McCain & Obama on Judges: The Choice is Easy
[Guest post by DRJ]
Matthew J. Franck at NRO’s The Corner is not generally impressed with McCain’s Gang of 14, his votes for Ginsburg and Breyer, or his recent speech on the judiciary. But when he compares McCain’s position on judges to Obama’s, he thinks the choice for McCain is easy.
Here are excerpts from Obama’s July 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. First, Obama claims the Supreme Court is rolling back abortion rights and discusses how he would stop it:
“Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure—that it’s not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong.
***
With one more vacancy on the Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe versus Wade and that is what is at stake in this election.
***
I have worked on these issues for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality. Steve and Pam will tell you that we fought together in the Illinois State Senate against restrictive choice legislation—laws just like the federal abortion laws, the federal abortion bans that are cropping up. I’ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito [Applause]So, you know where I stand. But this more is than just about standing our ground. It must be about more than protecting the gains of the past. We’re at a crossroads right now in America—and we have to move this country forward. This election is not just about playing defense, it’s also about playing offense. It’s not just about defending what is, it’s about creating what might be in this country. And that’s what we’ve got to work together on.”
On other Supreme Court cases that Obama views as threats to the rights of women:
“We know, we know it’s not just one decision. It’s the blow dealt to equal pay in the Ledbetter [v. Goodyear] case, it’s the blow dealt to integration in the school desegregation case, it’s an approach to the law that favors the powerful over the powerless—that holds up a flawed ideology over the rights of the individual. We don’t see America in these decisions—that’s not who we are as a people. We’re a country founded on the principle of equality and freedom. We’re the country that’s fought generation after generation to extend that equality to the many not restrict it to the few. We’ve been there before and we’re not going back.”
Obama concludes by pointing out that people may not agree on the details but they can agree on the big picture. Thus, people may not agree on whether parents should have notice of their daughters’ abortions or whether there should be partial birth abortions, but all Americans agree they want their daughters to have the “same opportunities as their sons.”
Obama’s goal is to focus on common ground, on the big picture, that we all ultimately want good things for our families – while refusing to yield on the details. Details like how the law should be written or whether men like Roberts and Alito make good nominees.
EDIT: Obama makes it clear that his idea of a good Supreme Court Justice is Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
— DRJ
Great. Clearly here is a guy in Obama who thinks that we can legislate ourselves to happiness, and if for some reason we are unable to pass the legislation that he deems necessary he will just appoint judges to enact it without going through that pesky legislative process.
And liberals want to paint Bush as a threat to the Constitution.
JVW (835f28) — 5/9/2008 @ 1:31 pmObama’s goal is to focus on common ground, on the big picture, that we all ultimately want good things for our families – while refusing to yield on the details.
That is about as apt a summary of much of his approach to “transcend partisanship” as one can write.
Those, therefore, who oppose his approach – that is those debating the details – will be the ones being partisan.
Nice lawyers trick.
SteveMG (d90022) — 5/9/2008 @ 1:39 pmThe way the political parties line up in the abortion issue has always really confused me.
Normally, I’d expect the bleeding-heart Democrats to be the ones against abortion, and the cold-hearted conservatives to be against any interference in a person’s right to pursue their own individual success, regardless of the cost to the fetus.
After all, the Democrats are anti-war, and anti death penalty. They don’t want us to kill Timothy McVeigh or Saddam Hussein, but they’re OK with killing a innocent, harmless fetus. Why the heck aren’t they against abortion?
And Republicans are perfectly comfortable with ends-justify-the-means collateral damage to innocents when it comes to national interests. It’s OK to carpet-bomb civilians to protect us from communism, and OK to execute or jail a few innocents for life if the rest of us are safer as a result. Why can’t a woman terminate her own fetus if she doesn’t want it around?
Phil (6d9f2f) — 5/9/2008 @ 2:22 pmIt’s OK to carpet-bomb civilians to protect us from communism
Phil – Where has the U.S. been doing this since the end of WWII?
