Daily Kos

Which Branch Abuses Power in John McCain's World?

Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:00:12 AM PDT

John McCain spoke at Wake Forest today, addressing the timely topic of separation of powers, starting off with a look at the executive branch:

All the powers of the American presidency must serve the Constitution, and thereby protect the people and their liberties. For the chief executive or any other constitutional officer, the duties and boundaries of the Constitution are not just a set of helpful suggestions. They are not just guidelines, to be observed when it's convenient and loosely interpreted when it isn't. The clear powers defined by our Constitution, and the clear limits of power, lose nothing of their relevance with time, because the dangers they guard against are found in every time.

...And though you wouldn't always know it from watching the day-to-day affairs of modern Washington, the framers knew exactly what they were doing, and the system of checks and balances rarely disappoints.

There is one great exception in our day, however, and that is ...

Drum roll ... Yes! he's going to do it! He's going to call out President Bush on his violations of the Constitution! At last! I mean, he started this off talking about the executive branch, right?

Wrong.

There is one great exception in our day, however, and that is the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power.

Huh?

For decades now, some federal judges have taken it upon themselves to pronounce and rule on matters that were never intended to be heard in courts or decided by judges....[long high-falutin' screed about the interfering judiciary]

No serious discussion about the suspension of habeas corpus. Or torture. Or violation of the Geneva conventions. Or illegal wiretapping. Just the tired old rhetoric about activist judges that we've come to expect from tired old Republican candidates with every election. Does he really think this is going to gain traction this cycle? With Iraq, the economy, health insurance hanging over the heads of voters?

georgia10 will chime in later--probably on Sunday Kos--with a detailed look at what McCain's judicial philosophy looks like, based on this speech. Bur for now, I leave you with the thought: Given the chance and inclination to discuss Constitutional overreach, McCain chose to scold the judiciary in an era marked by unprecedented seizures of power by the president, a position he aims to fill. Needless to say, this speech doesn't bode well for what he would do with executive power were he to ascend to the office.

  • ::

Tags: John McCain, 2008, president, judicial activism (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 153 comments

  •  You'd think he already had enough (15+ / 0-)

    wingnut credentials by now.

    John McCain - Like W. Only Older.

    Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

    by InsultComicDog on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:02:42 AM PDT

  •  Hillary is the candidate who is sure to beat him (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    RFK Lives, Sharon Jumper

    I guess we should all get on board, if she'll still have us. heh-heh

  •  McCentury's Head Didn't Explode (1+ / 0-)

    when he said that?!

    "The Use of Unnecessary Violence Has Been Approved." Keith Olbermann

    by CityLightsLover on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:03:33 AM PDT

  •  Waterboarding Justice for the good of America! (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Dauphin, ER Doc, wonderful world

    Dudehisattva...

    "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

    by Dood Abides on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:04:08 AM PDT

  •  I think Obama should just ignore Hillary and (4+ / 0-)

    start the General Election campaign and go full speed ahead against McBush. Of course, the media will ignore that.

    I am still waiting to see if McCain has a tantrum. He has been far too calm but he did come close a few times in those early Republican debates when Mitt's numbers were good and his were in the toilet.

    I still think, with enough pressure, McBush will have a tantrum.

    If McCain is President, not even God can help us. He will have a Tantrum Du Jour.

    There goes the White House furniture turned into the wood pile for fireplaces. There goes the historical antiques, busted. There goes the vases, shattered, everything in a big pile of trash.
    And on top of the trash heap will be a burned Constitution.

    Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

    by wishingwell on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:04:23 AM PDT

    •  First debate... (5+ / 0-)

      Obama calmly but firmly lays out the flip-flops, one after another, in rapid succession, until McC, unable to refute, has no recourse but anger.  It's like going after a fish in a barrel.  As long as it's done gently, so the MSM can't claim Obama is picking on the elderly, the audience can't help but wonder about their maverick.

