Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

McCain Sees Roberts, Alito as Examples

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) speaks at Wake Forest University's Wait Chapel May 6, 2008 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. (Getty Images)

By Juliet Eilperin
WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. -- Foreshadowing what is certain to emerge as one of the major differences between the two parties this fall, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) this morning decried "the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power" and pledged to nominate only judges to the federal bench who will strictly interpret the Constitution.

McCain said Supreme Court Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito "would serve as the model for my own nominees if that responsibility falls to me," highlighting the gap between Republicans and Democrats on the question of who deserves to sit on the nation's highest court. Both justices have established solidly conservative records since President Bush appointed them to the court, and the appointment of just one more conservative on the Supreme Court could tip the balance on questions such as abortion, civil rights, civil liberties and private property.

"My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power," McCain told a crowd of several hundred at Wake Forest University's Wait Chapel, as he stood in front of nine American flags and two mock-ups of the Constitution's preamble. "For decades now, some federal judges have taken it upon themselves to pronounce and rule on matters that were never intended to be heard in courts or decided by judges."

While the senator suggested the issue of who sits on federal bench "has become one of the defining issues of this presidential election," the future of the nation's judiciary has gotten little airtime in the 2008 campaign so far, in part because it was not an issue of contention within either party's nomination contest. During the GOP primary contest McCain highlighted his support for "strict constitutionalist judges," especially while touring conservative states such as South Carolina, but it is not an issue he brings up as frequently on the stump largely on the war in Iraq, climate change and wasteful federal spending.

The two remaining Democratic candidates, Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), have virtually identical records on the issue of judicial nominees: They both voted against Roberts and Alito, though Clinton expressed some concern about the idea of opposing Roberts's 2005 appointment.

Despite the fact that it has not dominated the campaign up until this point, both liberal and conservative groups see the future of the nation's judiciary as a key battleground in the general election, given the Supreme Court's current ideological split.

Even before McCain began speaking, the Democratic National Committee issued a press release noting the senator had never voted against a GOP president's judicial nominee. "Looks like John McCain has never met a conservative judge he didn't like," the statement said. "That might have helped him score political points with the right wing of his Party, but it will hurt him this November with the American people, who don't want an extremist ideologue as president. How can we expect McCain to change the direction of the Bush Supreme Court when he's voted for 100 percent of the Bush judges?"

Conservative legal experts were just as quick to praise the senator before he uttered a word at Wake Forest. Ed Whelan, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia who heads the Ethics and Public Policy Center, called the speech "very encouraging."

"McCain has drawn a clear line between his support for judicial restraint and Obama's promise to appoint liberal judicial activists," Whelan said in a statement. In a reference to Justice David Souter, who was appointed by former President George H.W. Bush but has staked out a liberal voting record on the Supreme Court, he added, "McCain has promised that his Supreme Court nominees will have 'a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint.' In other words, no more Souters."

While McCain criticized the judgment of both Democrats when it comes to voting on judicial nominees -- "it turned out that not even John Roberts was quite good enough for them" -- he reserved his harshest attack for Obama, drawing appreciative applause from the audience.

"Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Senator Obama than it did the guy who can get things done," he said. "He went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee... Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it -- and they see it only in each other."

The Obama campaign was not available for immediate comment.

Much of the speech included conservative rhetoric that McCain has shied away from in recent weeks: he openly mocked the litigant who has challenged the constitutionality of saying "under God" during the Pledge of Allegiance and printing the words "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency.

"I have a feeling this fellow will get wind of my remarks today--and we're all in for trouble when he hears that we met in a chapel," he said, prompting laughter from the crowd.

But he also sounded a more conciliatory note towards the end of his speech, and made it clear he hopes to be in the position to confer with Congress on judicial nominees next year from a position of power. Noting that he voted for President Clinton's two Supreme Court nominees, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. "Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the president's call to make."

By Post Editor  |  May 6, 2008; 11:15 AM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Holds Primary Eve Rally in Indianapolis
Next: A Test for the Clinton Campaign


ugh26i0w53jmw9rlb > 2ndd9txl [URL=] jwavpw8dz68 [/URL] 788tcrfn1z169ve

Posted by: hk7f26gk5q | May 16, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

I find that the thought of calling on our judges to adhere to our constitution is the right idea except who's the one to know what is meant by the words there.I think we all of the world put different value on the words we read,if not there would be but one faith and we all know the wars that have been fought in the cause of God.
I think that says about it all!

Posted by: maybe | May 7, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

@ Bill B.

Kelo v. New London? That's it? That's all you've got? It was a specific, isolated case that provided some of the media slanted political uproar that lead to the whole Republican 'black robed judicial activists' nonsense. The judiciary makes rulings on laws and the legislature has the power to write laws, even to specifically rule out the judiciary's previous decisions. Many states opposed their ruling on Kelv v. New London so they in turn passed new laws that would protect some/all areas of eminent domain. This is the way the system is supposed to work.

Fast foward ahead to Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. In this case the dumbass 4 of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, & Thomas were joined through a concurrence by Kennedy to rule that a 'racial tiebreaker' used to maintain diversity in the Seattle school system was unconstitutional.

Of course this is not a case of strict constitutionalists doing what they are supposed to do as with most cases this issue not something spelled out in the constitution. As with most cases, however, there is clear legal precidence to side with the Seattle plan. Perhaps you remember the term stare decisis that we all heard so often during the Roberts nomination hearings. This idea of stare decisis is that the ruling of judges is binding -- legal precidence has been created by past SCOTUS rulings and future judges are expected to follow & side with that precidence. This was pounded in again and again often with the backdrop of 'important legal precidences' like Roe v. Wade, but the Seattle case demonstrates well how Roberts lied to the nomination committee. He told them that he believed in stare decisis and the law of the land yet when this case came forward he ignored stare decisis and became a 'black robed judicial activist' to forward his activist cause of hampering or eliminating affirmative action policies or other tools for increasing integration in public schooling.

