McCain: I wouldn’t appoint the justices I voted to confirm
posted at 1:57 pm on August 18, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
This came up two months ago, when McCain went so far as to boast about his votes to confirm Ginsburg and Breyer to a bunch of Hillary supporters and Kaus predicted a rightosphere meltdown that never happened. Now Taegan Goddard wants to try again. Here’s the clip from Saddleback.
Goddard: “It seems he was for them before he was against them.” True enough, if you believe every vote by a Democrat or Republican to confirm an opposing party’s nominee is tantamount to saying they’d have nominated that person themselves. (Do note, Scalia was confirmed 98-0.) I feel stupid even having to point out that the considerations that inform a yes/no decision in the Senate — “is this candidate acceptable?” — are entirely different from the unlimited possibilities a president has when choosing a nominee — “is this the best candidate we can find?” — but I guess I have to for Goddard’s benefit, so there you go. Beyond the dopey gotcha here, though, lies a serious point. I actually like the fact that McCain voted to confirm Ginsburg and Breyer, not because I have any use for either of them but because his vote was obviously based on legal qualifications, not an ideological litmus test. Conservatives have suffered grievously from the politicization of the confirmation process (a point I made in the earlier post) and will only have it worse as Congress turns a deeper blue. Having clean hands in this regard gives President McCain moral leverage with the Senate vis-a-vis his own nominees and political leverage over Obama right now as proof that he was being the true bipartisan pol while Barry O was busy voting against someone as ostentatiously qualified as John Roberts. I understand why his campaign isn’t making a bigger deal of these votes, but as the base comes around (which should be easier post-Saddleback) he can venture further out on the limb in mentioning them. Provided they’re carefully qualified, of course.
Exit question: What significance is there, if any, to the fact that Joe Lieberman’s now willing to go on record as saying he should have voted to confirm Alito? Hmmmmmm.
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:
The Dems are sounding desperate.
jgapinoy on August 18, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Juan “Z-Visa” McCain is not fooling anybody. Ask him about his AMNESTY PLAN for Illegal Alien chuntes….
DfDeportation on August 18, 2008 at 2:03 PM
A non-issue.
ThackerAgency on August 18, 2008 at 2:03 PM
And we know The Dali Bama wants to take my tax dollars to provide health care for the same Illegal Alien chuntes…
DfDeportation on August 18, 2008 at 2:04 PM
that means nothing to the democrats. mccain will be surprised how quickly his buddy, uncle keg (teddy) turns on him….
right4life on August 18, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Biden voted for Scalia. He says today that Scalia “misreads the Constitution”.
amerpundit on August 18, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Which part of this is unknown to the conservatives? As if we forgot the Gang of 14.
However, McCain will not nominate another Gingsburg (clearly above her paygrade).
Sir Napsalot on August 18, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Got the implication. But doesn’t help imo. The only choices are that Lieberman was either too stupid or too biased or both to vote for Alito. Some may call it “political expediency”– I call it a lack of spine.
JiangxiDad on August 18, 2008 at 2:09 PM
good post Allah. For anybody who wants to read deeper on this subject, I recommend this post from Professor Bainbridge:
http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/comments/mccain_and_judges/
funky chicken on August 18, 2008 at 2:10 PM
It’s a non-issue, so long as you don’t provide a way out for Lieberman on Alito. Lieberman should have voted for Alito for the same reason McCain voted for Ginsberg.
JiangxiDad on August 18, 2008 at 2:11 PM
I hope this is the start of a trend, where conservative folks a bit leery of McCain won’t fall for every media attempt to portray McCain as a conservative-hating liberal.
funky chicken on August 18, 2008 at 2:13 PM
And that is really the most important point here. I did think about this when he said it and wondered if he’d voted to confirm, but I didn’t follow up. Thanks for doing so, AP.
Connie on August 18, 2008 at 2:18 PM
agreed
funky chicken on August 18, 2008 at 2:21 PM
I know McCain denies taking a swipe at Alito, but it sounded to me exactly like something McCain would say. And for the record I think Alito is a great justice.
Blake on August 18, 2008 at 2:21 PM
I think AP makes a strong point. Sen. McCain voted to confirm qualified judges regardless of their judicial philosophy because they were nominated by then President Clinton and the “Advise & Consent” clause doesn’t include a veto for ideology. Republicans have generally done this and Democrats used to as well – Scalia was approved 98 to 0 as I recall back in President Reagan’s term. What really matters is the type of judges would the candidates nominate if given the chance.
On a related point – Sen. Russ Feingold annoyed some of his Dem. colleagues early in G.W. Bush’s term by voting to approve several “controversial” cabinet nominees because he stated that he believed a president had the right to choose his own cabinet.