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/9/2008 @ 2:34 pmAnd remember Phil, WWII wasn’t about protecting us from communism.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/9/2008 @ 2:36 pm“And Republicans are perfectly comfortable with ends-justify-the-means collateral damage to innocents when it comes to national interests. It’s OK to carpet-bomb civilians to protect us from communism …”
I think I have figured out why politics does not makes to you, Phil. You have been living on another planet. This comment has no relation to any real history.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/9/2008 @ 3:41 pmOn judges, the choice in the fall will be between (a) the absolute certainty that Ginsburg clones with impeccable Hard Left/ACLU credentials and beliefs will be appointed at every level of the federal judiciary, and (b) the chance (I hope it’s a probability) that McCain will pay attention to the recommendations of whoever wrote that marvelous speech (instead of whoever counseled him into the Gang of Fourteen deal, which I fear was McCain following his own counsel).
Beldar (8f59de) — 5/9/2008 @ 3:44 pmVoting for leftists will finally weave a thread through our system of government that heretofore has been pretty nicely balanced between judicial, executive and legislative….most …of the time.
Put a hard leftist in the office and judges will become legislators (albeit, unelected and unrepresentative), legislators will become judge and jury (especially over corporate America, gun owners, property owners and taxpayers) and the President will be all of the above.
Pardons for enemies of state, taxation without representation. turn our backs on our allies, shake hands with our enemies.
George Orwell…you were off by 25 years. It’s 1984 in 2009…and it’s Animal Farm in the making.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 5/9/2008 @ 4:42 pmIOW, it’s been too long since a justice created legislation out of whole cloth and claimed it was a newly-discovered constitutional right.
“So you know where I stand,” says Obama. Yessiree, Barry, we do.
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 5/9/2008 @ 4:44 pmPhil wrote: “And Republicans are perfectly comfortable with ends-justify-the-means collateral damage to innocents when it comes to national interests. It’s OK to carpet-bomb civilians to protect us from communism …”
Yeah, man! Like Lyndon Johnson, who escalated the Vietnam war! He was a…Democrat.
Uhhhh…well, what about Harry Truman, who declared “police action” on North Korea? He was…oh yeah…he was a Dem too.
But then there was FDR! He was a Republican! What’s that? He wasn’t?
Well, what about Woody Woodpeck…I mean, Woodrow Wilson? He….
….dangit….
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 5/9/2008 @ 4:58 pm“IOW, it’s been too long since a justice created legislation out of whole cloth and claimed it was a newly-discovered constitutional right.”
The horror. Back to the terrible days of miranda rights, state provided defense counsel, desegregated schools and warrants for wiretaps.
stef (56628b) — 5/9/2008 @ 6:19 pm“IOW, it’s been too long since a justice created legislation out of whole cloth and claimed it was a newly-discovered constitutional right.”
stef – It’s been less than three years since the Kelo decision, but that can seem forever for some people I guess.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/9/2008 @ 6:46 pm“stef – It’s been less than three years since the Kelo decision, but that can seem forever for some people I guess.”
That was the worst. After years of bitching about activist judges overturning democratic legislatures what do we get? activist judges empowering democratic legislatures!
stef (72206b) — 5/9/2008 @ 7:20 pmstef – That’s what happens in blue states stef when the legislature violates the constitution and activist Supremes bless it.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/9/2008 @ 7:55 pmBesides judges, how can we justify voting for another compassionate conservative, who will grant amnesty to all comers, ban “torture”, close Gitmo, and who knows what else to please the NY Times?
I voted for Arnold because I was scared of the alternative. A friend said no, don’t do it, let the lights go out. It’s the only way they’ll stop.
He was right. Maybe it’s time we had a two-party, two-philosophy system again. Maybe it’s time to let the lights go out.
Patricia (f56a97) — 5/10/2008 @ 2:24 pm