This case and the majority opinion he wrote showed who Roberts truly is -- and it will be a long and painful road with him as the Chief Justice. Two great quotes came out of this case, one from a judge that had been on the SCOTUS for 13 years and another that was scarecly 6 months in his chair.

Roberts wrote: "The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race, is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
(gee, how profound -- Maybe he's planning to do this once he find's Bushes magic wand that will make oil prices go down)

Breyer Wrote: "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much," (referring to the new Roberts clan).
He called the ruling a "radical" step away from established law that would take from communities a critical tool used for many years in the prevention of resegregation.

That is a radical opinion by a radical court that has a very strong 4-seat block of incompetence and unfortuantely a willing partner in crime in Justice Kennedy to re-write established law.

I certainly hope that McCain doesn't have a chance to further cement this radical block in their unravelling of the constitution and the ideal of stare decisis.

Posted by: Jon | May 7, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone make a serious counterargument to my contention that the most egregious example of "activism" on the part of the SCOTUS was the election debacle of 2000?

The majority decision (invoking "Equal Protection" in a manner Spock would find "most illogical") reads like something from a military junta in a Banana Republic. Are there any legal scholars who are able to defend it without cracking a smile or breaking into laughter?

Posted by: FF Rolling Over | May 7, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

So you guys want to talk about injustice?

Then let's talk about Kelo v. New London.

That was the case where all the elft leaning judges on the court Ginsberg, Bryer, Souter, Kennedy......sided with the city of New London CT so that the government could seize legally owned private residential propoerty that was owned by American citizens. This is far more eggregious than any decisions that Alito or Roberts have been involved in. I dare anyone of you leftist moonbats to cite a case worse than this where Alito or Roberts brought about an "injustice."

Oh and the the icing on the Kelo v. New London case was that world class jackass Howard Dean going on TV shortly after the decision and claiming:

"The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is."

The only problem with this statement is that Bush had not yet made a single appointment to the supreme court as of the time of the decision and it was the left liberal leftists judges who decided it was ok for the govt to seize private property in favor of emminent domain.

Typical. Loud mouthed misinformed liberal.

Posted by: Bill B. | May 7, 2008 7:14 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Judges Alito & Roberts are Injustices, not Justices. Their decisions have been obscene! I am older than you are but I still have my common sense which you seem to have lost.
You are making it extremely difficult for me to vote for you. If Obama wins the nomination, I, as life long Democrat, will not vote for him and I thought that I would choose you. Now, I think I will simply take a 4 year cruise while you or he finish the job of ruining our country that Bush started.

Posted by: afed27 | May 6, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Lincoln was the head of "old school" traditional Republicans. "New school" Republicans such as Reagan, both Bushes, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, aka neoconservatives, follow the neo-socialist teachings of Kristol and such. Definitely different values from "true" conservatives.

Posted by: Steven | May 6, 2008 4:47 PM
Scalia is the most activist judge of the bunch, not conservative but conventional, neo-corporate, socialist fascism. Conservatives plant their own corn, not provide subsidies to land-owners to pay illegal immigrants to do it for them. Conservatives protect their own borders, not fly half-way around the world to carpet bomb someone elses. Reagan spent a good portion of his life wearing eye-liner and rouge. I'm still certain that Hillary is Romney in drag. In a legal America Ron Paul would be going up against Barrak Obama and the tri-lateral commision,federal reserve would be in prison.

Posted by: Todd Alan Smith | May 6, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

It's sad McCain is A Bush puppet. Bush pulls his strings & McCain dances. McCain used to have some fire & spirit, looks like he sold his soul to the Ultra Right wing of the Republican party & Religious freaks. McCain must be blind to follow in Bush's footsteps, the worst Presient in American history. Dance for us John, old age destroyed your personality

Posted by: gatorsn09 | May 6, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Alito lied on his resume and joined Roberts in asserting that it's okay to aid and abet fraud, just don't do it in a clearly deciferable way in your SEC financials. Of course, if your privately held -

These folks enable Enron and Citi after the fact. They are McCain's examples?

Posted by: TWstroud | May 6, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Adoph wrote " Judges who will say torture is OK, and who will give the police nearly unlimited powers." Sounds like my kind of government, but I'm not totally convinced. Can I also claim to be "not part of the executive branch" so I'm not held accountable for my actions, and can I have my Attorney General come down with amnesia to cover my criminal actions too? Can I shoot my buddy in the face and get away with it? OK, how about eliminating the Writ of Habeus Corpus and 9/10 of the Bill of Rights? Let me do all this and you can count me IN! Bonus points if you let me out our spies to get back at them for exposing my exaggerations.

Posted by: Dick Cheney | May 6, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Yea! That's exactly what we need, more judges who simply ignore the law, like Alito and Roberts. We need more judges who will ignore the rights given to the people by the constitution. Search Warrants? Who needs search warrants? We need to kick out those liberals who don't want to allow us to listen in on their phone calls without warrants, open their mail or spy on all their emails and internet use.

If you want to be like my NAZI dictatorship, you need more conservative judges! Judges who will say torture is OK, and who will give the police nearly unlimited powers.

But, we need to get all the people with low IQs and the people with no political intelligence at all to go along with it ... so let's call it something that sounds solid and decent. Let's see ... how 'bout calling them strict constructionists!? Yea, that'll fool all them poor Southern folk; them Okies, Alabamis, Arkies and such.

Those Mississippi and Louisiana fellers can't even write their names in the dirt with their toes, but they know we need more conservative judges.