Jill1066 on August 18, 2008 at 2:25 PM
I agree. If we are to expect our senators to support judicial nominees from ideological and judicial reasons, then we’ll never have any new justices. Advise and consent, not re-nominate.
Nethicus on August 18, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Nomination and Advise and Consent are two different roles. This is so obvious it is remarkable that it even needs to be said.
gridlock2 on August 18, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Agreed. Hard to complain about our nominees being borked if we do the same.
phronesis on August 18, 2008 at 2:33 PM
according to the democrats, it does now.
and the republicans should do the same, since being ‘nice’ won’t get them anywhere with the democrats.
right4life on August 18, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Projection much?
fourstringfuror on August 18, 2008 at 2:36 PM
The more McCain talks about wicked “speculators,” about how he reveres ANWR as much as the Grand Canyon, about adjusting the planet’s thermostat, etc., the more conservatives cling to judicial nominees as a reason for supporting him. But now another portion of his signature legislation has been repudiated by the court as an affront to the First Amendment, and again Roberts and Alito have joined the repudiation. Yet McCain promises to nominate jurists like them. Is that believable?
- George Will
MB4 on August 18, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Bingo. I think McCain is far more likely to nominate a Souter or a Kennedy than he is an Alito or Roberts (and he’d never nominate a Scalia or a Thomas), but the fact remains that Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens are eminently qualified to sit on the SCOTUS. Advise and consent should be about checking qualifications, not applying a litmus test, the Democrats’ ideologically-based stonewalling of the current crop of appointments and their history of lynching Bork and Thomas notwithstanding.
spmat on August 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM
One trick ponies ought to make sure that one trick is good.
jgapinoy on August 18, 2008 at 2:40 PM
The fact that Presidents have near-free reign to nominate to the Judicial branch according to their personal and political preferences is the only credible check on the Judicial branch by the other two (read: by We the People of the United States). Congress should not have a final say on the substance of the appointment process, only on the transparency and legality of it.
spmat on August 18, 2008 at 2:44 PM
What bothers me isn’t the justices McCain voted for but the nominations he was instrumental in killing in the name of bipartisanship. It’s a double standard to say that qualification is the only thing that matters and then be part of the group that denied qualified jurists a fair hearing.
highhopes on August 18, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Thank you for stating it so succinctly.
JustTruth101 on August 18, 2008 at 2:46 PM
When your whole approach to the judiciary is political, as it is for the Dems, you think this is contradictory.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 18, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Hmm. The decision for that vote put to a senator is kind of like the vote that a citizen has for president. Up or Down. One or the other. The time to choose between many is past, and it’s down to a single choice, and that’s what you are faced with.
In other words, you don’t have to be a 100% supporter of someone to vote for them. And a vote for a supreme court justice because they are qualified is also not saying that they would nominate them. (as is clearly the case) Some might say that McCain was a shill for the democrats. In fact, some still do, no matter how many times McCain agrees with republicans. Which is what – 85 percent of the time? And back to the decision – that he didn’t consider the whole issue, because he voted for someone, when it’s most likely that he did, and made a choice. Because that’s what he was faced with.
Of if that same logic were to be applied to people in the general election, who see the choice between Obama and McCain, not as solely the question of supporting McCain’s “Shamnesty” because that is one position that McCain has. You see, some people can make up their own minds and come to a choice without being called a “Shill” for McCain. If you use that same logic and understanding.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 2:55 PM
The process of confirmation is about vetting a nominee’s qualifications. If they are qualified to sit on the SCOTUS or appellate bench, then they should be confirmed. Every person sitting on the SCOTUS bench today was qualified at the time of appointment. Congress does not get to comment on the substance of an appointment’s legal philosophy, only on their credentials.
Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito and Roberts, as well as Bork, should all have been confirmed, even if I wish the first two had never been nominated. Presidents get to put on the court whatever qualified person they wish, irrespective of that person’s legal philosophy. That’s why elections mean something.
spmat on August 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM
That is a slur. You are a bigot. Eff you.
The Race Card on August 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM
AP,
I’ve pointed this out before. Either you or Ed said others have mentioned it. I know there’s not a lot of context for this, but the term is a slur.
Was it DfDeportation who used the term before? This shit is not cool.
The Race Card on August 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Is “chuntes” another way of saying “macacca?”
(Never heard that word before.)
wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Best I can find:
spmat on August 18, 2008 at 3:25 PM
No, but “macaca” was another way to call a browk-skinned person a monkey.
A lot of people feel the need to scratch the slur-itch inside of them. I’ve known many people who actually get a rise out of using slurs in front of people whom might be offended.
Did you get your jollies?
It’s basically a substitute for “wetback” primarily used by other Latinos, typically of Mexican descent.
The Race Card on August 18, 2008 at 3:30 PM
You seem to be projecting.
