Video: John McCain on “elitist lawyers and law professors”
posted at 8:35 am on May 7, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
For those who missed John McCain’s speech on the judiciary yesterday, this video gives the best look at the attack segment of the address at Wake Forest University. McCain emphasized that his opponents would take radically different approaches to judicial appointments and how destructive that would be to the balance of power as structured in the Constitution. McCain also went after both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for their “elitism”:
Senators Obama and Clinton have very different ideas from my own. They are both lawyers themselves, and don’t seem to mind at all when fundamental questions of social policy are preemptively decided by judges instead of by the people and their elected representatives. Nor have they raised objections to the unfair treatment of judicial nominees.
For both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, it turned out that not even John Roberts was quite good enough for them. 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 went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee. And just where did John Roberts fall short, by the Senator’s measure? Well, a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it — and I quote — should share “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”
These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism — come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Senator Obama’s standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law, a nominee of clear rectitude who had proved more than the equal of any lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, and who today is respected by all as the Chief Justice of the United States. Somehow, by Senator Obama’s standard, even Judge Roberts didn’t measure up. And neither did Justice Samuel Alito. 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.
Yesterday, Barack Obama tried to push back against the charge of elitism, claiming that he and Michelle’s upbringing came a lot closer to the normal American experience than either McCain or Hillary Clinton. However, both Obamas wound up attending Ivy League universities, and both of them moved very quickly into the power elite of the Left. McCain grew up in the Navy, not in wealth and largesse, and served for decades in the armed forces before entering political life. And McCain didn’t fawningly endorse the snobbish view of middle America held by denizens of Billionaires Row in San Francisco in a private fundraiser.
Oddly, Obama wants to base elitism in money, while the rest of us see it in attitude. In America, one does not have to be born into an elite; one can join its membership by hard work and ambition. Barack Obama of all people should understand that.
McCain needs to press this point hard in the upcoming campaign. What kind of justices would Obama appoint? Would they be the kind that William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn would approve, or perhaps Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy, who were two of only 20 Democrats to join Obama in opposing John Roberts?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Explains what? I’m sorry, I don’t get your misplaced modifier.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Nonsense argument. You pick a single issue and claim that this magical issue is the one responsible for “McCain handing the WH to Obama”. Why that one? Why not (pick one)?
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 11:12 AM
I could be wrong, but as I recall, the gang of fourteen was designed to break fillibustering by Democrats…Democrats, who were overstepping their Advise and Consent authority.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Explains why La Raza is a deal breaker for you. Ron Paul’s racist background seems to make a comfortable bed for you folks.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I know what an ad hominem is dear, and that was not an ad hominem. Moreover, when I employed the word “laughable” I was following your example!
Buy Danish on May 7, 2008 at 11:14 AM
You really have no conception of how many people McCain has turned off by his stance on illegals, do you? Continue to wallow in ignorance, friend.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 11:14 AM
McCain’s achilles heel is Amnesty, Juan Hernandez and LaRaza. All he has to do to get the conservative base on his side is to distance himself from them. Even moderate democrats and many blacks are conservative on those issues. That, and supporting government intervention in the global warming hoax are getting in his way. For the life of me, I don’t understand why he’s shooting himself in the foot with these issues.
Pandering to special interests is not straight talk. It’s typical political posturing. That makes him just another politician.
orlandocajun on May 7, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Wrong. Ad hominem is attack on the man. You are not making an argument based on the issue, you are switching the argument to me. Again, I urge you to look it up. You obviously don’t know what it is.
Linkage
Still no real argument? You certainly are wasting a lot of words today…
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Yeah, I keep reading people say that, but I never saw any evidence that it was true. But it doesn’t really matter to me. You seem a good judge of these things, Laura: do you believe that Alito is somehow “more conservative” than Roberts? Do you doubt McCain’s support of Roberts? Would you rather have Roberts or Patricia Williams as Chief Justice?
