Comments on: Video: John McCain on “elitist lawyers and law professors”

By: McCain Speaking About Federal Judges

McCain Speaking About Federal Judges — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:14:26 +0000

[...] Hot Air has the text of the speech: Senators Obama and Clinton have very different ideas from my own. They are both lawyers themselves, and donâ€™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. [...]

By: Jaibones

Jaibones — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:47:54 +0000

Not smacking you! I’m a Dudette (or Dudesse) if you prefer.

Buy Danish on May 8, 2008 at 7:46 AM

Who knew?!

By: Red Pill

Red Pill — Thu, 08 May 2008 12:44:56 +0000

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.

By: Buy Danish

Buy Danish — Thu, 08 May 2008 11:46:31 +0000

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.

By: Jaibones

Jaibones — Thu, 08 May 2008 02:20:58 +0000

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

Are you smacking me, or are you a dudesse?

By: onlineanalyst

onlineanalyst — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:18:24 +0000

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.

By: onlineanalyst

onlineanalyst — Wed, 07 May 2008 22:09:10 +0000

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.

By: Buy Danish

Buy Danish — Wed, 07 May 2008 21:25:36 +0000

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.

By: Jaibones

Jaibones — Wed, 07 May 2008 20:47:02 +0000

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

Dude. Are you still jousting with this Ronulan clown? Come on home, it’s dinner time.

By: upinak

upinak — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:57:37 +0000

why does this get stuck.

By: reaganaut

reaganaut — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:38:16 +0000

This is why senators make lousy candidates, and probably a lousy POTUS.

By: Buy Danish

Buy Danish — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:34:57 +0000

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

*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.

By: fossten

fossten — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:08:24 +0000

Obama or Hillary as POTUS could be fatal.

Garnet92 on May 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM

Fatal to what?

By: molonlabe28

molonlabe28 — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:54:46 +0000

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.

By: franksalterego

franksalterego — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:53:31 +0000

Speaking of Tribes…

I wonder why, I’m not getting any feedback on my 11:17 AM post?

[chirp - chirp - chirp]

By: franksalterego

franksalterego — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:42:47 +0000

And really, is promoting groupthink instead of individualism a good long term strategy? --gekkobear on May 7, 2008 at 2:33 PM

Instead of "groupthink," I prefer to call it Tribes

By: Garnet92

Garnet92 — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:38:08 +0000

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.

By: gekkobear

gekkobear — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:33:35 +0000

It seems to me, that the majority of Republicans put McCain over the top very early in the campaign.

McCain wasn’t my choice, but I’m a realist…I refuse to get all “bitter” about it…So, there’s no reason not to throw in with the majority.

I mean, after all, p’haps, it was me who was wrong.

franksalterego

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?

By: gekkobear

gekkobear — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:29:13 +0000

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…

By: franksalterego

franksalterego — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:20:08 +0000

Filibustering of JUDGES continues to THIS DAY. --fossten on May 7, 2008 at 2:05 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.

By: upinak

upinak — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:12:33 +0000

Yawn. Are you going to actually join the discussion, or are you trolling?

fossten on May 7, 2008 at 2:06 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!

By: franksalterego

franksalterego — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:09:24 +0000

“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.

By: fossten

fossten — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:06:13 +0000

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

Yawn. Are you going to actually join the discussion, or are you trolling?

By: fossten

fossten — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:05:25 +0000

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.

By: franksalterego

franksalterego — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:00:57 +0000

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

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.