Posted by: Adolph Hitler | May 6, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm.... the world is running out of oil, water, land and common sense. Yep, what we need is millions of (statistically poor, black, future Democrat voting) unwanted babies taxing the social system. Until people get serious about either birth control or abstinence, do you REALLY want to outlaw abortion? Do you people honestly REALLY think that outlawing it will stop the practice? How's that "war on drugs" and Prohibition thing working anyway?

Posted by: Mark | May 6, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Show me where in the Constitution it says that you have a constitutional right to marry a person of another race?

"Mildred Jeter Loving, 68, a black woman whose refusal to accept Virginia's ban on interracial marriage led to a US Supreme Court decision in 1967 that struck down similar laws across the country"

Where were the conservative, evangelical, anti-activist judges on this one?

Posted by: thebob.bob | May 6, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

LOL, there's that "pro-life" crowd advocating war and "euthanization" again. Need a back-hoe to clear out such hypocrisy. Not too many actual abortion advocates out there, just lots of REAL conservatives who don't want the government poking their noses into their personal lives.

Posted by: Laughing at Bill Braskey | May 6, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Actually, it's the biggest fear of over 70% of the nation that the policies of BushCo will continue for another 4 years. Hence the low approval ratings.

Posted by: The Sum of All Fears | May 6, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"The biggest fear of Republicans everywhere is that one day, sooner rather than later, Clarence Thomas is going to get up one morning, take a good long look at himself in the bathroom mirror, and realize he's not Al Jolson and that his skin color is NEVER going to wash off. Oh happy day, that one, as the Edwin Hawkins singers might paraphrase it."

The biggest fear of liberal Democrats everywhere is that they will wake up one day and realize that there are more people on the supreme court that think enabling institutionalized infanticide, pardoning the actions of pedophiles and allowing th enation to be overun by illegals is a bad idea than think it is a good idea. Hopefully when they realize this a good number of them will euthanize themselves.

Posted by: Bill Braskey | May 6, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Lincoln was the head of "old school" traditional Republicans. "New school" Republicans such as Reagan, both Bushes, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, aka neoconservatives, follow the neo-socialist teachings of Kristol and such. Definitely different values from "true" conservatives.

Posted by: Steven | May 6, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse


There is only one main reason I will not be voting for John McCain in November, and that's his position on judges.

The quota for Neanderthals has already been filled...No Neanderthals Need Apply.

Posted by: Ethan Q | May 6, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

let me get this straight- republicans claim lincoln as the head of "republicans" but lincoln was all for "federal/nation/government".

Posted by: lawrence | May 6, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

I forget, am I pro-torture or anti-torture? Guess it depends on who I'm trying to impress. Am I a Democrat or Republican? Well, I wanted to be a Democrat running with Kerry in 2004, but now I guess it would be best if I say what the far-right wants to hear. They like family values too, so how do I convince them that I support family values if I divorced my cancer deformed wife for a rich hot babe? Guess it's a good thing that my buddies in the news media like me enough to not bring up that question.
-John McCain for President 2008

Posted by: John McCain | May 6, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

The biggest fear of Republicans everywhere is that one day, sooner rather than later, Clarence Thomas is going to get up one morning, take a good long look at himself in the bathroom mirror, and realize he's not Al Jolson and that his skin color is NEVER going to wash off. Oh happy day, that one, as the Edwin Hawkins singers might paraphrase it.

Posted by: The Sage | May 6, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

I am easily imitated(Flattering actually), but NEVER Duplicated! :-)

Being Ratish is never Cheesy! ;~)


Posted by: RAT-The | May 6, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Two things:

(1) May I suggest that the defenders of McCain's position on "activist" judges argue in support of the position advanced by patron saint Scalia recently in a television interview that torture of a suspect would not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Constitution. (I believe Scalia's response was "well, what is he being punished for?" How about "not answering questions to his interrogator's liking?") Is he serious?

(2) Those comparisons of murder rates between DC and Baghdad are widely regarded as wrong. Just Google for it.

Posted by: Joe | May 6, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I am actually laughing out loud at this article. McCain promises to nominate judges that will strictly interpret the Constitution?! He has repeatedly demonstrated that is has little to no understanding of the Constitution. What's worse he even violates laws that he is responsible for creating. This guy wouldn't even know if a judge was strictly following the Constitution.

Same goes for Clinton and Obama.

Posted by: Bob Jefferson | May 6, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Give it up Libs. We control the voting machines and the media! With McCain in power, we will continue Republican rule for another 8 years - no taxes, bigger loans from China, nuking Iran, more entry level jobs here while we ship yours overseas to India where unions don't exist, judges that will back our agenda, and where Protestant Christian values become law! Deal with it!

Posted by: RAT-The | May 6, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

obama spin dostor, soy apenas un liberal y calcularle hacia fuera no requiere mucho esfuerzo. Soy político moderado y un republicano. Usted es sencillo y debe oler malo.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Once again McClan shows he doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

McClan should get the biggest shotgun his wife can pay for and end it all!

What an elitist pig!

You poverty stricken Republicans should take note and vote for someone else this year. McClan is gonna suck you dry! That dirty PIG!

Posted by: George | May 6, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Lighten up on "Francis"! ;~)

Folks, there are MANY MANY Federal Judicial appointments besides the Supremes.

All of them are more than any DIMocrat should be allowed to post!

With any luck, the RepubliCANS will hold the Executive Branch long enough to see the Ninth Circuit's SCUM Die off.

Polar Bears as an endangered Species-Like the US is going to affect their Numbers or Fate in any way!

What next Ninth? Penguins?

