McCain Wants More Bad Bush Judges
By John Amato Monday May 05, 2008 9:00pm(I'd like to welcome Kathryn Kolbert from PFAW to the pages of C&L. (Kathryn has been recognized repeatedly by The National Law Journal as one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America) She will have a steady column here on a regular basis to share with us her expertise on all matters relating to the courts. )
Sen. John McCain delivered a speech at Wake Forest University today on judicial nominations. His basic message: I love George Bush’s judicial nominees – keep ‘em coming. He picked up where Bush is about to leave off, and read from the same script written by Sen. Sam Brownback, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, and Pat Robertson’s lawyer Jay Sekulow.
While McCain mostly pandered to the far right, he also threw a bone to moderates by playing up his involvement in the so-called Gang of 14. But let’s be honest, the “Gang” may have prevented Bill Frist from nuking the Senate, but it also put three of Bush’s very worst nominees – Bill Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Priscilla Owen – on the federal courts for life.
That’s consistent with McCain’s larger record on judges. He has voted to confirm every one of Bush’s controversial appellate court nominees, no matter how extreme and ideological. Back in 1987, when President Reagan nominated Robert Bork, McCain supported him too.
Here was McCain – regurgitating Bush’s favorite talking point – at a debate last year: "One of our greatest problems in America today is justices that legislate from the bench, activist judges.” “I'm proud that we have Justice Alito and Roberts on the United States Supreme Court," he continued.
But Roberts and Alito, and their fellow right-wing justices Scalia and Thomas, are “legislating from the bench.” In just the last two years they have joined together to:
· make it much harder for victims of pay discrimination to get justice
· deny free speech protections to government employee whistleblowers
· make it harder for taxpayers to challenge federal spending that violates the constitutional separation of church and state
· uphold a ban on a particular abortion procedure even though the law has no exception to protect a woman's health
· undermine school officials' efforts to promote racial diversity in their schools
· undermine the Endangered Species Act
and so much more. The bottom line is that America just can’t afford another right-wing Bush justice on the Supreme Court
Kathryn Kolbert is president of People For the American Way.
Login or Register to post comments.
Someone should ask him what recent decisions he disagreed with?
Just like his position on earmarks - he's only opposed to 'activist judges' when they don't go his way.
How many of the 3 candidates have had to say, multiple times, "I was for the _____, before I was against it"?
I know someone who went to this speech today only as a last minute seat-filler. McCain could not draw enough supporters to fill a chapel. She said the speech was strange in that it addressed no other issue besides judges--not the economy, not the war, not healthcare. After the uninspired speech was over McCain left without taking any questions. People were shaking their heads as they left wondering what it was that they had just seen. Just one view from the audience.
right-winged 'loyal bushies' is what we've had for the past seven and a half years!!!
THEY REFUSE TO ENFORCE THE LAWS, unless it's against Democrats.
Eight One Percent think this nation is on the WRONG TRACK...4 more years of Bush, 4 More Wars with Iran, Syria, North Korea, Hezbolla? Four More years of tax cuts for the rich and energy companies, four more years of death in Iraq, four more years of Exploding deficits, runaway pork spending for illegal wars and private no-bid contracts? No thanks, you pugs can keep him!
Time for McCain to pay the price for the GOPs miserable and manipulative handing of our government, at the Polls.
buck fush
muck fccain't
The John McCain McHuman Suffering Company
Bush screwed McCain in 2000, and he's gonna screw him again in 2008! Heeheehee.
I'll agree with your views concerning the legislation of medical procedures and hesitantly agree with the Endangered Species Act legislation, but where is it in the constitution that "school officials" have a right "to promote racial diversity in their schools"? What does that even mean?
The establishment of a Department of Education was unconstitutional enough, but now we hand the right of choosing which school we go to over to school administrators? That, in the most literal sense, is activism...
As the Supreme Court stands today, the right wing cabal has a solid 5-4 majority that could be in place for the next 20years.
