May 6, 2008
McCain and Judges (David Keene)
Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) speech today at Wake Forest in North Carolina represents a real attempt by the Republican presidential hopeful to outline a judicial philosophy that will appeal to the sometimes skeptical conservatives who make up an important part of the GOP base and to contrast his views with those of Obama and Clinton.
Those who haven’t read it should. It is a serious attempt to lay out the candidate’s thinking on a crucial issue, and while some are characterizing it as merely an attempt to “woo” the right, if he means what he says, it has to be taken as much more than that. It doesn’t answer every question or concern conservatives have raised about McCain on the issue of the role of the courts, how he would go about selecting nominees and his willingness to accept the fact that fair-minded judges who read and understand the Constitution might decide differently than he would — but it answers a lot of them.
Although McCain has supported every recent conservative appointee, he raised eyebrows during the primaries by offhandedly observing that while he enthusiastically supported John Roberts, he found it troubling that Sam Alito was perhaps too explicitly conservative. He seemed to be leaning in the direction of favoring nominees who lacked the “paper trail” Democrats in the Senate have successfully picked apart in going after them.
In this speech, McCain suggests not only that he sees Roberts and Alito as the “models” for his nominees, but that he will look for men and women who both share his view of the role of the judiciary and have a clear record. As a conservative, I applaud this stance, as all too often those who lack a “paper trail” are, well, mediocre ciphers who shouldn’t even be considered for such appointments.
A potential president’s view of the role of the judiciary and the ways in which he or she might go about selecting judges and, indeed, Supreme Court justices is especially important to conservatives. This speech, while it won’t “seal the deal” with conservatives as far as enthusiastic support for McCain is concerned, should go a long way toward removing questions about what he will do from the table and strengthening his argument for support from conservatives who may disagree with him on other issues.
In virtually every discussion among conservatives about whether McCain deserves more than a simple vote this fall is the question of the possible consequences of creating a situation allowing someone like Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to reshape the Supreme Court. This speech puts the GOP candidate squarely on the side of conservatives concerned about this and will make it more rather than less likely that they may ultimately end up working enthusiastically for his election.
Keene is chairman of The American Conservative Union, whose website can be accessed here.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 8 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Having John McCain supporting Judges like Scalia, who thinks that torture is a good thing would make me vote for Hillary although I am a Obama supporter. Watching the inept SC over the past few years and hearing Scalia telling America to get over Bush V Gore is something that send me into a rage. The SC usurped the will of the voters and installed an moron in the presidency. We do not need anymore Judges like that.
Comment by Mike Coleman — May 6, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
McCain could do a lot more to inspire the trust of the conservative movement by not coddling up to La Raza as he did yesterday. How can somebody who uses these peculiar code phrases like "securing the border first" and "they are God's children" when referring to the illegals (as if murderers and rapists aren't God's children in the same way) be trusted to respect the Constiution?
Anybody who could be fooled by McCain's clumsy attempts wants to be fooled. As Thomas Sowell said, there is nothing McCain can say to make me vote for him, only Hillary and Obama have that power. McCain has selective respect for the Constitution, and these two clowns have none.
Comment by Igor R. — May 6, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Mike, all Justice Scalia thinks is that there is nothing in the Constitution about the use of torture to extract information because it's not used as punishment, and the Constitution only prohibits certain punishments. Scalia believes, correctly, that his job is to interpret the Constitution and not to invent new rights just because it feels good. Obama on the other hand believes that an important part of a judge's job is to be able to understand the plight of the poor and minorities. You can see that Obama doesn't believe in the Justices simply interpreting the Consitution, which is their only job.
Comment by Igor R. — May 6, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
Igor;
With thinking like that, it is a wonder why he is a Supreme Court Justice. Torture is illegal under any instance. Remember that we, The United States, signed the Geneva Convention which bars torture. Also there is teh 1996 law that bans torture. For a person to say that if torture is not a punishment then it is not torture smacks of an intellectual lightweight. How he and Thomas can sit on the bench and think like that is beyond imagination. His refusal to recuse himself when his hunting partner had business before the SC should have been grounds for impeachment. Bush V Gore should have sealed it. Scalia doesn't belong on teh High Court.
Comment by Mike Coleman — May 6, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
Mike, the Geneva Convention treatment of illegal combattants is a subject of some debate. Certainly the Geneva Conventions (yes, there were several) were centered around the treatment of captured uniformed soldiers. Once again, I was just addressing the constitutionality of using torture to extract information. If the purpose is the information, it's not punishment, it's something else. If the purpose is to get even or something like that, than it's punishment. The famous "ticking time bomb" situation definitely doesn't fall under constitutional law, but of course the use of any form of interrogation can be outlawed by a congressional bill.
Comment by Igor R. — May 6, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
How about providing readers with a link to the text or video of the speech? McCain condemning "judicial activism" after supporting John Roberts is amusing. http://acropolisreview.com/2008/03/supreme-court-john-roberts-and.html
Comment by Jake — May 6, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
Igor, don't be giving us this long lecture about some Geneva Convention, as you are a self-proclaimed right wing nut case. We all now know your kind (neocon) and realize your kind (neocon) is part of the problem, certainly not any part of the solution. In fact, I'd support legislation to impose a "special" tax on you and the other neocon kooks, five times your current salaries, for the next 15 years. Until then, I'll consider you a welfare recipient.
Comment by Lester — May 6, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
Lester, spoken like a madman.
Comment by Igor R. — May 7, 2008 @ 1:58 pm