I think the World should reach out and Hug a Polar Bear! Lets start by forcing the Libbie Judges to! ;~)

Go on Libbies! Give that big Bear a Bear Hug! :-)

Posted by: RAT-The | May 6, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Pierre, you are crazy. You think anyone actually thinks Loving was a bad decision? Damn, the folks on both the far right and the far left are all wackos. All of you people who want to pull far in one direction or the other, or who characterize the other side as wanting just that, are very problematic. People should focus on uniting factors, not divisive ones. And really, can a liberal person please point to a specific decision in which has Roberts been "extreme"? I can understand some of the criticism of Alito, but Roberts really is not that bad...

Posted by: C | May 6, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

For example, the latest court ruling that caused consternation, the one that allowed an Indiana law that required vote ID to vote to stand. There are valid arguments both pro and con but the place to make those arguments is in the Indiana legislature, not in a court of law. SCOTUS wisely decided to let that be the venue for decision, a place represented by the peoples choices, not in Washington, at the bar, by people appointed to lifetime tenure, because it did not cross the Constitutional bar.

The reverse is having justices who think their interpretation is correct, unhinged from the consideration of the voters.

Posted by: Ed | May 6, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

In 1967, activist judges radically redefined marriage for much of America. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court changed the definition of marriage from the union of a man and a woman of the same race, to simply the union of a man and a woman, thus changing the definition of marriage that had prevailed for three and a half CENTURIES in Virginia.
If you think that States should have the right to ban interracial marriage, then vote for McCain. I would expect no less from the racist Republican party.

Posted by: Pierre JC | May 6, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

This is fabulous news! The only thing that could possibly encourage Dems more than this, is for McLame to post a YouTube version of "Bomb, Bomb Iran", complete with nukes going off in the background.

The majority of Americans feel the Supremes are tilted too far to the right as it is now. Most folks agree that the Court ought to be pretty evenly balanced, as this forces the justices to consider the actual legal merits of the cases rather than deciding them based on which cabal currently has the votes.

We are all keenly aware that Roberts and "Scalito" are a direct outcome of the Dem failures to win the presidency in '00 and '04.

So we should encourage these kinds of promises from the Republicans, as it will help reinforce to all Dem voters the urgency of securing a Dem victory in the fall.

Posted by: laboo | May 6, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

It is scary. McCain has a chance to win even after he has said he will stay in Iraq and increase the budget deficit. The dollar is soft, gas is through the roof, bridges are falling down (remember MN), millions are uninsured, education is horrible unless you can afford it, etc. If McCain wins, this country deserves what it will get, but I hope common sense wins in November.

Posted by: DaTruth | May 6, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Well I had been reserving my vote for McCain in case HRC won the nod as a worst case scenario vote.

Now McCain has become the worst case.

Somebody please give me a good independent candidate!!!!

Posted by: Sparky | May 6, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

John McCain just lost my vote in the event that the Clintons were able to steal the nomination from Senator Obama. I was willing to take a chance on the old maverick, but he has caved into the extreme right once too often.

If he has his way, then his appointees to the Supreme Court will certainly reverse Roe versus Wade, and women will return to back street illegal abortions when they are raped or otherwise have an unsafe or unwanted pregnancy. In my mind, the government has no place in deciding what is good for a woman.

John McCain wants to limit the government's power over individuals, but is willing to allow it to control a woman's freedom to make her own personal decision.

I am not in favor of abortion either, but the decision should be left to the individual woman, her family, her personal advisors- and not to the government. After all, we do not live in the old Romania under the dictator Ceausescu. Thank God.

McCain wants to limit the Supreme Court's power yet is willing to allow it to have vast powers over a woman's body. No thank you.

Please, old man. Go back to your ranch and enjoy a well earned retirement. You are not well physically or mentally.

Posted by: Erin Riley | May 6, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Wouldn't you rather hire judges who are qualified?
Patton said it best:

"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."

Diversity is key.

Posted by: JudgeBomb | May 6, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

One quarter of the Democratic voters are ready to vote for McCain because the party is shoving Obama down our throats. What does McCain do? Push them away with nonsense about wanting activist conservative judges, preserving tax cuts for the rich, and doing everything he can to imitate the worst of the Bush administration. Maybe they are right, maybe McCain IS crazy. Why is he throwing the election away like this?

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | May 6, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe that people believe this BS. Chief Justice Roberts and his tag-along possee of Alito, Thomas, & Scalia are incredibly radical justices in that they have reversed establish law left & right in their decisions. Yet the US sheep voters keep thinking that Republican/Conservative values = conservative judges and fiscal responsibility while Democratic/Liberal values = radical judges and fiscal irresponsibility while the last 30 years or US politics and policy have proven otherwise. Roe v. Wade is not the debate or the problem here...the issue is that the SCOTUS weilds an immense amount of power and the current corps is more radical than anyone would have imagined during the Roberts noimination hearings.

Please don't listen to the politicians or mainstream news -- read about the SCOTUS through 3rd party sources and see for yourselves. Roberts/Alito are radical judges and have already deviated from the conservative/constitutionalist party line on many decisions and have reversed establish law without justification.

Posted by: Jon | May 6, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Just ask any of the people who worked with Senator Obama at the very conservative University of Chicago Law School about his views on society and the economy. They are in the mainstream and not radical. e believes in free enterprise capitalism and the world market. Stop these lies and distortions.

Not this time

Cass Sunstein University of Chicago Law School

"Not so long ago, the phone rang in my office. It was Barack Obama. For more than a decade, Obama was my colleague at the University of Chicago Law School.

He is also a friend. But since his election to the Senate, he does not exactly call every day.

On this occasion, he had an important topic to discuss: the controversy over President George W. Bush's warrantless surveillance of international telephone calls between Americans and suspected terrorists. I had written a short essay suggesting that the surveillance might be lawful. Before taking a public position, Obama wanted to talk the problem through.

