren Buffett were to come in and offer his expertise and help clean up this mess. Do you see what I mean? I wouldn’t appoint Warren Buffett, say, secretary of defense. But I would say, ‘Warren, hey come in and sit down with us. Help us clean up this financial mess. Help us on what to do. But I don’t know what the specific job would be, so it depends on the job you’re talking about.
There are conservatives that can get through a Dem senate. McCain knows that.
|
For a moment there, I was tempted to send in my absentee ballot with a vote for McCain, but then he mouthed off about "God's children" and climate change, praised Warren Buffett, and evidenced that he is still "stuck on stupid" when it comes to bending over for the Democrats. |
|
Screw Romney and Giuliani. Bring in Sowell and Bolton.
Interesting.
Sounds like McCain decided not to irritate conservatives today. Smart move. He spent the last few weeks supporting liberal economic policy and praising people such as Gore and Cuomo and his polling fell out beneath him.
I don't trust McCain...but at least consideration to ANWR and the appropriate judges won't give others trying to elect him heartburn.
Now he’s taking my language.
GO McCAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John McBarnum: You can’t fool all the people all the time, but you sure can sucker a whole bunch of ‘em for while.
The jerk should have been up there before, during, or after he named Palin as his running mate.
Is it impossible for a politican to use common sense..? Especially when energy, specifically ANWR, is a major issue these days?
McCain has it right on the judicial nominees, but it will be practically impossible to get them to the floor for an up or down vote, if the Dems get a super majority in the U.S. Senate (60 votes).
Vote and support Republicans running in the U.S. Senate race.
For later.
Pelosi Predicts 250 Seat Dem Majority
[did she say this at the parade when all US troops came home from Iraq?]
The Hill | 10/17/08 | Alexander Bolton
Posted on 10/17/2008 5:47:09 PM PDT by KansasGirl
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2108517/posts
Japan wins seat at UN Security Council; Iran fails
France24/AFP | Oct. 17, 2008
Posted on 10/17/2008 6:17:34 PM PDT by nuconvert
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2108535/posts
