McCain's Judicial Speech Could Help With Conservatives
In a shift, McCain aligns more with the right and advocates for judicial restraint
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
The basic differance betweeen liberals and trye conservatives
Both liberals and conservatives want to preserve their own freedoms and lifestyles. The main difference is not what they want , but how the want to achieve it. A conservative says: just leave me alone and stop taking what is mine or else. He feels perfectly confident and content in his self reliance. He may poke harmless fun at some of the liberals more bizarre behaviors,but, is also content to leave them alone as long as they don't try to change his world. The Liberal needs to take from the conservative in order to feel free. They appear to see the conservative as a wild animal who is dangerous and fierce, a predator be feared and controlled . The liberal rarely has the strength to stand alone and he tends to be afraid of the truth ; which is why liberals always want to "BAN" religion, guns, cars, etc. The truth is that the liberal hates the truth, and so they seek to prevent anyone else from hearing it! Our sins are not freedoms, and although I agree that is our right to sin , it is also a right to be free of the influence of sin. So just mind your own business, and leave our rights and freedoms alone, and we can peacefully coexist, but continue to try and cage us, and you will only cause more conflict!
your disagreement with my view
RE: Liz of TX.
I tried to say that a judicial revue should be set up to determine that the language of a particular law fits THE LITERAL translation of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights rather than a politician or judges self serving "creative interpretation " before it can be implemented as law. I also advocate a massive effort to remove ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS!!! I do acknowledge what you said about article 3, but if you had read any of my other posts you would have seen that I do not oppose changing the constitution in ways that improve its effective use as an instrument of JUSTICE, so long as it is done within the proper framework and procedures for amending it . I have never advocated "creative interpretation " of the constitution(as most liberals and some conservatives have done) . Read the Brady bill some time, and see what I mean; it attempts to nullify the 2nd amendment by stating that no one has a right to own a firearm EXCEPT AS OUTLINED IN THE BRADY BILL.! No matter what side of the gun issue you are on, the language should be very disturbing ; as the language could easily be applied to free speech , search and seizure, the right to a trial etc. If we do not change things, the constitution and bill of rights nullified by precedent,and will become meaningless! I am tired of being kicked by my government, when its only job is supposed to be to looking out for my interests. I like enjoy my religion, my family ,my guns, my cars, my freedom and my heritage , I am tired of losing little pieces of my right to enjoy them because of some unconstitutional new law .Law without justice becomes a tool for tyrants, as does justice without law . Of course as yet you are still free enough to disagree with me, but If something isn't done ;none of us will retain any of our freedoms.
Yes, The Constitution says what it says
To the gent how wrote:
"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!"
This is a gem; you're vehmently opposed to judicial activism but you want the judiciary to "correct" legislation without being "prompted" by a specific case .... well, you're right in saying that the consitution says what it says and Article 3, Section 2 is pretty clear about limiting judicial power to cases and controversies brought before the courts.
There is no charter for the judiciary to rove around looking for legislation that you don't happen to like and "fix it." Sorry.
advertisement