In the space of about 20 minutes, he and I investigated the legal details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the President's power as commander-in-chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and more.

Obama wanted to consider the best possible defence of what Bush had done. To every argument I made, he listened and offered a counter-argument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said that he thought the programme was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides. He thanked me for my time.

This was a pretty amazing conversation, not only because of Obama's mastery of the legal details, but also because many prominent Democratic leaders had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal. He did not want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what might be said on the other side.

This is the Barack Obama I have known for nearly 15 years -- a careful and even-handed analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple points of view.

The University of Chicago Law School is by far the most conservative of the great American law schools. It helped to provide the academic foundations for many positions of the Reagan administration.

But at the University of Chicago, Obama is liked and admired by Republicans and Democrats alike. Some of the local Reagan enthusiasts are Obama supporters. Why? It doesn't hurt that he's a great guy, with a personal touch and a lot of warmth. It certainly helps that he is exceptionally able.

But niceness and ability are only part of the story. Obama also has a genuinely independent mind, he's a terrific listener and he goes wherever reason takes him.

Those of us who have long known Obama are impressed and not a little amazed by his rhetorical skills. Who could have expected that our colleague, a teacher of law, is also able to inspire large crowds?

The Obama we know is no rhetorician; he shines not because he can move people, but because of his problem-solving abilities, his creativity and his attention to detail.

Fortunately, the candidate's campaign proposals offer strong and encouraging clues about how he would govern; what makes them distinctive is that they borrow sensible ideas from all sides.

He is strongly committed to helping the disadvantaged, but his University of Chicago background shows; he appreciates the virtues and power of free markets. In this sense, he is not only focused on details but is also a uniter, both by inclination and on principle.

Transparency and accountability matter greatly to him; they are a defining feature of his proposals. With respect to the mortgage crisis, credit cards and the broader debate over credit markets, Obama rejects heavy-handed regulation and insists above all on disclosure, so that consumers will know exactly what they are getting.

Expect transparency to be a central theme in any Obama administration, as a check on government and the private sector alike. It is highly revealing that Obama worked with Republican (and arch-conservative) Tom Coburn to produce legislation creating a publicly searchable database of all federal spending.

Obama's healthcare plan places a premium on cutting costs and on making care affordable, without requiring adults to purchase health insurance. (He would require mandatory coverage only for children.) Republican legislators are unlikely to support a mandatory approach, and his plan can be understood, in part, as a recognition of political realities.

But it is also a reflection of his keen interest in freedom of choice. He seeks universal coverage not through unenforceable mandates but through giving people good options.

It should not be surprising that in terms of helping low-income workers, Obama has long been enthusiastic about the Earned Income Tax Credit -- an approach, pioneered by Republicans, that supplements wages but does not threaten to throw people out of work.

But Obama is no a compromiser; he does not try to steer between the poles (or the polls). "Triangulation" has no appeal for him. Both internationally and domestically, he is willing to think big and to be bold. He publicly opposed the war in Iraq at a time when opposition was unpopular.

He favors high-level meetings with some of the world's worst dictators. He would rethink the embargo against Cuba.

He proposes a $150 billion research budget for climate change. He wants to hold an unprecedented national auction for the right to emit greenhouse gases. He has offered an ambitious plan for promoting technological innovation, calling for a national broadband policy, embracing network neutrality, and proposing a reform of the patent system.

These are points about policies and substance. As president, Obama would set a new tone in US politics. He refuses to demonize his political opponents; deep in his heart, I believe, he doesn't even think of them as opponents. It would not be surprising to find Republicans and independents prominent in his administration.

Obama wants to know what ideas are likely to work, not whether a Democrat or a Republican is responsible for them. Recall the most memorable passage from his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention: "We coach Little League [baseball] in the blue [Democratic-voting] states, and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq."

In his book The Audacity of Hope, he asks for a politics that accepts "the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point". Remarking that ordinary Americans "don't always understand the arguments between right and left, conservative and liberal", Obama wants politicians "to catch up with them,"

In short, Obama's own approach is insistently charitable. He assumes decency and good faith on the part of those who disagree with him. And he wants to hear what they have to say. Both in substance and in tone, Obama questions the conventional political distinctions between "the left" and "the right". To the extent that he is attracting support from Republicans and independents, it is largely for this reason.

From knowing Obama for many years, I have no doubts about his ability to lead. He knows a great deal, and he is a quick learner. Even better, he knows what he does not know, and there is no question that he would assemble an accomplished, experienced team of advisers. His brilliant administration of his own campaign provides helpful evidence here.

My own concern involves the importance of internal debate. The greatest American presidents (above all Lincoln and Roosevelt) benefited from robust dialogue and from advisers who avoided saying, "how wonderful you are," and were willing to say: "Mr President, your thinking about this is all wrong."
In the 2000 campaign, Bush proclaimed himself a "uniter, not a divider", only to turn out to be the most divisive President in memory. Because of his own certainty, and his lack of curiosity about what others might think, Bush polarized the nation. Many of his most ambitious plans went nowhere as a result.

As president, Barack Obama would be a genuine uniter. If he proves able to achieve great things, for his nation and for the world, it will be above all for that reason"

Posted by: Elizabeth Gilmore | May 6, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

With about 70% or less of eligible voters actually voting in recent elections, about 35% of those leaning to dems or reps, or 17-18% torn between the final candidates and any legislation that eventually make it to the white's no wonder that disapproval ratings for congress and the pres. are so high. The REAL MAJORITY of Americans want a large minority of the left AND the right politicians thrown in prison. We need a strong fed. bench to keep the leg/exec oligarchs in check so they don't rule the country like slave owners for the next one hundred years.