I stronly believe that you are mistaken to pick Alito as a weakness for McCain.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Giving them $25 million certainly qualifies – as an anti-Pork guy McCain ought to be front and center screaming about that. The fact that he’s not is telling, in my view.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 11:17 AM
I’m still waiting for someone to give me a good reason to back a candidate, who has shown nothing but his backside to our troops, at home and abroad.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Granted their are other issues, CFO, the Gang, yada yada yada. But it is the illegal immigration issue that fuels this war within the party.
Limerick on May 7, 2008 at 11:20 AM
The ignorance is all yours, fossten. You don’t know anyone who was more blood-spitting-mad about CIR, and I guarantee I contacted more Senators than you did. It failed, and it will fail the next time he tries it, if he does.
But the actual bill wasn’t all that far from my own position, and I could support a similar bill once we actually secure the border. But not before.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 11:20 AM
I believe that on this issue, and many others, McCain is uninformed and I KNOW that his knee jerk reaction is to take the Dem road, as he’s so often proved and even said outright four short years ago:
He will nominate judicial “moderates” who don’t offend his Dem friends. Not conservatives, either the Alito or Roberts type.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Yes, it’s an emotional issue. But I don’t know many people who seriously compare it to the three issues that I posed to Laura. It’s probably fourth on my Hot List.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Ah, how convenient. You never saw my link, eh? But never mind that, you don’t care. You REALLY don’t care that McCain said that Alito wore his conservatism on his sleeve? You really do have your head in the sand – or up McCain’s dirt chute.
There you go again, with a straw man argument. You ignore answers when they’re right in front of you.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 11:21 AM
You are wrong. Read this National Review article for the details. The Gang extended the filibusters and screwed the GOP.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Elitists would segregate themselves from the definition, wealth/attitude. Obama not only has an elitist attitude, but enjoys wealth. He eschews all who are not “like him”. Obama is an elitist cut either way. And as the truth cuts both ways, McCain is an elitist, as he eschews all who do not comply with progressivism along with him.
ELITISM: non-compliance to the rule of law.
“I’m special (and your not).”
“I’m ‘authentic’. You’re inauthentic.”
“My liberal intentions purge me of any guilt.”
Baby steps. That NOW McCain claims a soft spot for constructionist interpretation of the Constitution is his politically expedient cry for conservatives to save his campaign since progressives are voting the Democrat ticket in the general election. If it is beneath one’s dignity and honor to empower the progressive movement, McCain, put your own proof in the pudding. Give America your sworn affidavit that as Chief Executive you will utilize your Presidential privileges to the fullest extent toward enforcing the rule of law. Don’t pass the buck off to the hollow some day in the future judicial nomination that may not even get seated. The buck stops in the Oval Office, McCain, with YOU on the ticket. So swear your own fidelity to enforce the rule of law and promote the American Dream.
Responsible people are protected by the rule of law. There’s no elitism in responsibility that we all share. Uphold the law of the land, Chief Executive!
maverick muse on May 7, 2008 at 11:25 AM
End of discussion. I don’t know where you got that quote; I believe it is manufactured out of two different statements and misrepresents his position, since, obviously, he is a Republican. I believe this party has gone astray, too. Don’t you?
As for the judges, you have no evidence to support that statement, but your animus towards McCain seems far too embedded in emotion than in reality and fact. And further debate will not change that.
Peace. Gotta go to work.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Ah, there it is.
You are an advocate of amnesty.
The clouds part, and the truth manifests itself! No wonder you support McCain. Also, if you really believe his bs when he says that he’s gotten the message and he will secure the borders first, you’re a sucker. He’s already backed off that ’straight talk’ and is back on the amnesty train.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 11:25 AM
I think, you’ve hit the same position as many Republicans have.
The big mistake was trying to tie border enforcement to reform, as a sort of quid pro quo.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Wow, what denial you live in!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/mccain.asp
No wonder you support McCain – denial is a perpetual state for you. Wallow in ignorance, friend.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 11:31 AM
It was in the course of him denying he’d be Kerry’s VP. Originally seen in the Boston Herald, now at Snopes.
