Reply commentaries not necessary!
Posted on 06/22/2008 12:06:28 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
“McCain supported Supreme Court nominees John G. Roberts, Jr., and Samuel Alito, Jr., to become chief justice of the United States and associate justice, respectively. McCain voted to confirm both men, whom he said were “strict constructionists.” Obama voted against both. “
Obama would stuff the courts with leftist activist judges that would make Ginsburg look like a “right-winger”.
Reply commentaries not necessary!
Yep. One thing I was thinking about is that it looks like the next judges on the SC to retire will be the left wingers. So if the the dimocRATS stall on putting a conservative on the SC it will be an 8 judge court with 4 known conservatives. Not bad. Then if another retires it will be a 7 court system with 4 conservatives. Sounds good to me. Hahaha.
Here’s the pool of judges and lawyers Obama will be choosing from...
http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/religion/1015939,wright062008.article
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom," Obama told a Planned Parenthood conference in Washington, D.C., in 2007 "The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
In other words, Obama's criteria are very subjective--those persons who emote the proper feelings get sent to the top of the list of prospective nominees--whereas those who have an actual understanding of the Constitution, and prefer to hew to the authors' original intent, are unacceptable.
This is no small point. The new justices to the SCOTUS will likely be there long after the term of the next president has expired--or even terms, should there be two of them. (Provided, that is, that there still is an America, in some recognizable sense, following four or more years of a President Obama, coupled with a Democratic Congress.)
John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both getting older and have had health issues. Both are liberal, and both will almost certainly retire in the next four years. So the next president will have at least two nominees to the Supreme Court.
But, it’s possible the Dems. will have 56 or 57 senators after November’s elections. Could a Judge Alito be confirmed if he had to face 57 Democrats? Would a President McCain be able to get conservative judicial nominees confirmed? Forgetting the possibility of a Dem. filibuster for sake of argument, isn’t it possible that the Dems. could defeat a strong conservative in a straight up or down vote? Then, how hard would a Pres. McCain push the issue? or would he back down and appoint a David Souter type to make peace with the majority Dems.?
That is a very good point. Let the Democrats stonewall a conservative nominee, should McCain become president, if they wish. It would be an excellent example of an exercise in futility--unless all they are really interested in is their keeping up appearances for their base, irrespective of the practical effects.
we really need to hear Obama unplugged on this one, when he's not being fed his rhetoric.
As I pointed out elsewhere, his "litmus test" is apparently that one be decidedly biased against straight, white males.
Just what we need....A older black man dying of aids who spent his life with another man sitting on the SC???
Crappola.
If you have confidence that McCain will seek to appoint constructionists you may be crazy.
He’ll do anything to look good for his democrat buddies.
I wouldn’t vote for either candidate, one socialist who I guarantee ya is for reparations and one RINO turd. I wouldn’t trade either for a soggy peanut butter sandwich.
If only he and his cronies would apply that thought to the Senate and vote accordingly. We would be drilling in ANWR, wouldn't be talking about spending trillions to control the weather, etc.
Fred Thompson is on board with McCain to vet those to be on the Supreme Court.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27128
Thompson to Vet Judges for McCain
In a McCain administration, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson would play a dominant role in selecting Supreme Court nominees and other judicial appointments, sources close to the McCain campaign and to Thompson tell us.
And why is Fred suddenly everywhere? These sources say that the agreement between McCain and Thompson is behind Thompson’s resurgence in the national media in recent weeks. In a McCain campaign conference call with reporters yesterday on last week’s Supreme Court decision on terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Thompson — without claiming such status — played the role of a prominent McCain adviser
If that were the case then he [McCain] never would've voted to confirm both Roberts and Alito. ...which of course he did, (accurately) calling them "strict constructionists."
If you have confidence that McCain will seek to appoint constructionists you may be crazy.
If you believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that McCain and Obama share the same judicial philosphy then you are embarrassingly ill-informed (to put it kindly).
btt
I doubt McCain would be able to get another Roberts or Alito confirmed also, at lest in his first two years (after 2010 the Senate could look different). Probably the best possible outcome would be the seats stay vactant, giving us a 4-4 tie or a 4-3 majority.
These are certainly reasonable concerns. I would address them as follows:
(1) A Judge Alito would not be likely to be confirmed if he had to face 57 or so Democrats--Democrats increasingly emboldened by the public's gradual shift to the center-left--and it is indeed probable that the math will look something like that next January.
(2) A President McCain, sadly, would probably not be able to get known conservatives confirmed to the Supreme Court. And the unknown quantities that have been appointed by Republican presidents over the past half-century or so--Earl Warren and William Brennan by President Eisenhower, Harry Blackmun by President Nixon, David Souter by President George H.W. Bush--have been something less than happy success stories. To put it mildly. In fact, even ostensible conservatives who received the position for reasons other than their constitutionalist views, such as Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy (both appointed by President Reagan), have proved uninspiring.
(3) Given the likely makeup of the Senate beginning in January 2009, the Democrats could probably defeat a strong conservative in a straight, up-or-down vote; and would likely do precisely that, unless the public's mood (which most senators are eager to try to reflect) were to change substantially between now and then.
(4) I really don't know just how hard a President McCain would push the issue. It is true that McCain has an affection for bipartisanship; but whether he would pursue this goal in a context in which bipartisanship was clearly a euphemism for capitulation, I do not know. I would like to think not. Or at least, hope not.
(5) It would be far preferable for a President McCain to leave the seat vacant, given the math that would then be in play. (I am assuming here that the next justice or two to retire would be liberal jurists. That does not seem like an unreasonable assumption.) One can only hope that he would not feel some irresistable pressure to "get something done," and hope for the best. Such a moral implosion would hardly be unprecedented. But when it happens, it does not often work out very nicely.
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.