Realistically they can cary a 6-3 majority (Kennedy), when Roberts feels inclined to craft a majority responce that can appeal to Kennedy. Of course this inspires biting comments from Scalia whenever Roberts uses slick craftmanship to manipulate Kennedy into "his" original intent sensibilities.
With another wingnut on the bench Roberts, no longer needing the vote of Kennedy, will be free to brouden the rulings of the majority, and which will free up Scalia to chortle the minority opinion at every opportunity.
This is not what anyone here would want to see, Judicial assault on our basic rights.
X @ 8:
It's only "activism" when reich-wingers disagree with the ruling. Kinda nifty how that works, huh?
Thank you for keeping this issue visible. I guess the silver lining is that McCain brought it to the table today. I hope this list of decisions is handy in hardhitting joe sixpack soundbites in November. I especially appreciate the evidence that McCain isn't as all mavericky even back in the day (ie Bork, FGS).
Some conservatives don't realize that they are cheering on the erosion of their own rights. They think only the troublemakers will have trouble.
More Proof Republicans Value Oppressive Authoritarian Rule and Proud of It
Despite the avalanche of recent books about the authoritarian tendencies of the Republican/conservative mindset, the public still doesn’t sense the threat it would have on our young democratic socialist society.
The Associated Press fell down on the job again when it reported this story about the Supreme Court Justice vote in the Senate. “Republican John McCain castigated Democrat Barack Obama for voting against John Roberts as Supreme Court chief justice in a speech about the kind of judges McCain would nominate. "
“McCain promised to appoint judges who, in the mold of Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, are likely to limit the reach of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. ‘Obama likes to talk up his image as someone who works with Republicans to get things done, yet Obama went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee,’ McCain said.”
It’s that “partisan crowd” of thoughtful Senators, representing their constituents, who voted their conscience and firmly held belief that the Constitution expands the rights of people in this country.
What AP neglected to mention was the partisan vote every Republican cast in favor of John Roberts with his known conservative agenda. Not one dissenter within the Party ranks.
More....
Democurmudgeon @ 12:
this is scarier than bomb, bomb, bomb iran. judicial nominations are under-discussed in the stream.
What is really sad is that this thread only received 15 comments thus far.
I would request that it be resubmitted tomorrow.
And if you don't want more bad Bush judges, try actually doing something instead of blogging!
Here's # 17............ let me see here, HRC..............OSB...........John let the Illegals all stay
That's the choices we face????????????????
Where's the Kool Aid Rev Jones
God Help Us these next 4 yrs, we's in trouble
Dr. Biitter Hussein (Mission Accomplished) Matt @ 10:
Is that even a response to my original statement? Aligning Republicans with Nazis? How thought-provoking. But no, it's activism when a decision runs completely counter to the dictates of the Constitution.
"Legislating from the bench" is right-wing code speech for "upholding any law passed by Congress that conservatives don't like."
"Strict constructionism" means interpreting laws according to the right wing's unique interpretation of the Constitution, a document that among other things, allowed slavery.
The Rehnquist court didn't like the Constitution at all in 2000, when it overrode the Electoral College and intervened in Bush v. Gore. The founding fathers reserved for STATES the right to adjudicate elections, and for STATE courts to be the final arbiters of any disputes. That's what the Electoral College is all about...states' rights, a concept that suited the wishes of right-wingers during the civil rights era, but didn't suit their wishes when Bush's (fraudulent) election was threatened.
Well, the Bush Supreme Court did stop some nuns from voting in Indiana. Minnesota has the most liberal voting and registration laws there can be. People can register on election day and show only a utility bill with their name and address on it, or bring a neighbor to vouch for them and they can vote. We don't have voter fraud and we have a high rate of turnout. Could the Bush Supreme Court ruling really be aimed at reducing turnout?
Its very simple folks....
If the Democratic Nominee doesn't win in November...
You can kiss the country good bye...
