"I would not appoint somebody who doesn't believe in the right to privacy," the underpinning to abortion rights, Obama said in a campaign debate in Las Vegas in November 2007. Pointing out that he once taught constitutional law, he added, "Part of the role of the courts is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don't have a lot of clout."
Is Obama KIDDING? "The role....is to protect people who may be vulnerable.."? WHAT?
McCain offered a different view in a Republican debate in May 2007.
"One of our greatest problems in America today is justices that legislate from the bench, activist judges," he said.
He elaborated seven months later in another debate. "The judges I would appoint are along the lines of Justices Roberts and Alito, who have a proven record of strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States," a commitment he has repeated often.
Yes, isn't that the whole point? Interpreting, not protecting? That, I think, sums up a lot not only between the two candidates but between Conservatives and Liberals. We want to protect as written in the CONSTITUTION, they want to protect as the judges deem appropriate. That's what these two statements from McCain and Obama mean to me.
Here's the whole article if you'd like to take a look. z
16 comments:
McCain was asked that very question tonight in the town hall meeting in Philadelphia. He answered, "Someone remarkably like Justice John Roberts." I agree.
BTW, McCain did very well tonight in answering impromptu questions from Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. I was proud of him. Maybe there is still hope that Ali bin-Obama can be defeated.
Which is one of the reasons I will vote for McCain.
Ditto what Mustang said. I saw the town hall meeting, too, and McCain did well.
Plus, Obama has previously said that judges have to allow 'feelings' into decisions. Yeah, and he's a Harvard Law School grad. Editor of the Law Review.
McCain did a great job at the town hall meeting. I am just saddened by todays win for those d**m terrorists!
So sad............... sigh.....
But then, the leftist majority on the Supreme Court just voted 5-4 to give unlawful combatants held at Gitmo (terrorists) access to civilian courts, thus putting McCain to the question "will you nominate conservative justices like the ones that dissented from granting access to courts to terrorists at Gitmo, even though you want to close Gitmo?"
I'm gonna need Pepto-Bismol on election day.
"..they want to protect as the judges deem appropriate."
Shouldn't that be, they want to protect as they deem appropriate and so judges exactly like them.
Cos you can bet your bottom dollar that liberals will never appoint a conservative judge on the basis of him/her doing what he/she deems [never mind interpret] appropriate.
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see what alternative McCain offers to Gitmo, hopefully he's not gone mad-liberal on that one.
Gee, maybe I can sell the USA a coupla prison ships they can park in international waters...
I'll flag 'em Liberian or Panamanian... and crew 'em w/Philipinos.
I think I'm going to need more than Pepto Bismal on election day! *sigh*
Off topic, Z... Crian came back in and left a long answer to your questions. :)
There is no guarantee, but the odds favor McCain nominating a conservative to the bench. There is still the process of getting the nominee approved, not an easy thing without a conservative majority.
Wasn't Kennedy a Reagan appointee?
cube..yup...Reagan appointee. Awful appointee.
And yes, it'll be VERY hard for McCain to get ANYTHING done with as Dem a congress as he's going to have...BUT, it's better than letting a landslide liberality bury us under the mud. At least he'd have veto power!
"The judges I would appoint are along the lines of Justices Roberts and Alito, who have a proven record of strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States."
Isn't THAT ironic? Yet, he supports NAFTA and the North American Union, and the continuation of giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, which all three are in flagrant violation of the Constitution itself.
Of course, McCain would be better than Obama anyday, but the guy is too much for sitting on the fence for my vote.
at this point, I feel I HAVE to vote AGAINST Obama, no matter WHO it is. Not pleasant...
then again... since Gitmo detainees ARE under the jurisdiction of US courts (as per this decision)... there's no need to move them, right?
As I wrote on my blog, McCain could win the election on this issue alone. All he needs to do is say he will ignore this court decision if he is elected.
GOOD picture of McCain!
Post a Comment