Posted by: Todd Alan Smith | May 6, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Great. More religious zealots secretly governing morality over all. I DONT NEED your religious moral compas. I have my own and it works just fine.

Dems...this above most other reasons is why you need to find some unity no matter who the nominee is.
Between this crackpots warped myopic foriegn policy, his flip-flops on just about every issue and this obsession of his to appease the religious right i think we have a bonified nut on our hands. A third Bush term is very fitting. Only difference is McCain has flip flopped to reach the same policies as Bush. At least Bush was consistantly wrong. McCain had to flop around to get there. I am not sure which is worse.

Posted by: feastorafamine | May 6, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse


Kornblatt se piensa intelligente, pero en realidad, es muy liberal y ingenuo!

this ad is sponsored by the obama spin doctors.


Posted by: obama spin doctors | May 6, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

On Kelo, I have to kinda side with Sheila, although _ you also have some point. I certainly would not say that the land in Kelo was to be used for a public use. Its taking may have brought benefits to the public, but it was not for public use. Of course, the Court over the years has expanded the definition of public use to allow the decision, but it really is debatable whether it is correctly decided from a constitutional standpoint. However, as you mentioned, many states fought back, which may have been the real purpose of the court's decision anyway. Kelo really just left it up to the states to define "public use" and that is really what has happened. Score one for federalism, i suppose.

Posted by: C | May 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

I do not understand why some rail against a judge that does not make law from the bench. If you do not make law from the bench you simply cannot be an activist. An activist judge creates law, without the authority of the constitution to do so. Creating or amending law is the province of the Congress. Essentially any judge whose opinions and rulings make law is in violation of the Constitution and I have never understood why that activist law was always left unchallenged by either the Executive or the Legislative Branch as unconstitutional and unenforceable. An activist judge who tries to change law instead of applying the law is not elected by the people, has not constituency, and has violated the Constitution.

So why again are we so upset that some Supreme Court Judges will not make law; only apply it? If judges can make law, why do we need Congress or the Checks and Balances. Read more at:

Posted by: Ken Moyes | May 6, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

The kill ratio in Baghdad is about 60 to 100,000 for Americans.

The kill ratio in Washington DC is about 80 to 100,000 for Americans.

Or about 20 more people are killed from gun fire in DC than Baghdad per 100,000 Americans.

If we were to give free guns to the DC residents we may be able to save a few lives.

Heck! You might even offer free handgun training to DC residents.

Posted by: Kornblatt | May 6, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Not to trivialize the importance of your point, because it is at least valid, but how do you call America's law enforcement liberal when we have the highest per capita incarceration rate of any industrialized country. (Granted, some of the runner ups execute a lot more people than we do.)

Posted by: Postee | May 6, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

maybe it was because most of the victims were black, that liberals don't care. if they we're all white, i'm sure these liberal laws and law enforcement would be ramped up, and fellons really penalized.

Posted by: black man | May 6, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse







Pathetic losers and hypocrites, all of you!



Posted by: Tom Jefferson | May 6, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Thank you so much for bringing up the topic of judicial appointments. Democrats and constitution-loving Independents and Republicans, are you listening?

Those of you who are thinking about voting for McCain if your favorite Democratic loses the Democratic nomination, please pay attention to this article.

Remember our 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure? Remember habeas corpus? Roberts and Alito don't.

Posted by: DoTheMath | May 6, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I don't know Shiela. There is obviously a constitutional basis for Kelo v. New London. I'm not a big fan of the ruling, but it's pretty firmly rooted in "public use" clause of the 5th amendment. Without eminent domain law, you would have no roads to drive on. Also, using eminent domain rules in the way New London was trying to can be very beneficial to the city. If the new development will bring in more tax revenue for better schools and public safety, and creates jobs that give people opportunities, you're hard pressed to say there is no public benefit from the project. However, since it is always beneficial to kick poor people off of their property, redevelop it into a business and make a lot of money for the city, I agree the ruling does seem to allow the government to rape anyone they please of their property. In Florida, folowing the ruling, we passed a law that made eminent domain harder to use. At some point, you can't expect the Supreme Court to go around waving magic wands that will address everything that you think is wrong with the country. And just because you don't think something is fair doesn't make it unconstitutional. It can still be wrong, but it can definately be legal. I would make a similar argument for Roe v Wade but I've gone on long enough.

Posted by: Postee | May 6, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: thebob.bob | May 6, 2008 1:17 PM - Again, another coherent point put forth by a liberal. Please enlighten us with examples: Who believes only white land-owning males should vote? Historically, that would be the Democratic party - the same party that boasts the only member of the KKK representing them in the Senate, (Robert Byrd.) Who favors big corporations via Supreme Court decisions? That would be your supreme court - the one before the 2 Bush appointments. Please see Kelo v. New London. You could also say it would be the liberal courts who support big medicine by making abortion into a cottage industry via Roe v. Wade, which will probably never be overturned, but the Constitutionality of which could definitely be debated, (among educated adults that is.)

Posted by: sheila | May 6, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

LOL! You people are too crazy. I agree Frank sure seems goofy.

Posted by: The Right Voice | May 6, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse


My problem,


Case in point,

Liberals say, "End the War"
Liberals mean, "We need judges who will support the killing of unborn children"


so to blow your cover guys, but this will get red hot this fall.


Posted by: Tom Jefferson | May 6, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Well unles we have any other comments I think we are agreed Frank is the least intelligent person here. Courts adjourned!

Posted by: JakeD | May 6, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Pile on poor Frank. He opened his mouth. There are always ranting lunatics posting junk.

Posted by: Ciceroji | May 6, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Just because Frank isn't smart doesn't mean we should pile up on him.

