McCain's Judicial Speech Could Help With Conservatives

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.

respopnse to Michael P Malloy

It would note that conservatives will appoint judges that support their ideology. I agree that it is wrong when ideology disagrees with the language of the constitution(the other parties opinion is not relevant), but I would also note that conservatives are usually closer to a literal translation of the constitution: Having said this; I would prefer a conservative who legislates from the bench over a liberal doing the same thing. As far as McCain vs the liberals; McCain is better on gun control, abortion, taxes and will appoint judges who are closer to the ACTUAL law on these issues. Everyone opposes torture, so no difference there, liberals may have a slight edge on the 1st amendment, but little else to offer.

response to LEE D

Congress did authorize the war! note: McCain has not shown any more(or any less) ideological blindness than anyone else in this recent political arena. What is troubling is not his Ideology ( which is much better than what the left is offering), but the fact that NONE of the presidential hopefuls care about the letter of the LAW . It really does not matter which side of the Isle you are on; your rights will be ignored if some politician has a goal to meet. I wish to see complete and literal enactment of the bill of rights! I wish to see the elimination of the use or "precedent" in determining the outcome of a case! If a judge can not read A legal document and use a literal translation to determine a ruling, then that judge has no business on the bench,or we are no longer protected by the constitution!!!! You use the wire tapping etc, as an example I use the 2nd amendment; but the bottom line is that the ruling should not be made along Ideological line or personal opinion. read the law AS WRITTEN!!!!!!!!! If you do not like a particular law , then campaign to change it, but DO NOT MANIPULATE OR IGNORE The LANGUAGE to Achieve YOUR PERSONAL GOAL!

The judiciary

Sen. McCain has shown, in his speech on the judiciary, that he so blinded by ideology, that he lacks any understanding of the Constitution For more than seven years, he has not opposed a sngle unconstitutional act of George W. Bush, including the unconstitutional wiretaps; the unconstitutiuonal signing statements; the unconstitutuional war in Iraq (only Congress can declare war, it is not empowered to delegate that power). McCain indicates that he does not understand that the Senate of the United States has the constitutional power to review nominations of the President, and to accept or reject them - not rubber stamp them. It is part of the balance of power the administration of Bush-Cheney has usurped, that McCain has supported, and which he will continue.

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

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.```````````

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!

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.