He was specifically referring to several key issues like global warming, pork and the conduct of the war (ironic!), but when you go back to my list of things upthread that he’s actually done while in the Senate, it’s clear that he supports a lot of lefty ideas. I’m not looking at what he says, but what he has actually done. That’s not emotion; that’s reality and fact.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Oh, and…
Yes, and McCain is leading us there.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 11:34 AM
fossten,
No, not amnesty. Residency maybe, but I’ll never support giving citizenship to an illegal alien, ahead of those who have applied for legal citizenship. But deportation, probably not.
Btw, I went back and found your link on the judges issue – Beldar, right? – and he is certainly opposed to my position. Laura, you might want to have a look, as he very much follows your thinking.
The actual McCain quote on Alito is that “…he wears his conservatism on his sleeve”. Not “too conservative”, and not opposed to Alito. Beldar, in what I read, never actually explains why that statement inspired such a radical position against McCain on the issue of judges. But he sure doesn’t trust him.
Good day.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Maybe in some ways. I think he was referring to spending, and maybe abortion, on which I agree with him.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Thanks…That article just gave me nothing but a big headache.
All I know is, the gang of fourteen got Roberts and Alito confirmed…And, without the gang of fourteen, they would’ve been fillibustered into oblivian…But, p’haps, that doesn’t matter.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Next time I will list all of the issues on which I disagree with McCain, to establish bona fides!
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 11:37 AM
McCain promised to nominate, but makes no promise to deliver anything conservative. But while McCain is on topic, press him to commit HIMSELF as Chief Executive to enforce the rule of law.
The point is, MAKE THE POINT. Don’t walk away NOW without making the point to McCain PRIOR to the vote. If McCain wants the conservative vote, McCain must deliver the rule of law. Without executing the law, the American Dream is a fairy tale for elitists to enjoy while denying the fruits of success to responsible citizens.
maverick muse on May 7, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Page two of that article makes a very persuasive case that they would have been confirmed anyway; you should read the whole thing.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 11:44 AM
In case anyone doesn’t feel like clicking through, but still believes the Gang delivered Alito and Roberts, here’s the money quote:
It is pure post hoc ergo propter hoc for the Whites to contend that the Gang of 14 deal had anything to do with the confirmations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Supreme Court appointments are of a different dimension than nominations to the lower federal courts, even the Circuit Courts of Appeal. The public is far more engaged in them, and the political price of obstructionism is certain to be markedly higher.
As exhibited during their hearings, these two jurists were so patently qualified, it would have been suicidal for Democrats to try to block them by filibuster. They waved the flag for the base by asking nasty questions, raising inane objections, and casting futile votes against confirmation, but there was no way they were going to block a vote. The filibuster strategy, preserved by word and deed in the Gang of 14 deal, has been highly effective in thwarting qualified nominees, but it depends on public apathy. If it had been used it against Roberts and Alito, that would have called great attention to its use against Court of Appeals nominees, which might have cost Democrats dearly. That and the undeniable merit of the two justices involved, not the Gang of 14 deal, is why the high-court nominees were confirmed.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 11:51 AM
orlandocajun on May 7, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Political campaigns drive the candidate into a frenzied closet, cloistered amongst advisers except for the moment on stage or on camera. True enough, McCain chooses his own advisers. All the more important for McCain to take a break from his progressive fair-weather friends who use/abuse him and “go into the desert and meditate, not medicate” while hiking through the Grand Canyon with his sons. Maybe with the starlit sky at night McCain will experience his own conservative epiphany. One thing is for certain. McCain must align his presidency with those names he wants in his cabinet for publicity sooner or later. Accordingly, we learn his advisors for the White House years. We shall see.
maverick muse on May 7, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Laura, it’s amazing how the roaches flee when the light is turned on. It’s as if they don’t want to see the truth. I am deeply concerned about how much denial the conservatives are in.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 12:03 PM
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Hey, there! Take a breath and relax a moment, please.