Posted by: thebob.bob | May 6, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

if any necons remember back to bush's elections, he said the same things and look where we are, $9 trillion in debt, having the ire of the majority of countries, and if roe vs wade was overturned, abortions would still take place, only they would be unsafe. And finally, religon has no place in politics. Political decsions should be based on logic and sense, not religous rhetoric and fear mongering

Posted by: D | May 6, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Frank isn't very bright I must say!

Posted by: RAT-the | May 6, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

obama will divide, but will not conquer...

Posted by: zoe | May 6, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I'll second the Frank least intelligent thing!

Posted by: Kornblatt | May 6, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Who thinks Frank is the least intelligent person here?

Posted by: JakeD | May 6, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse



Joe Andrew, Superdelegate, Homosexual

deed: auspiciously endorses obama, while race is still in the air

reason: will lead a contigent of activist judges, under an Obama presidency, to redefine homosexual marriage laws, and shove them down your throats.

This ad was sponsored by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, out of San Francisco, CA.



Posted by: Tom Jefferson | May 6, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Jeez Frank, when you can't point to examples, just call those you disagree with Nazis. An activist judge is someone who makes up law that has no basis for Consitutionality, like Roe v. Wade for example. That is actually more akin to Fascism - making up law because some judge thinks it's right. Do you think the Kelo vs. New London decision was fair? That was passed in favor of New London by the Supreme Court before the 2 Bush appointments. Some would argue it had no Constitutionality. I can't imagine anyone - conservative or liberal favoring that decision.

Posted by: sheila | May 6, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Frank | May 6, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I love "original intent" proponents. They're like the "Bible only" group (and often the same). Selective reading of an ancient text to justify the imposition of power. Stone those adulterers, Only land owning white males should vote. The founding fathers would be appalled at what's being done in their name.

McCain is a cranky old man who has suffers from Stockholm syndrome. Keep his hand off "the button" please.

Posted by: thebob.bob | May 6, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"Kornblatt, you need to read up on current events and buy yourself a brain."

Posted by: Frank | May 6, 2008 1:09 PM

Frank you make my point precisely. You really have identified yourself for what you truly are.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Gary, I hate to break it to you, but unless you ask a preseidential candidate a surprise question right when they're getting out the shower, you are always hearing a speechwriter. And if the speech writer or the campaign manager is worth his salt, they would have a speech ready for that moment too.

Posted by: Postee | May 6, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I thought this speech on the Court given by
McCain was the best speech he has given in this campaign. I thought I was listening to him and not his speechwriters.

The voters deserve a Presidential Debate on the Court topic. Without talking squirrels asking questions.

One on one that is a REAL debate.

Posted by: Gary | May 6, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Kornblatt, you need to read up on current events and buy yourself a brain.

Posted by: Frank | May 6, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Do explain, not the Fox News part-I think we all get that-but the "activist" part.

This is the biggest Irony. Alito and Roberts are activist judges. Calling them strict consitutionalists is like calling fox new "fair and balanced". Oh, wait a second...never mind!

Posted by: Ciceroji | May 6, 2008 1:02 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Las morales de Jose su inglés son terribles. Antes de que usted escriba usted debe aprender la lengua.

Posted by: Kornblatt | May 6, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

In the end, I feel this is much more rheotic than anything else. McCain is trying very hard to be more appealing to conservatives, and the posts made thus far prove that this is exactly what he is doing and that it is working. People are quick to question his Republican credentials, so pointing out his 100 percent by-the-party-line voting record for judges, might distract Republicans from the other times when he has been less in line with the party's tune (i.e. border security and tax cuts.)

As one of those independents who will be voting for McCain, I find this entire exercise futile. McCain's remarks give little insight into who he would nominate. The last quote in the article is actually pretty telling. If the reason he confirmed Bush's appointments were because they were qualified and nominated by the President, he probably expects equal loyalty from Republicans when he makes nominations.

Also, his comment about picking judges shouldn't give hard-line conservatives much solace. Original intent of the "right to bear arms" would probably make the NRA upset and pose an unbelievable challenge to the Dept. of Homeland Security. And since Roe v Wade has been precedent for half of century, it would take an activist judge to overturn it.

On a final note, I want to add that the "In God We Trust" and "Under God" issues are silly. I personally don't believe they should be there, and they are only a recent addition to the pledge. But honestly, only stupid athiests care about such things. The money could say "In Barney the Dinosaur we Trust" so long as one dollar buys me a loaf of bread or a thimble full of gas.

Hey like I said, I'm voting for McCain, he's not perfect, and I really hope that a) he doesn't pick Crist for a running mate (I live in Florida and trust me, you don't want him to be a heartbeat away from the presidency) and b)that he can retain his ability to think for himself (something that most members of both parties have lost).

Posted by: Postee | May 6, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Wow, The Right Voice - You make a truly compelling argument and you're so articulate! I particularly love how you've capitalized the word "MORONS" and when you say, "there wifes..." instead of "their wives"; It really makes the point that those redneck, Christian conservatives have nothing on you in terms of education and eloquence.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse


For Conservative nutjobs, the title of "activist judges" only applies to Democrats. When their activist judges like Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas get into power, they should called by their rightful title -- Nazis.

Oh Clarence, can't you hear Der Vaterland calling?


Posted by: Frank | May 6, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

As for Bush's justices, Alito is a bit conservative (mostly on social issues) for my liking, but Roberts is just right. I imagine that McCain would be reasonable. And I totally agree about what he said about Obama. If he were to get the chance he would go with some ultra liberal like Ginsburg. Personally I like the path the Court has been taking since the Rehnquist days, and adding extreme liberals is not going to help it along.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

McBush or whaterver you want, we're staying another 4 year.

What makes you thing that US will ever leave Iraq? We won the war in Germany over 50 years ago, and our troops are still there.
Go McCain!!!