    •  agree (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      wishingwell

      McCain is trying to sneak his pandering to the right in while independent voters aren't paying attention.  He gets to keep the maverick reputation while shifting to the right on all policies (court, economic, etc). Nobody is there to call him out because HRC continues to distract the national media.  If she was out of the picture BHO could directly and loudly go after McSame when he goes right.  BHO should just ignor HRC and go after McSame.  Make it a 2 person race and make her as irrelevant as she is.

  •  Do Deacs!! (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    wonderful world

    I think he's confusing my alma mater with another law school, perhaps, like Liberty or Regent. His speech certainly isn't consistent with what my professors taught at Wake.

    •  He confused Wake Forest (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Sharon Jumper

      with West Virgina.

      This is from WTOP's website:

      "McCain appeared confused about where he was for a moment Tuesday, saying, "I appreciate the hospitality of the students and faculty of West Virginia," then correcting himself to say Wake Forest as the audience laughed."

      McBush indeed!

      "No, it's all right," said the prospective diner. "The slugs have formed a defensive ring." -- Moving Pictures. Terry Pratchett.

      by wonderful world on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:26:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  McCain is right about the abuse of (6+ / 0-)

    the courts.

    And when he gets elected, and picks the judges, we will have the same complaint.

    Everybody takes all the power they can.  It is the way of the world.

    It takes an exceptional person to not do this (Washington not running for president again, for example).

    Everybody wants some. I want some too..

    by Han Valen on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:05:07 AM PDT

    •  Which is why in my country (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Lesser Dane

      a judicial council (6 members elected amongst the judges by the judges and 5 nominated by the president) nominates judicial candidates who are then elected by out parliament.

      Save for advancement to the most prestigious judicial position, advancement through the courts is then entirely in the judges' hands, and no-one can remove a judge against from a seat he currently occupies, except if he's convicted of a crime with a prison sentence of more than six months.

      Isn't that a better solution to ensure the courts' independence? Granted, our system is continental, an we don't have binding legal precedents (only decisions which have the authority of the argument, not the argument of the authority).

      Omne malum nascens facile opprimitur, inveteratum fit plerumque robustius. - Cicero

      by Dauphin on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:09:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No way to avoid politics (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Dauphin

        It doesn't matter what the exact system is for replacing Supreme Court justices because there will always be a way to inject politics into it.  Eventually.

        Rather than tinker with alternative systems, we need to do a better job of teaching people the value of an independent judiciary.  

        •  Or not. (0+ / 0-)

          I was not referring to the Supreme Court of the United States, but rather to the regular courts.

          And teaching people the value of an independent judiciary doesn't mean diddly squat if you don't seek to develop and improve a system which seeks to minimise such influences, otherwise they will occur no matter how much the public whines.

          Omne malum nascens facile opprimitur, inveteratum fit plerumque robustius. - Cicero

          by Dauphin on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:37:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry, it's all the same (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Dauphin

            I don't know why you think it's any different from the "regular courts."  If you take appointments away from a President or governor, and ostensibly assign it to some bureaucratic entity, you just get a system where the executive "packs" that board.  And, it's not like judges are inherently immune to the political process themselves.  See, e.g., Scalia.

            Not to mention that the solution isn't to bury the decision making or shield it from public view.  

            In short: show me a system and I will show you how Americans can subvert it.  Teach the public how the system should work and there is a chance that we'll get better judges.  I know it's easier, in theory, at least, to try to come up with a foolproof system, but in the long run, I'd rather rely on broader education

  •  Well, it's not like he's unbiased, is it? (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    pearlegates, JeffW, Joe Beese

    The less power the other two branches retain, the more power he gets. A weak Congress, pacified courts, disregard for the rule of law... yes, a monarchy in everything but name.

    And asking any politician whether another branch of the government should have less power is akin to asking a fox whether the henhouse door should be left open.

    Besides, condemning Bush's crimes (and indeed that is what they are) would mean that he, should he win the presidency, won't be able to use all those lovely toys.