If you thought the 1st Republican Great Depression was a doozy...
If you need a mental picture....take a look at Iraq and only take away the bombed out buildings....or maybe not...
johnny utah @ 14:
Johnny, love your name by the way...
Its 'under discussed' because the Corporate Media know that his judges will make the Big 5 Monopolies consolidation permanent...
On a serious note, the Democrats need to somehow invert the whole "Activist Judges" meme that the Republicans have successfully injected into the political discourse. Alito, Scalia and Roberts are, in reality, activists. The Democrats need to convince Americans that continuing to appoint corporatists and right-wing ideologues will leave us unprotected as a people.
This can be a very powerful issue for the Democratic candidate if its played right.
Bush judges and congress = immunity to corporations concerning lawsuits/regulations
X @ 18:
Reich-wingers only believe it's "against the Constitution" when they disagree with the ruling.
McCain Wants More Bad Bush Judges
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySP1rb2cnQc
The real threat of the Roberts court is its willingness to allow for the expansion of power with the executive. As we know, this has been Cheney's plan since he was with the Nixon administration. But one example was the S. Court's striking of the California medical marijuana law because that was pre-empted by regulation promulgated by the executive branch.
X @ 18
There's acivisim even in non-acting, and the Supreme Court has case discretion.
They usually take cases that involve more than one right, and try to balance them, but some parties hate compromise.
The people who argue against court activism on any level usually question the right of the Supreme Court as final arbitrar of the Constitution which has been around since Marbury vs Madison 1803.
They'll argue it's freedom of the press and speech not radio, tv or internet because they weren't invented yet.
But would cover all guns since the musket and derringer under Amendment II.
They say they're for state power (amendment X), while ignoring the pendumbra amendment (amendment IX). Suddenly they're against state power when it involved the election of 2000, or legislation to regulate guns.
They'll even use the XIV amendment to stop both of these listed above under it's incorporationist doctrine, even while arguing against the incorporationist doctrine for undermining states rights.
Additionally we're a common-law country not civil-law which relies on codes that try to determine things in advance. Think of the Justinian Codex and the Napoleonic Codex.
France since their Revolution has gone through 16 Constitutions because they make them so inflexible trying to determine all lawful activities in advance, that when changes come, they have to sit down and rewrite everything. Fortunately for France, they have the Napoleonic Bureaucracy to maintain continuity even though they have had two kings, two emperors, a constant rising and falling Catholic power, Europe's earliest communists (which they call communards), and their Republican party (the party of the head choppers.)
And if one could determine all law and justice in advance by what's been written, we wouldn't neet judges, just bureaucrats.
Additionally, the idea that the constitution has to be read and treated as written is a secular version of Sola Scriptura.
And makes boosh even worse for his trashing of the constitution.
Great post, Kathryn. While some people are speculating that McCain may only run for one term, the judges he'll appoint will last for DECADES. That's a truly scary thought. Keep up the good work!
Welcome to the these hollowed grounds that we refer to as C&L, Kathryn. Not having a great grasp of how the courts are screwing with the american way I can't make a valid critisism one way or another but have judges who care less about the little guy and more about big business is not who I want to have the final say.
Married to prince george, pickles had to learn to beat around the bush.
howard dean is the no. 1 crook, he stole my vote in florida. i will vote against any canidate that he is backing even if it makes me puke.
Study the Constitution, PLEASE! It is NOT the role of the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench. It is to interpret ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION the laws passed by congress and to enforce those laws. Reading into the Constitution anything that is not contained therein is legislating from the bench. One can extrapolate from the Constitution, though. For example, the Internet did not exist in the 18th Century, but one can include the Internet as a protected right guaranteed by the First Amendment becausse it is a form of "the press". Sorry to tick off the Liberals, but, although I disagree with a lot of what he's done, Bush did do a good job in his appointments. Remember, lots of Democrats voted for them, too.
Login or Register to post comments.