"Posted by: infinite_nether | May 6, 2008 11:21 AM

Overturn Roe v. Wade!!!"

Posted by: Yorker | May 6, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

This is the biggest Irony. Alito and Roberts are activist judges. Calling them strict consitutionalists is like calling fox new "fair and balanced". Oh, wait a second...never mind!

Posted by: Ciceroji | May 6, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

"John McBush's"
Posted by: Frank | May 6, 2008 12:54 PM

"McSame as Bush!"
Posted by: Scott | May 6, 2008 12:56 PM

There is a cult of meatheads that say the same thing over and over again thinking that if they say it enough it will have some effect.

These people have handed Republicans so many votes that today it seems that they are in fact Republican plants.

They make the most childish or outlandish digs about Republicans from the perspective of someone who supposedly is anti-Republican.

I'd hope no one could actually be so ignorant, I hope they are reverse-psychology Republican plants put in place to make Democrats look completely insane.

Frank and Scott you need to take a look inward.

Posted by: Kornblatt | May 6, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Roberts and Alito good judges or just rubber stampers to whatever Big Business wants?

Let's get the Democratic nomination process over. I'm ready to vote for whomever the Dems nominate!

Posted by: tanaS | May 6, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

The republican days are counted. The Mayority rules and the mayority is definetly not repuke.

Any court that refuses to hear an american torture case should be torture. They are not goD and so far Alito and Roberts are BUSHCRIME conspirators.


Posted by: Jose Morales | May 6, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

The term 'activist judge' is interesting, in that it is supposed to label a judge as one who pushes a particular, usually personal or ideology-based view into legislation. Somehow this is only applied to those who lean left, while those who lean right apply their own worldview under the guise of strict constitutional conservatism. Six of one, half a dozen; "Interpretation" is the key when dealing with the constitution, and human fallibility as well as prejudices come into play. Both liberal and conservative judges can be 'activist' in their judgements, especially when dealing with the hot-button issues that tend to define our political climate. Nobody is perfect, and nobody is squeaky clean - and if any of us, right or left, truly believe they are, we are deluding ourselves.

Posted by: TLB | May 6, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

McSame as Bush!

Posted by: Scott | May 6, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse


John McBush's love of Alito and Roberts is reason enough not to vote for him.

Once upon a time, people called McCain a maverick. Now, he's just plain dangerous.


Posted by: Frank | May 6, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

The truth is the Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas are conservative ACTIVIST judges. The other posters here who think that judicial restraint is about pushing the right's agenda have been listening to the Republican propaganda for way too long.

Posted by: Bob | May 6, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

RAT-THE, which hilli billy red neck cave have you come out of? and all those bible thumping idiots who want bush and his cronies type to keep ruining this country should shut their pie holes and go back to beating up there wifes.. you people are OSAMA BIN LADENs of this country... MORONS

Posted by: The Right Voice | May 6, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

The capacity of human beings to bore one another seems to be vastly greater than that of any other animal.
- HL Mencken

Funny thing about this article is the references to Obama and McCain. Every election cycle is fought by politicians that will say anything to get elected and then vote their conscience in defiance of their campaign committments.

Obama is hardly the guy to cross any political aisle, and McCain is hardly the guy to nominate Alito or Roberts.

Clinton will say anything to get elected, the problem with her is she will operate on her own interests before the interests of anyone Democrat or Republican: Just like Bill.

Hillary likely will not have the same wave of good economic fortune blowing through her term in office either. The worst outcome I can imagine is Hillary making desparate 3 AM descisions.

Posted by: Kornblatt | May 6, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Andy it was Donald Duck, get your facts straight
Andy - An other republican jerk!

Posted by: GHM | May 6, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

An other great vote for Obama

Posted by: GHM | May 6, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Not intending to Hi-Jack this thread, but I have to express concern about the BLATANT lack of coverage of the Chilean Volcano.

Gore blurps out his Noxious Vapors about Global Warming, and the reporters go crazy. A "Global Cooling" event happens and it does not even get a mention.

Folks, Ostriches, stop listening to Morons like Gore, and start preparing for the very real possibility several more Volcanoes could join in and send us into a very quick cool down that will mimic an "Ice Age".

Ice Ages KILL!

Posted by: RAT-The | May 6, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Did Ed Whelan, a former clerk to Justice Anton Scalia who heads the Ethics and Public Policy Center, see an advance copy of the speech? If not, was he one of the "conservative" legal experts who were quick to praise the senator before he uttered a word at Wake Forest?

Posted by: JakeD | May 6, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse


You are aware that the Roberts Court upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion, right?

Posted by: JakeD | May 6, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I have to say, when the ONLY thing I support about the RINO McAmnesty is that he will not appoint Libbie Judges;

that I really don't have a whole heck of a lot to be too friggin exited about the GOP Choice! :-(

So far, the RINO's Campaign has all the Excitement of a Monday night at a Retirement Village!


Posted by: RAT-The | May 6, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

This is the only salient reason that I keep voting Republican. Judges are not elected and serve for life. They need to butt out of the political process whenever possible so that something resembling the will of the people has primacy.

Original intent is the only way to interpret the Constitution. As Alito has written, if you want to toss original intent as the standard, give me a coherent philosophy with which to replace it.

Posted by: Ed | May 6, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Not a chance in hell, JakeD. Your boy Bush has had, what, four years now to do it? Never gonna happen now. You've been neoconned, again.

Posted by: infinite_nether | May 6, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Overturn Roe v. Wade!!!

Posted by: JakeD | May 6, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

McBush would appoint more New World Order cultists to the SCOTUS? I bet Clinton's supporters don't care, who are gonna vote for McBush out of spite because their candidate lost.

Posted by: infinite_nether | May 6, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: JakeD | May 6, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company