    Omne malum nascens facile opprimitur, inveteratum fit plerumque robustius. - Cicero

    by Dauphin on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:05:18 AM PDT

  •  "Activist Judges" (7+ / 0-)

    It's been a while since I heard the term thrown around.

    Can't wait for the general election; McCain's gonna be spouting that phrase left and right trying to scare the GOP base into voting for him to get a solid conservative majority back on the SCOTUS.

    Every time someone suggests Gore as a "compromise candidate", God kills a kitten.

    by Swordopolis on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:05:29 AM PDT

  •  My only prayer is that we don't screw this (6+ / 0-)

    up and end up with this moron in the WH.  Our country won't be able to stand it.

  •  "The daily routine of Senate obstructionism ... (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, ER Doc, JeffW

    ... [means that] presidential nominees to the lower courts are now lucky if they get a hearing at all," whines McCain, member of the party that left hundreds of federal court seats empty when Bill Clinton was president.

    The above comment is probably disrespectful of John McCain's military service somehow.

    by RickMassimo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:06:04 AM PDT

    •  Not exactly hundreds, but plenty ... (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      lcbo, RickMassimo, jfromga

      ...as this example from May 1998 pointed out:

      President Clinton has struck an extraordinary bargain, agreeing to nominate a prominent conservative selected by a Republican senator to an important Federal appeals court post, in exchange for the confirmation of one of his nominees to the same court, Senate and Administration officials said today.

      Judge Barbara Durham is the Republican choice for appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. In return for her nomination, the Republicans have agreed to stop blocking the confirmation of several Clinton nominees, including that of Prof. William A. Fletcher. ....

      But Senator Gorton has been preaching to his fellow Republicans that they should use their majority in Congress to win a bigger role in choosing nominees to United States Courts of Appeals.

      To force the issue in Washington, Senator Gorton has successfully blocked the confirmation of all judicial nominees from the State of Washington, as well that of Professor Fletcher.

      A senior Administration official, who insisted on anonymity, dismissed the idea that other Republican senators might insist on choosing nominees for Federal appeals courts. Mr. Clinton has nominated 14 candidates to fill the 23 vacancies in those courts.

      But throughout his tenure, President Clinton has shown little willlingness to challenge the Republican Senate on judicial choices. He has chosen largely moderate candidates and has been quick to withdraw nominees when there was a hint of opposition in the Senate.

      I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

      by Meteor Blades on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:13:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Or, Reader's Digest Version (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    wonderful world, Joe Beese

    "I'm old, vote for MEEEEEEEEEE!"

    [Said LOUDLY to the voice of Grampa Simpson]

    " ... or a baby's arm holding an apple!"

    by Lavocat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:06:27 AM PDT

    •  McCain's speaking voice... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      wonderful world

      ... at least when not addressing his wife in public as a "cunt", has always struck me as the tone one would use when trying to soothe a nursing home patient whose dementia-caused confused is upsetting them.

      He is going to need all the help the Machine can give him to even stand a chance against Obama.

      "Some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok." - Barack Obama

      by Joe Beese on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:39:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So, is McCain talking about ... (4+ / 0-)

    ...Brown v. Board of Education? Or Marbury v. Madison?

    I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

    by Meteor Blades on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:06:38 AM PDT

  •  He's right (11+ / 0-)

    For decades now, some federal judges have taken it upon themselves to pronounce and rule on matters that were never intended to be heard in courts or decided by judges

    I'm sure he's talking about Bush v. Gore, right?

  •  Hell yeah! With that dirty rotten... (5+ / 0-)

    ...Democrat president for the last 7 years, and that traitorous Democrat Congress for 12 years, the Libruls have stacked the court with elitist, activist, abortion lovin', gay marriage pushin' judges!  Yeah!

    What?  The Republicans were in contol?  Oooops.  My bad...