McCain said “on his sleeve”–so McCain prefers to hide it. Whether McCain has any conservatism is for McCain to prove NOW, not for us to deny him opportunity BEFORE the vote. That we doubt McCain’s conservatism is healthy. That we deny McCain the opportunity to fulfill his sworn duty to the GOP would be unfortunate. Exactly what is the sworn duty? THAT IS THE POINT FOR MCCAIN HIMSELF AND FOR THE GOP TO DECLARE AS THE PARTY PLATFORM. But unless McCain is pressed, he definitely conceals his conservatism too well. No one expects an “ah hah!” conservative to come leaping out from McCain. But I’d enjoy that show, all the same.
maverick muse on May 7, 2008 at 12:05 PM
That’s nothing but pure conjecture…And, I can find no instance of the gang of fourteen having any influence on the comfirmation of any judges, other than Roberts and Alito.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Erm…what sworn duty does McCain have to the GOP? I’ve never heard of such a thing.
And I’m not denying him anything by not voting, as my vote doesn’t even count anyway.
I certainly don’t have any sworn duty to the GOP. I have a self-imposed duty to vote my conscience. But I will not sell my soul. I will not obey.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 12:20 PM
If going against the highly qualified Roberts and Alito was “suicidal,” why did Obama vote to not confirm?
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 12:21 PM
fossten, I disagree with a lot of the commenters here (obviously) but I think it’s over the top to call them roaches. Unless you meant something else?
I agree that a lot of people don’t seem to comprehend what McCain really means as far as the future of conservativism – this Bill Quick article is excellent, and makes the case that he’s purposely driving us out. But let’s don’t alienate everybody; let’s persuade, okay?
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 12:21 PM
No, see…this is the part where you present evidence of YOUR position, instead of the ever-powerful and all-convincing “I don’t believe you” argument.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Which, of course, brings us full circle, doesn’t it.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Laura, I was using an analogy.
It’s magnanimous of you to try and mollify the other side, and I applaud you for that. But have no illusions – nobody’s convincing anybody of anything here. Conservatives on HA, myself included, are known for having strong opinions, and the logical arguments aren’t enough because this is a very emotional issue.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Spot on!
The CHANGE mantra recently promoted by Newt Gingrich falls into that category of propaganda promoting submission to progressive credentials feigning credit to the DEM/RINO Gang. That drive for the big bucks into progressive territory is fed by disappointed and results in disappointment.
Credit is due to the conservative movement for towing the line of reason against the erosion of irrational progressivity.
Change. Hope. Well, we can hope for a conservative change, and we can expect a conservative resurgence when we participate in the conservative movement that deserves a lot more credit than is yet given by the loud speaker.
maverick muse on May 7, 2008 at 12:26 PM
It’s a very sound argument. Can you establish as conclusively (and by that I don’t mean McCain’s say-so) that the Gang made a difference where SCOTUS was concerned, and that the Dems wouldn’t have had to fold on that hand?
The lower level courts, on the other hand, go unstaffed and with less conservative candidates. That’s a fact; it comes up on CSPAN from time to time where some Republican gripes about it and puts up charts griping about Dem filibusters.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 12:26 PM
fossten 12:20
Exactly what is the sworn duty? THAT IS THE POINT FOR MCCAIN HIMSELF AND FOR THE GOP TO DECLARE AS THE PARTY PLATFORM.
maverick muse on May 7, 2008 at 12:27 PM
In other words, you’d like me to try to prove something that never happened.
nice try
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Good grief, fossten, I’m not mollifying, I’m reasoning with people. And since I’ve been registered on this site since the first month it opened, I’ve been back and forth with these folks on a number of issues. Sometimes I’m right, sometimes they are but they are certainly not my enemies, nor are they stupid or evil or anything else. (Yes, I realize you didn’t use those adjectives, I’m addressing your harsh tone.) Giving in to emotionalism is not helpful.
In any event, say what you please, how you please; it was just a bit of friendly advice.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Frank, you’re currently asserting something that never happened (that the only reason Alito and Roberts got voted on is the Gang deal), based on (as far as I can tell) nothing more than McCain’s say-so. And the National Review article handily debunks that concept.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I’m sorry, I guess I just don’t understand the capitalized sentence. Could you explain it?
