Wednesday, May 7, 2008

McCain Appeases Religious Right With Promises to Appoint Activist Judges

Have you ever heard a Democratic candidate talking about appointing activist judges to the bench? Of course not, we have too much respect for a neutral, third branch of the government. The judicial cannons require judges not to pre-judge cases, but McCain is promising to appoint activists to the bench who will do his bidding.

McCain, in a speech in Winston-Salem, promised to support judges like Alito and Roberts. This is nice code language for ignoring previous case law and deciding cases the way the religious right wants. McCain has previously said he would appoint judges like Scalia and would Sen. Sam Brownback (R - KS) help pick the judges. Under Altio & Roberts, the decisions have all been focused on a erosion of civil liberties. McCain bashed various opinions, bashed the entire 9th Circuit and said there is systematic abuse by our federal judges. Lest he forget, Alberto Gonzales made it his #1 priority to appoint right wing judges to the bench. For the last 8 years, Bush has been packing all levels of the federal bench with ultra-conservative judges. Are they the systematic abusers McCain is talking about?

Here's the real deal - the religious right doesn't trust McCain. The religious right has been focused on taking over the Supreme Court. Here's how the Houston Chronicle puts it:

By speaking about judges, McCain offered an olive branch to the Christian right, which as been deeply suspicious of McCain.

He has clashed with its leaders and worked against them on issues like campaign finance reform. He also joined the "Gang of 14," a group of senators — seven Republicans and seven Democrats — who avoided a showdown over judges by agreeing to preserve the minority party's right to block President Bush's nominees with the filibuster.

At the time, Republicans held majority control of the Senate; today, they are in the minority. McCain told reporters Monday he would be hard-pressed to find a Republican opposed to the deal "now that the numbers have changed."

Despite his rocky relations with the right, McCain's record on their top priorities — cultural issues like abortion — is very conservative.

McCain doesn't want judges who will apply the law, he wants activist judges who will side with the religious right, regardless of the Constitution, precedent or the law.


Phil Cardarella said...

I fear that those who believe that McCain is just pandering to the Rapture Repubs are far too optimistic. He is as bad as they are, straight from his heart.

I heard his speech, and was struck by his ignorance of Constitutional history and his distain for individual rights. He is a "statist" who has no appreciation for the concept of rights that are not subject to democratic, legislative or executive over-ride.

He may lack W's cavalier sadism. He may have the good and moral sense to be offended by the use of torture -- but not to the extent that he would let that -- or the Constitution -- be a problem among his friends.

Phil Cardarella said...

Speaking of sadism, enough with the pictures of Il Duce Scalia.

whistleblower said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
whistleblower said...


I find it almost laughable that you would point to Judicial Canons, when violations of such, are blatantly ignored right here in Missouri. Unlike what appears to be taught in law school, ethics is more about not doing something you should not, or doing something you should, when nobody is looking, than it is about finding a loophole that allows you to get away with it.

Sen. McCain said that he would appoint judges like Roberts, Alito, and Rehnquist. Sen. McCain then went on to state that he would "look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint." He desires “jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference". I think you read what you want to read.

Previous case law (precedent) bears no weight under our Constitution. While lower courts are bound by precedent, the Supreme Court is not. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution grants supremacy to the Constitution itself, and then to the laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof. The judges of the Supreme Court are not bound by the decisions of their predecessors.

You stated that: “Under Altio [sic] & Roberts, the decisions have all been focused on a erosion of civil liberties.”

I disagree! If your opinion can be supported by any relevant fact, please point out how “all the decisions have been focused on the erosion of civil liberties”.

Kelo is a fine demonstration of how an activist court protects our civil liberties. More decisions like that and we’ll have our socialist government.

To put it simply; under our U.S. Constitution, the document will/must always outweigh the doctrine. The doctrine of stare decisis has been established and accepted by the courts; however, it is not recognized as an authority under the U.S. Constitution.
Like most of those that scream about “judicial activism”, you only find it to exist when the ruling of the Court departs from your beliefs. The only time judicial activism truly exists, is when the court performs a function reserved for another branch. Judicial activism and usurpation are virtually one in the same, and should be considered deplorable by all. By following precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court became an activist court. By design, the Supreme Court sits only in judgment. The Supremacy Clause of our Constitution is clear when it designates what law the Justices of that Court should adhere to. When it comes to the Supreme Court, inviting precedent as a controlling factor is..well….unconstitutional.

In his farewell address, George Washington stated; “but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

The “Religious Right” with all their sanctimonious holier than thou attitudes (whether you agree with them or not) bring a necessary balance to society. They balance moral activism with moral restraint. They balance the “because we can” with the “because we should not”. If you despise them, you are likely part of the “because we can’s”. The majority of society only despises them a little. That’s because most of us, at least on occasion, are part of the “because we think we would like to’s”.

whistleblower said...

Interesting info about Obama.

From an article by Kathryn Jean Lopez: Obama neither understands the judiciary itself nor the Senate's obligations when it comes to the president's Supreme Court nominees. During the Roberts confirmation hearings, the Illinois senator said that Supreme Court nominees should "share one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." Obama wanted both liberal activists on the Court and the Senate to do the president's choosing for him; he doesn't understand the separation of powers.

berto said...

I agree with you about these. Well someday Ill create a blog to compete you! lolz.