    I want my Two Dollars!

    by Ken in MN on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:07:16 AM PDT

  •  In other shocking news--Sun rises in east nt (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Dauphin, HKHeadhunter
  •  He is playing (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, ER Doc, wonderful world

    so hard to that 30% that still loves them some Bush that he is going to be in danger of losing the Independents to Obama.  Isn't that a shame?

    "We should be able to deliver hot bottled water to dehydrated babies." John McCain

    by llamaRCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:07:43 AM PDT

  •  damn those judges! (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    lcbo, Dauphin, ER Doc, HKHeadhunter, ArtSchmart
    Always trying to interpret what the law means in actual practice!  Always trying to tell the corporations "anything you like" is not a regulatory philosophy.  

    So if the plain language of laws are so self-evident, John, and don't need clarifications, interpretations, or rulings about scope, well, then why not just come clean with what you and the Backroom Boys really think and come out for the wholesale abolition of all the courts?

  •  McCain stands with (6+ / 0-)

    Scalia, Thomas and Alito.  

    More than that, he stands in a line of attacks on the judiciary that runs back to Richard Nixon and Southern segregationists.

    •  The executive branch (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      rlochow

      has been pissed about Marbury v. Madison since 1803.  The way this administration, and those in it, have approached this limit on the executive's power is through the war power and the unitary executive canard.

      Unfortunately, there are those on the SC bench who just might go along, and further weaken what has been the strongest check on the executive branch power, other than impeachment.  If they do, then they will have emasculated the judiciary.

  •  for McSame, the judicial branch (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ER Doc, JeffW, llamaRCA

    would be an essential element to our constitutional government, if it weren't for all those irrelevant 'judges' doing their 'judging'.

  •  I agree wholeheatedly with Sen. Sam Brownback (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ER Doc

    A short while ago, I saw far-right wing loon (where have I heard that loon expression?) say that the main reason to support McCain is because of judicial appointments.

    I couldn't agree more--except for the McCain part.

  •  How freaking wrong. . . . (0+ / 0-)

    Here's my ranking of abuse or misuse of power,

    #1:  Bush Admin (from WH down) (incalculably serious violations of US law and constitution as well as international law)

    #2:  Congress (utter failure to exercise it's responsibilities to check the executive)

    #3:  Courts (have actually made a few reasonable decisions, e.g., Hamdan case)

    #4:  The people (not left off the hook on this by a long short, for their sheepish connivance with the scare-tactics of the Pres and acceptance of the Big Lie on Iraq)

    "Getting elected is the only true moral imperative that politicians believe in." -- Anon

    by zackamac on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:09:06 AM PDT

  •  "Activist" Judges are easy targets (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, ER Doc

    Which once again points out how easily a candidate can dupe the American public. They'll happily drive down the road in their SUV waiting for their gas holiday listening to Rush whining about "Liberal Activist Judges" destroying the country. As irritated as I've been with Arianna Huffington lately, she really had it right when she expressed her disgust with what John McCain has turned into since his "maverick" days. Maybe he should ask Hillary to run with him as the two have proven they will do and say anything to get elected.

    Gun control, separation of church and state, women's reproductive rights and the 4th Amendment do matter.

    by sloopydrew on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:09:07 AM PDT

  •  I am disappointed beyond measure .... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ER Doc

    And this is all that matters to me .....

    No serious discussion about the suspension of habeas corpus. Or torture. Or violation of the Geneva conventions. Or illegal wiretapping.

    ..... everything else, is noise .... 'nuff said !

    ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

    ~ if you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention ~

    ~ move sooner, not faster ~

    ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

    by ArthurPoet on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:09:18 AM PDT

  •  Well yeah because that's what TV shows say (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, JeffW

    which is where McCain and many of his base constituents get their view of things, from TV movies and the like.

    They're full of plots that include those damnable judges throwing out cases against transparently guilty (he's evil, Marge, listen to the music!) scum of the Earth because of some "technicality".