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Lets see…. McCain has been in active in Politics since 1982? 26 YEARS! Uh, can’t we just judge him on HIS RECORD??? Not his rhetoric?
It isn’t like he does not have a track record, and I don’t beleive that after 26 years in politics he is suddenly going to change either…
Romeo13 on May 7, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Point taken. I will watch and see if you give the same advice to others who address me as “Paulie” and other pejoratives.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I hadn’t thought of “Paulie” as being quite on the same level as “roaches” but now that you mention it I guess they are about equivalent.
:-)
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 12:40 PM
As I recall, Democrats had been unfairly standing in the way of nearly ALL of Bush’s nominations…UNTIL the gang of fourteen came into being…The very EXISTANCE of the gang of fourteen ended that practice.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 12:43 PM
When you resort to the very same tactics that you decry, you lose all credibility. Obviously you’re no different than any of the others. So much for your ‘advice,’ clearly you can’t follow it yourself.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Incorrect. Actually, the Senate was considering voting on the Constitutional Option, which would prevent any more filibusters of judicial nominees. The Gang of 14 blocked that option in a compromise that allowed future filibusters in “emergency situations.” At the same time, a handful of judges were voted on. But the filibustering continues.
You need to go read up on this.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Gee, and I thought I was agreeing with you and that the little smilie face conveyed a pleasant tone. Guess not…
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Both, strolling hand in hand together, to deliver the country to Obama and his social and economic justice, screw the military supporters.
It’s sickening and sad, but both camps deserve the blame.
funky chicken on May 7, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Bit of a Greek tragedy, huh? If only Jeffords hadn’t jumped ship so McCain would… if only Dems hadn’t been permitted to vote in GOP primaries… if only the current GOP hadn’t been so abominable in terms of pork and just general bad governance… As much as the Democratic party is in meltdown due to identity politics, so is the GOP, and it’s been coming for a long, long time.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Yeh, I ’spose.
Alito and Roberts were confirmed, weren’t they…Or, did I get that wrong?
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 12:55 PM
The politics of fear… vote for my guy, not because he’s good, but because the other guy is worse.
Sorry, but that thinking is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place.
It creates a false choice. One where no other option is available because the two parties and the MSM tell us so…
Obama will run against McCain as McCain being Bush/Hitler III…
McCainiacs are telling us to vote for him because Obama sucks… even though many of McCains stances are not in line with our beliefs.
Romeo13 on May 7, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Yes, but you haven’t proved why they got the vote to which they were entitled.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Where you guys lose it is, when you take the position, McCain sided with Democrats in the gang of fourteen.
From my perspective, the six Democrats joined HIS point of view.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Should’a said “seven”
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 1:00 PM
And who is the 3rd party candidate Romeo?
I don’t see anyone else running, do you?
Who else can we vote for?
upinak on May 7, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Okay, but on what is that perspective based? It was Harry Reid’s plan originally and Frist said no to it, so who benefited more when it passed?
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Here’s how I see the gang of fourteen…
When you have a body of people split down the middle of an issue, if you can gather together enough people to get one side or the other to the 60-vote threshold, that small group then becomes the Power.
The Power, in this case, didn’t even have to be exercised, because the Dems knew where the gang stood on the confirmation of Alito and Roberts.
As far as I’m concerned, it looks like McCain outsmarted the Dems.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 1:12 PM
McCain outsmarted the Dems by implementing the plan Harry Reid, (D-Nev) had previously offered to Bill Frist, and Frist rejected?
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Both judges weren’t involved in the Gang of 14, so you’re once again wrong in your premise. The nomination of Alito was part of the deal, but they effectively punted the constitutional option down the road by tabling it, which allowed the filibustering to continue, and to this day judge seats go unfilled because of it.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM
I will direct your attention to your own words:
Again, you have it backwards. The filibustering of judges continues as part of the deal.
You need to stop including Roberts in the discussion. He wasn’t part of this.
