Patterico's Pontifications

5/1/2008

Judging McCain

Filed under: 2008 Election,Judiciary — DRJ @ 8:11 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Many conservatives are leery of John McCain’s views on judicial appointments because of his participation in the Gang of 14. CNN’s Political Ticker reports that McCain will speak at North Carolina’s Wake Forest University next Tuesday, the day of the NC Democratic primary, regarding who he would appoint to the bench. I look forward to that speech.

H/T Feddie at ConfirmThem, who also noted the “dizzying intellects” of these commenters at CNN’s website:

“The last thing we need are more stone age thinking right wing nut jobs sitting on the bench for life.

Is this the same McCain that was a POW? What was that he said about the USA? And isn’t this the same McCain that was involved with the Keating 5? But, guess what, he wears a flag pin!!!!!!! And the judges he appoints will be of the same caliber.

He`ll appoint conservative judges to go along with Roberts, flushing out the more liberal ones. ———- Heaven help us all when this happens. Big Corporations will win——————

All we need are to more Justices like Bush picked. They will start giving corporations the right to vote. For all of the democrats who say they won’t vote if their candidate doesn’t win the nomination think about having the Supreme Count controlled by the EXTREME RIDIACAL RIGHT. Is that what you want? I want a court that is balanced not an ideology base of conservatives. I want a court that returns to the constitution.”

I hope I will be happier than these commenters after McCain’s speech next Tuesday.

— DRJ

17 Responses to “Judging McCain”

  1. Why do so many Republicans hate on J-Mac for the G14 business?

    It seems like Republicans got the better end of that deal. Republicans got Roberts and Alito, Dems got nothing. It’s a classic example of bipartisanship that works out to partisan favor.

    Just because McCain says he doesn’t want to appoint radical right-wingers to the bench doesn’t mean much, if he considers Roberts and Alito to be O.K. guys.

    If Pres. Ralph Nader said he wouldn’t appoint any “radical commies” to the bench, who do you think he would appoint? From your perspective, they would probably look like radical commies even if Nader didn’t think so.

    Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c)

  2. “returns to the constitution”

    What on earth are they talking about? They don’t think the constitution is a static thing that we have to revert back to!

    All these scare tactics, when Scalia can be one of the most liberal justices on the bench. Oh man. And look at some of the heros of the left on the Court… appointed by republicans. How many Democratically nominated Justices do rank and file conservatives like? If any argument is going to be made for one party over the other in picking less partisan justices, that argument really can’t favor the democrats.

    Mccain has an easy softball here, since Bush’s additions to the Court are at the top of his accomplishments. Thankfully, the oldies on the Court are all lefties, so the best the democrats could do is keep it where it is (and I like it where it is, with a fair amount of both persuasions). I don’t see Mccain appointing Harriet Myers style people, so I think we’re pretty safe.

    Jem (4cdfb7)

  3. All we need are to more Justices like Bush picked. They will start giving corporations the right to vote.

    This is based on the lefty paranoia about treating corporations as “persons” under the law.

    Sane people know that it just makes sense to treat them as “persons” for certain things, but that only natural persons get to be citizens (and therefore vote), and that isn’t going to change any time soon.

    Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c)

  4. Daryl, I think you’re giving the moonbats too much credit. This schlock isn’t a Harvard Law grad, but an uneducated idiot who can’t even spell a common English word like “radical.” If someone tried to explain to him the legal principle of corporations as “persons” his head would explode.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  5. “This schlock isn’t a Harvard Law grad, but an uneducated idiot who can’t even spell a common English word like “radical.” ”

    He’s just bitter.

    stef (732fa4)

  6. I wish these guys were right. I fear that if McCain wins, we’re in for a series of compromise appointments. Still voting for him, but I’m not optimistic.

    Attila (Pillage Idiot) (b6cc49)

  7. “Why do so many Republicans hate on J-Mac for the G14 business? It seems like Republicans got the better end of that deal. Republicans got Roberts and Alito, Dems got nothing. It’s a classic example of bipartisanship that works out to partisan favor.”

    Not really, Daryl. You see, without the G14 debacle one of three things would have happened.

    1. Democrats don’t filibuster, because they’re afraid of the nuclear option. Roberts, Alito, plus a whole lot of judges who didn’t get confirmed, get confirmed.

    2. Democrats filibuster, Nuclear option succeeds. Roberts, Alito, plus a whole lot of judges who didn’t get confirmed, get confirmed.

    3. Democrats filibuster,Nuclear option fails. In this scenario Roberts, at least, would still have been confirmed. Probably not Alito, and others though. But this scenario has the twofold benefit of giving a huge campaign issue for the 2006 elections, and actually getting conservatives fired up instead of depressed like they were, and also identifying the Senate RINOs who needed primary opponents at all costs.

    So 2/3 of the possible outcomes are better without it, and you can make a plausible claim that the other third isn’t worse, or at least not worse. And what did the Republicans get for their participation? Clueless senators like Graham say they preserved the right to filibuster Democrat nominees. But of course, they did no such thing, because of course, the Democrats wouldn’t hesitate for a single minute to do the same thing if needed.

    So do I trust McCain to nominate conservative judges? Nope. I think mushy justices like O’connor and Kennedy are the best possible outcome, with Souters being equally as likely.

    Skip (163356)

  8. I am sure that all the left wing mini-socialists would prefer Justices in the mold of the ACLU Ginsberg. After all, Obama has said that he would appoint judges that take into consideration their feelings (i.e. if a serial killer grew up in the barrio or ghetto, cut him some slack because a justice should feel sorry for the criminal). The hell with the Constitution. Maybe Obama would be happier if we just recruited justices from Europe. Then we could legitimately use European law.
    For someone who claims to be a Constitutional scholar, Obama seems as clueless on that document as he is about his pastor of 20 years.

    retire05 (4e9bf2)

  9. But, stef (#5), is he clinging to his gun and Bible?

    509th Bob (dfa1f1)

  10. The linked post seemed more concerned with McCain appointing more judges that would give corporations too much power or too much leeway.

    EdWood (06cafa)

  11. The hysteria over corporations never ceases to amaze me. Other than government, who employs most of the people in this country/world? I’m not saying corporations should be able to do whatever they darn well please, but the idea that they are all evil and need to be put under the government’s thumb is what is eventually going to destroy this country.

    jwarner (0c2175)

  12. i support the right of corporations to enter into contracts. i am opposed to freedom of speech for corporations. corporate speech necessarily dilutes the speech of us natural persons.

    assistant devil's advocate (33552f)

  13. Wadda? What are corporations composed of … Martians? Sheesh. Maybe it should be illegal for us all to be talking here together. A year in jail for me and my neighbor cutting down a lot-line tree together?

    nk (13d473)

  14. Typical products of the modern public education system: can’t figure out the difference between “two” and “to” but are pretty sure it’s the corporation’s fault that they can’t get ahead in life.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  15. How do corporations dilute the speech of natural persons? Is there a set amount of speech allowed?

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  16. Corporations are just ways for people to organize their ability to group capital together. The whacky nutjob rhetoric notwithstanding.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  17. Here’s what Mr. Straight Talk said about Roe v. Wade the last time he ran for president. In August of 1999, he told the San Francisco Chronicle that while he would “love to see a point where [Roe] is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary,” nevertheless, “certainly in the short run, or even the long run, I would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force x number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations” (boldface added).

    Anyone who thinks McCain is even going to consider appointing anyone remotely like Scalia or Thomas is a moron.

    Alan (ea0c27)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0758 secs.