    When in fact, the opposite is true, with all the three-strike laws and so on.

    John McCain has shown repeatedly now that his view of the world is no more sophisticated than the least informed among his right wing base, and that's saying something. It's saying something scary.

    The last panel in this one pretty much sums it up.

  •  Some time back.. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ER Doc

    ... I read a study that the Supremes who voted most to nullify legislative actions were Thomas & Scalia (back in '04, before we got Roberts & Alito).  Which would make them the most "activist" of the judges.

    Incomplete memory of it though - perhaps someone can fill in more details?

    John McCain voted against health care for kids.

    by Land of Enchantment on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:09:36 AM PDT

  •  Um, does McCain and his ilk (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Dauphin, ER Doc, JeffW

    understand that there already is a check on "activist" federal judges?  It is called the appellate process -- and the buck stops at the most activist court in the nation -- the out of balance, ideologically bent right wing Supreme Court.  

    I'm surprised people didn't burst out laughing since he's an abettor in the neutering of the balance of power in Congress.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:10:07 AM PDT

  •  Mmm... more justices in the Scalia/Roberts mold (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ER Doc, JeffW

    Just what America needs!

    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

    by The Raven on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:11:13 AM PDT

  •  PUNK the RNC conference call (0+ / 0-)

    From GOOPER HQ:
    As campaigns jump into high gear around the country, we will be here with all the information, talking points, updates, and experts to help you navigate this historic election year. We will continue the monthly Pink Elephants Conference Calls this Tuesday, May 13th with our special guest, the Victory 2008 Chairman, Carly Fiorina.
    In March 2008, Carly Fiorina was appointed Victory '08 Chairman for the Republican National Committee.  In this role, she is the primary advocate for John McCain and the Republican Party.  Utilizing her vital business experience, she will travel the country speaking on behalf of Senator McCain and will emphasize his efforts to create jobs for working families and set the conditions for economic growth.

    CALL IN INFORMATION:

    Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2008
    Time: 6:00 p.m. EDT
    Phone Number: (800)-475-0486
    Passcode: RNC
    Leader: Jo Ann Davidson

  •  Read the Constitution much? (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ER Doc

    Did anybody else get a laugh when McCain said,

    There is a very clear standard in the Constitution requiring not only just compensation in the use of eminent domain, but also that private property may not be taken for ‘public use.’

    I know, it was likely just a slip up.  He probably meant to say "private use" at the end there.  

    For those following along at home, "public use" is exactly when the government is constitutionally permitted to exercise eminent domain (provided of course they pay just compensation).

    •  He's referring to (0+ / 0-)

      Kelo v. City of New London, where the Supreme Court allowed New London, CT to condemn homes in an outlying neighborhood in order to put up a Pfizer plant and resort hotel.  The Court held that because of the increase in jobs likely to result from this move ("economic development"), the taking was for a "public purpose," which constitutes a "public use" for purposes of the Takings Clause.  

      I don't think this was one of the Court's better decisions (judging by the result, rather than according to the laws involved).

      It's also a case that conservatives will love to bash "activist judges" with, since the Court's vote split pretty neatly along ideological lines, with Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg and Kennedy in the majority, and Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O'Connor dissenting.

      •  I know. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm familiar with the case.  Most criticisms I've heard relating to Kelo dispute whether the taking was really for a public purpose as concluded by the majority.  Whether, in other words, it was fair to define public purpose as the court did.

        My point was, McCain's statement that there's a "very clear standard" that prevents taking for a public use is entirely backwards.

        •  I figured you knew. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          JeffW

          I just wanted to put this out there for those who may not be familiar with the case.

          I think McCain's statement is rather revealing (and I'm not so sure it was a mistake, but maybe I'm cynical).  If the government can't take private property for public use, as he said, and yet it can clearly take private property, for what reason can it take such property?  Private use.  This goes along nicely with the neoconservative outlook on government in general, which is to say that it should exist for private enrichment.