Please go read up on it. Wikipedia has a decent summary.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 1:24 PM
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 1:24 PM
do you believe everything you read on wiki? LMFAO
upinak on May 7, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Here’s what grinds my hump…
Whenever a Dem president exercises his judicial perogatives, Republicans, decent fellows that they are, raise very few objections.
But, when the shoe is on the other foot, the Dems act like rabid dogs, and lose all sense of decorum – they never return the favor.
They look like a bunch of bar-room brawlers.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 1:36 PM
P’haps, you’d like to lead the discussion into where “fillibuster” is mentioned in the “Advise and Consent” portion of the constitution?
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 1:40 PM
No, I don’t. It happens, however, that this particular Wiki article is accurate. Please feel free to debunk anything in it.
Fact check much?
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 1:46 PM
It isn’t. But that is my point – the Senate was going to attack the filibustering of judges based on the Constitutionality, and the Gang of 14 stepped in and stopped this, and because of that, filibustering continues, constitutional or not.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Actually I do, but I sure as heck don’t go on Wiki to prove anything and I don’t use it to qualify my “Facts”.
upinak on May 7, 2008 at 1:51 PM
I don’t know if I can get this across to you or not, but the filibustering they were concerned about was the filibustering of judges, without compromising “filibustering” per se.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 2:00 PM
I guess I wasn’t clear enough for you. Filibustering of JUDGES continues to THIS DAY.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Yawn. Are you going to actually join the discussion, or are you trolling?
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 2:06 PM
“Filibustering” per se, when not being used to block judges, is one of the avenues allowed to keep the minority from being ground under by the majority.
It has it’s place, in the normal course of congressional duties.
But, in my opinion, it has no place, when it comes to presidential perogatives…I think, McCain would agree…And, he got seven members of the opposition to agree, also.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Being that I am 4 hours behind the east coast. If you want to call it trolling sure. But it is only 10:12 in Alaska.
Don’t be an ass!
upinak on May 7, 2008 at 2:12 PM
That’s because, there’s no distinction between filibustering per se, and filibustering judges…At least, as far as the law is concerned now.
The gang of fourteen wasn’t assembled to pass law.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 2:20 PM
You mean someone who ignores the clear text of the Constitution and instead simply replaces it with their “interpretation” of what they want it to mean so they can do whatever they want is a bad person? This is elitism and activism, and just plain wrong, isn’t it?
How does that jive with McCain/Feingold? Isn’t that a fair estimation of what McCain did to the First Amendment?
Or is there something I’m missing. Here I am thinking I’m capable of reading and comprehending the document in which my rights are supposedly listed.
I just didn’t understand that my ability to read the document, and understand the words is useless. Not when the people who get to “interpret” that document get to shift the meaning of those words to remove my rights.
People like McCain who decide the phrase “Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech” has the unwritten addition (”unless they really want to, or they think they can get money out of politics, then abridge away guys, have at it”).
What other “additions” does he have to the Constitution that inly exist in his head? Somehow I’m not enthused about electing him President and finding out…
gekkobear on May 7, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Did you think that when the majority in Congress were supporting Amnesty?
How about when the majority of voting age Americans registered as Democrats instead of Republicans?
Or is it only now (when you want others to follow your view instead of theirs) that you decide that the majority view is more important than an individual view?
And really, is promoting groupthink instead of individualism a good long term strategy?
gekkobear on May 7, 2008 at 2:33 PM
With apologies to those who have had real-life personal experiences with cancer, I liken voting for McCain to receiving cancer treatments. Treatments are the lesser of two evils.
Option 1, accept the side effects of treatments and fight the cancer. The election equivalent is “hold your nose and vote for McCain.” We can only hope that he’ll see the light and modify some of his more distasteful positions (climate change, amnesty, etc.
Option 2, refuse treatment because of the side effects (losing hair, etc.) and thereby allow the cancer to progress. I liken this to refusing to vote for McCain because of his “side effects”. To a conservative, his side effects are his positions on several issues.
