Sunday, May 11, 2008

Campaign 2008

USN Current Issue

McCain's Judicial Speech Could Help With Conservatives

In a shift, McCain aligns more with the right and advocates for judicial restraint

Posted May 6, 2008

Just days after the Democrats' congressional victory in November 2006, Sen. John McCain appeared before the annual gathering of the nation's leading conservative legal organization, the Federalist Society. Though the presidential campaign had not officially begun, McCain had a key message for his party: that Republicans had strayed from their core values by favoring "our incumbency over our principles."

Instead, he called for a greater balance between the branches of government, one that puts a key emphasis on a limited judiciary.

"The rule of law depends largely on our judiciary's commitment not to impose its will arbitrarily on us," he said. "That's why the appointment of federal judges has become such a flashpoint issue for so many."

It was a problem McCain could hardly blame on the Democrats alone, noting that Congress played a critical role, too, by passing laws that "leave too much to the discretion of our federal judges."

Yet the more moderate tone McCain struck a year and half ago seems to be from another era as the presumptive Republican nominee makes a bid to win over the conservative and religious base of his party—a key group he needs to boost turnout during the general election.

In a speech today laying out his views on the federal judiciary, McCain took aim at what he called the pervasive judicial activism in the courts.

"With a presumption that would have amazed the framers of our Constitution, and legal reasoning that would have mystified them, federal judges today issue rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically," McCain told a crowd at Wake Forest University.

He continued: "The sum effect of these capricious rulings has been to spread confusion instead of clarity in our vital national debates, to leave resentment instead of resolution, and to turn Senate confirmation hearings into a gantlet of abuse."

Indeed, McCain made clear that, unlike his Democratic opponents, he would look for judges who value judicial restraint—in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

"My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power," he said.

It was a shift that won McCain praise among conservatives, who criticized him in 2005 for taking part in the Gang of 14, a group of senators who brokered a compromise to avoid a filibuster and get some—but not all—judicial nominations through confirmation.

"McCain has drawn a clear line between his support for judicial restraint and Obama's promise to appoint liberal judicial activists," said Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in a statement. "McCain clearly recognizes that liberal judicial activism deprives Americans of their basic powers as citizens to establish policies through their legislators."

McCain's speech, however, led to strong condemnation from Democrats, who said McCain appeared to be following in the steps of the Bush administration in supporting ideological appointees. "His speech echoes the partisan Republican ploy of injecting politics into the judicial confirmation process, and that is harmful to the nation, and it is wrong," Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said in a statement.

Reader Comments

Barak Osama is unelectable. Nobody wants another Clinton in the White House. I predict McCain by a whopping LANDSLIDE.

Helps with conservatives, weakens his major strength

In trying to reassure conservatives McCain is ruining his image as the maverick who appeals to the independents. (I'm one of them!) The conservatives are likely to vote for him anyway; this doesn't seem like the best strategy from him.

McCain judicial speech

In his speech McCain does not appear to be taking a side as some would observe, : but rather seems to be offering another vague statement designed to appease the supposed "Centrists".The real issue in this debate is constitutional integrity vs manipulation of the constitution to meet a political goal. There is no middle ground in this debate! I believe that only a literal translation can be considered valid and lawful. This said, the judiciary should be fully engaged at all times , and should be the champion of the people; correcting unconstitutional legislation without having to be prompted by a specific lawsuit or case. The constitution says what it says! People often mistake a "broad stroke "for ambiguity. I will use the 2nd amendment as an example: its two sentences are as simple and clear as it gets; A well regulated militia BEING THE NECESSITY OF A FREE STATE (This line explains WHY it is important!) The rights of THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED(WHAT is PROHIBITED!!!!!! and WHO is the beneficiary or this PROTECTION!) It does not get any clearer that , but because certain groups have something to gain by INFRINGING ON THIS PARTICULAR RIGHT, they try to go around the law by manipulating the language. BOTH PARTIES DO THIS( but the left is much worse about it); by appointing "ACTIVIST" JUDGES" The Left would like to strip us of our rights, while the right will let them get away with it by inactivity! McCain should make it clear, that the Judiciary should be proactive in RESTORING the "LETTER OF THE LAW" not The Interpretation of the law!

correction to my last post

In my haste to get this thought out , I miss-quoted the second amendment which reads: A well regulated militia being the necessity of a free state, the right of the people to keep (own/possess) and bear( carry/use) arms(weapons of any kind , not just firearms) shall not be infringed( violated/ restricted)! note: although I am an avid gun enthusiast, my purpose was to use the simplicity of this law to illustrate my point. It does not get any simpler than to say you shall not do something! and yet the debate rages.```````````

Emma: McCain is pandering to Pro-Lifers

Emma, just so you can't reply on C-Span that noone has mentioned to you that McCain is pandering to the right with his new found support of Judicial Restraint.

There is no hope that McCain will nominate Justices that do not legislate from the bench. What's more likely, in his never ending attempt to "reach across the aisle" (to Lieberman, Kennedy, Feingold and any other Socialist), is that we will get worse Justices under a McCain Presidency than under Clinton/Obama. At least most of the Republicans in the Senate will oppose Judicial Activists nominated by Clinton/Obama. These same Republicans in the Senate will have a harder time opposing the Judical Activists nominated by McCain.

One thing is guaranteed: McCain/Clinton/Obama as President for the next four years = 6 million more of our younger brothers & sister killed by abortion... GUARANTEED

Add your thoughts

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our comment guidelines.

advertisement

advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Sign up today for the latest headlines from U.S. News & World Report delivered to you free.

RSS FEEDS

Personalize your U.S. News with our feeds of blogs and breaking news headlines.

U.S. NEWS MOBILE

U.S. News daily briefings are also available on your mobile device.

advertisement

Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.