          •  The thing about Kelo (0+ / 0-)

            is that it stretches the notion of "public use" to the breaking point.  Economic development is a public use?!?  It would be hard to imagine a more Republican argument -- especially since most of the economic "development" doubtless went to the developer.  And what kills me is that it was the "liberals" on the Court who came up with this nonsense.  

            Man.  Heads they win, tails we lose.  You'd think it was Congress.  

  •  also violated the US Constitution (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ER Doc

    with our war of aggression on Iraq - which was a violation of the Nuremberg Principles.

    but then, the US Constitution has been violated so much over the last two decades, it is hard to keep track of it all.....

    (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

    by dancewater on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:13:03 AM PDT

  •  And just who appointed many of those 'activist (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ER Doc, JeffW

    judges'?

    Why most likely the two George Bushes and Ronald Reagan, that's who.

  •  McCain's speech (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    JeffW

    ....is just Federalist Society drek intended to appease the right.

  •  It's the same old chestnut: Activist Judges (0+ / 0-)

    and it underscores how beholden McCain is to the radical right-wing agenda.  No question.

    "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

    by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:15:46 AM PDT

  •  Brown vs. Board is I believe what he's (0+ / 0-)

    referring to (what's left of it anyway after the Roberts court got done with it).

    Far more likely than Lawrence v. Texas given his voting record.

  •  What an opening for Obama! (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ER Doc, JeffW

    Obama needs to display his Constitutional scholar bonafides by taling this opportunity to rail against the Unitary executive philosophy of the Neo-Cons (Cheney/Bush). He can reach many libertarian republicans with this line of attack.

    Obama campaign, Are you listening? Don't let this go!

  •  OMG (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    lcbo, ER Doc, JeffW

    That is truly embarrassing. Is there any tired old canard he won't trot out?

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:20:38 AM PDT

  •  So the Constitution is just fine,,, (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ER Doc, JeffW

    except for that part about an 'independent' (kind of a chuckle there) judiciary.

  •  so what does he want to overturn? (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    lcbo, ER Doc

    Roe? Brown? the 2000 election decision?

    did any of the lapdog reporters who follow him ask for specifics.

    he could of course have introduced legislation in congress, or even an amendment, to reverse courts or clear up the law.

    if, y'know, he'd only been a senator or something.

    TheRamFiles: We're radical moderates, we're made as heck and we're not going to take it all that much longer.

    by ron ray on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:24:30 AM PDT

  •  Good for Senator McCain!! (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ER Doc, JeffW

    I'm glad he brought up the topic of judges.

    This will (hopefully) be the singular issue which heals the divide between Clinton and Obama supporters as we drive to November.

    If you don't want an ultra-Conservative Supreme Court for the next 25 years, we'd best forget our squabbles within the primary...get out the vote in November...and deny the right-wing the opportunity to pack the courts.

    It's not a war, it's an occupation

    by PRESSmUP on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:26:17 AM PDT

  •  He has to blame the courts. Here's why: (0+ / 0-)

    Gays and minorities aren't named as branches of government in the Constution.

    Those Founders really should have thought things through a little more...

    "Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing." -- Joseph Heller

    by Roddy McCorley on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:27:31 AM PDT

  •  Please, (0+ / 0-)

    Can I have my fourth amendment back yet?

    Please?

    The media does not produce news to sell to viewers; it produces viewers to sell to advertisers.

    by lilnev on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:31:46 AM PDT

  •  He's rusty, this represents serious lag time (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    JeffW

    in his understanding of WHO is his ally and enforcer as right-wing exectutive.  Any judicial overreach likely in the next five years will tend towards theocracy and unbridled corporate hegemony.  If he had the faintest understanding of the trends in the courts, he'd be celebrating giving judges more power.

    He's ranting an extremley out-of-date rant.  He's behind the times.  He thinks judges are all a bunch of interfering Libr