It’s easy to say “I’m not voting for that “SOB” because he isn’t what I want – but we’ll only have two choices. Realistically, any other vote (or not voting) will only result in the likelihood that someone worse than McCain will become the prez (remember that Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton). I do believe that he is strong on defense, he’s promised to retain the tax cuts, and he’ll appoint less-than-liberal judges – both positives in my book.
I’m willing to take my chances with MC (even though my hair will probably fall out) because the alternative – Obama or Hillary as POTUS could be fatal.
Garnet92 on May 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Instead of “groupthink,” I prefer to call it Tribes
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Speaking of Tribes…
I wonder why, I’m not getting any feedback on my 11:17 AM post?
[chirp - chirp - chirp]
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 2:53 PM
McCain has a postion and history on judicial appointments – namely, his formation of the Gang of 14 to thwart Senate Majority Leader Frist’s termination of judicial filibusters lacking a cloture vote and has gratuitous swipe at Justice Alito.
He also has well-outlined positions on multiple other issues, such as taxes and border security.
When the Republican Party resumes running Presidential candidates who will advance my conservative beliefs and values, I will resume voting for Republican Presidential candidates.
molonlabe28 on May 7, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Fatal to what?
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 3:08 PM
*sigh* I used sarcasm to illustrate that you weren’t doing jack other than making idiotic symbolic gestures. I’m sorry if that went over your head. It was not an ad hominem attack, but your are launching them all over the place so you may want to look up the word “hypocrite”.
The fact is that I offered you an opportunity to present your plan to advance the conservative agenda and you came up with a big, fat, nothing. You have already declared this election a loss no matter who gets elected, while ignoring the fact that immigration, a key issue for you personally, was defeated because voters didn’t just whine about it, they picked up the phone and contacted their representatives in Congress.
I guarantee you that McCain is capable of reversing himself on ANWR while we are in the middle of a crisis which, because of it’s disastrous effect on the economy, could doom his chances of getting elected. He can easily argue that technology has advanced to the point where it is a prudent step to take. Certainly getting pushed by voters to move in that direction can’t hurt, particularly since he has taken a stand on ethanol.
But never mind all this, you just carry on with your write in vote and Ron Paul boosterism, while the adults take meaningful action.
Buy Danish on May 7, 2008 at 3:34 PM
This is why senators make lousy candidates, and probably a lousy POTUS.
reaganaut on May 7, 2008 at 3:38 PM
why does this get stuck.
upinak on May 7, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Dude. Are you still jousting with this Ronulan clown? Come on home, it’s dinner time.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Dudette! It’s not dinner time for me, it’s cocktail time, and commenting on blogs does not interfere with that pastime in the least.
Buy Danish on May 7, 2008 at 5:25 PM
In 2006, that stay-at-home-out-of-principle crowd put Nancy Pelosi in a position of power. Don’t “principled” nservatives learn from their mistakes?
Half-a-loaf McCain is better than a whole loaf of Obama/Clinton central planning. McCain is right in more areas than he is wrong.
Make your points of contention to the McCain campaign HQ.
onlineanalyst on May 7, 2008 at 6:09 PM
According to NRO’s “The Corner” today, McCain’s support of originalists for the SC goes all the way back to his vocal efforts on behalf of Bork.
onlineanalyst on May 7, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Are you smacking me, or are you a dudesse?
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Not smacking you! I’m a Dudette (or Dudesse) if you prefer.
Buy Danish on May 8, 2008 at 7:46 AM
I’d like to see McCain provide a list of 15-20 Judges that he considers worthy of nomination to the Supreme Court, and then commit to choosing one of these 15-20 as his first nominee to the Supreme Court if/when that opportunity arises.
Sure, this would give the Democrats a lot of extra lead time to dig up dirt and build a case against such a nominee, but I think it’s necessary for McCain to prove that he’s not just “talking the talk”. Don’t just tell us you will nominate strict constructionists, prove it. We are one justice away from a strict constructionist majority, and we can’t risk having a RINO deceive us.
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Who knew?!
Jaibones on May 8, 2008 at 9:47 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2