Again.
wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Offended much? Geez… lighten up, Francis.
spmat on August 18, 2008 at 3:39 PM
It’s been announced today that John McNumbnuts has been rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery! It seems that after Obama left the door wide open during the last joint appearance with his “above my pay grade” comment, John McCain immediately and firmly slammed his wee wee in said door with a comment about current Supreme Court Judges…
sabbott on August 18, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Oh noes. It’s racist to call a person of the Mexican persuasion, ‘bad dressed?’
The horror.
I wonder what the next textual holocaust is lurking around the corner for all the racist white people to use. Maybe calling a mexican a “Churro.” I can see it now:
wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Great, great point, _man.
The Justice affects all the down-ballot candidates. The performance of the Justice affects his party in the mid-term elections. Whether the Justice runs for re-election also has a big impact on his party. The Justice gets to fill all the important positions in the national party organization with his preferences. The Justice affects the way the House and Senate delegations from his party act and react. The Justice can push his pet policies and projects to the Congress. The Justice can take to the bully pulpit to advance his preferred policies.
Brilliant.
misterpeasea on August 18, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Still being the childish little brat as always, I see.
wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Ginsburg and Breyer got 95+ senators voting in favour, because the Republicans controlling the Senate Judiciary Committee (viz., Orin Hatch) sat down with Clinton, agreed which lefty judges he could pick, and rushed them through.
Shockingly, the Democrats have not extended similar courtesy.
tigerinexile on August 18, 2008 at 4:14 PM
No, they don’t extend a similar courtesy. This is war. They play for keeps. They need to be defeated at the ballot box. The democrats crossed a line years ago and their version of compromise is to force the republicans to follow their rules. The less democrats in office, the better. Executive, legislative and judicial.
wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 4:22 PM
The word “chunte” is a derivative of “chuntaro” in much the same way “n*gger” is a derivative of “negro.” That may be interesting but is really unimportant. The fact is that the word “chunte” is used as a pejorative. Dfdeportation seems to have a grasp of that fact. Or are you going to deny the obvious connotation?
Here’s a modest proposal:
Ask Dfdeportation what he meant. Don’t take my word for it. Let him tell you about the olive branch he was extending with his words.
The real question is what stake do you have in using such language? If you really need to, whisper it to me. Nobody is listening to you anyway.
“Give me an “N!”
“Give me an “I!”
You get the picture. Go young man, shout it from the rooftops. Throw in a “Chunte” while you’re at it. Make someone proud.
On the other hand, you can point the finger at me. I’m the problem.
Feel better?
The Race Card on August 18, 2008 at 4:39 PM
You got me.
The Race Card on August 18, 2008 at 4:41 PM
… I suppose I could take your word for it.
.
.
.
No, I don’t think so.
wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Hey, you are wise.
The Race Card on August 18, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Somehow the threat jumped the track. Back on the track, Patrick Leahy is a dangerous leftwing moron who needs to be removed from the Senate
wepeople on August 18, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Aside from the slur I support the rigorous vetting and general manhandling of our candidate.
“Maverick” euphamizes “dick.”
The Race Card on August 18, 2008 at 5:17 PM
There is also the possibility that McCain, having the benefit of seeing how those Justices have ruled, now feels they should not be on the Court.
mikeyboss on August 18, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Yep, I’m always calling names, not responding to arguments, and telling the trash to go on over to Kos or HuffPo. You know, throwing tantrums when I don’t get my way.
I ought to be ashamed of myself.
misterpeasea on August 18, 2008 at 5:35 PM
No gotcha here.
I wonder if DfDeportation is a con. Sounds almost like a parody.
Terrye on August 18, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Looks like some people want the page to jump the track again.
wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 5:38 PM
MB4:
George Will should stick to baseball. But then again I do remember him making some comment about how crazy it was to think the US could actually deport all the illegals. He even included some remark about how many buses it would take and how many miles north they would stretch out. Why don’t you find that quote and put it up there?
Terrye on August 18, 2008 at 5:49 PM
McCain has voted for qualified people. He also voted for Bork, even though Democrats killed that nomination.
Terrye on August 18, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Yeah, but just the childish ones, thankfully.
You know, the ones who, in a post about how McSquish is all things to all people, post a comment trying to justify their hopeless man-love for him in a really dumb comparison between voting for President and voting to confirm a SCt Justice.
Those people.
misterpeasea on August 18, 2008 at 7:48 PM
and again. Wow. Must be a record.
wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 8:17 PM
Those people!
We ought to have standards. A code. A speech code. And anyone who violates it should have to go on over to Kos or HuffPo with the rest of the trash.
We really shouldn’t tolerate dissent around here.
misterpeasea on August 18, 2008 at 11:10 PM
you are going for a record.
BitterAndChildishHoldAGrudgeMutch?
wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 11:47 PM
Comment pages: