11 Responses for "McCain Favors Anti-Roe Judges"

1. Chris May 6th, 2008 at 12:17 pm 1

   I feel like the GOP will lose more seats in both the House and the Senate in 08. However, I feel like 2010 will be a Republican year. I just hope that we don’t lose solid conservatives like Sununu, who is pretty young and could have a long career in the Senate. I would be happy if we could get either Pearce or Schaffer into the Senate.

2. Barbara May 6th, 2008 at 12:44 pm 2

   I also doubt he could get any truly pro-life judges through, but then I’m not even certain what that means. He says he will appoint men and women who will exercise “judicial restraint.” That’s vague enough that it should be easily accomplished.

   His speech is actually worth the read:
   http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/5385b2dd-fc8f-4bc9-9fb0-da2e2f1d9f98.htm

   As far as whether this is an “olive branch” to the religious right, as the article suggests it is, I would wager that the real olive branch to the religious right will be extended when he selects his running mate later this summer.

3. Sam May 6th, 2008 at 12:58 pm 3

   I was actually thinking the other day that I could see a scenario where McCain wins, but we still lose seats in Congress.

4. Alan May 6th, 2008 at 1:27 pm 4

   I read McCain’s speech. He never mentioned Scalia or Thomas. The conservative bloggers will ignore that because McCain touted Roberts and Alito as his models.

   Yet as someone who’s paying careful attention to McCain, I find it quite significant that, throughout this campaign, Amnesty Juan has steadfastly avoided saying that he’d nominate a Scalia or a Thomas. Heaven knows McCain thinks it’s significant–he’s not doing this by accident. The omission of Scalia and Thomas is purposeful. Even Rudy “I’d give my daughter money to have an abortion” Giuliani said he’d nominate justices in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. But McCain has steadfastly avoided adding Scalia or Thomas to his list of models. That’s no accident. This many times, with this many prepared remarks, it can’t be an accident. McCain really doesn’t like those two. That’s why he avoids mentioning them.

   Which leaves thoughtful conservatives to wonder what that means for judicial nominations. It would be foolish to think that this purposeful, repeated omission is not going to have any significance. The question is, what the heck is McCain up to?

   It can’t possibly be because a Scalia or Thomas would be unconfirmable, whereas a Roberts or Alito would be confirmable. That can’t be it. Alito wouldn’t be confirmable in today’s climate. So confirmability isn’t the explanation. But if not that, then what?

   I think the answer may lie in what Mr. Straight Talk said the last time he ran for president. Here’s what he said about Roe v. Wade the last time he ran. In August of 1999, he told the San Francisco Chronicle that while he would “love to see a point where [Roe] is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary,” nevertheless, “certainly in the short run, or even the long run, I would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force x number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”

   Have you ever heard a pro-lifer call abortion “necessary,” as McCain did in that quotation? To say nothing of how Roe shouldn’t be overturned in either the short run or the long run. Whew. That’s what McCain sounds like when he doesn’t realize that his comments are going to get reported. And of course in the 2000 campaign he repeatedly said that if Roe is overturned tomorrow, women will die–so McCain’s apologists can’t just whine that I’m using only one quotation to make McCain look bad, because it’s not just one quotation.

   Roberts and Alito probably won’t vote to uphold Roe, but it’s hard for me to believe that McCain really will appoint more anti-Roe judges after what he said in 1999, coupled with his steadfast refusal to promise more Scalias and Thomases. When you look at McCain’s past statements and his overall history of spitting in conservatives’ faces, the lesson has to be that whatever he means when he says he’ll appoint more Robertses and Alitos is probably just typical McCain gibberish, like that time he tried to explain how his POW experience would make him the best candidate to manage the economy. And whatever he means when he invokes Roberts and Alito (if anything at all), it’s a lot less significant than the fact that he still refuses to invoke Scalia and Thomas.

5. Barbara May 6th, 2008 at 3:11 pm 5

   Alan - Excellent analysis. I agree. If you note his lines:

   I have my own standards of judicial ability, experience, philosophy, and temperament…I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist — jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference. My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power.

   It’s clear that he’s not really promising anything, least of all hardline pro-life Justices. And I agree with your assessment that this is simply more empty McFluff designed to help him appeal (pander?) to the religious right without actually obligating himself to their cause. Perhaps he was hoping to get this headline out there in time to avoid another embarrassing 30% turnout for Paul/Huckabee in the primaries today, though frankly it seems a little late for that.

6. Ryan May 6th, 2008 at 5:22 pm 6

   The skeptics never seem to be happy. Here we have a Republican presidential candidate more or less say he is going to appoint judges along the lines of his successor and his voting record backs up such talk, but few what to give him credit because he did not say the magic words of Scalia, Thomas, and pro-life.

   Come to think of it, there is a difference between the two groups of justices in question when it comes to style. Where as Rehnquist, Roberts, and Alito can be described as far more reserved and restrained in their job, Scalia and Thomas cannot be described as either. Both are far more open with their opinions and do not seem to mind causing controversy than the former. As much as I respect Scalia and agree with him, there is something I respect more about Rehnquist and Roberts. Both men can be described as conservatives who bring change in a suttle, but very effective manner.

   McCain might be feeling the same thing, but also know that it will be far easier to confirm more “John Roberts” to the court over anyone else.

7. Alan May 6th, 2008 at 8:48 pm 7

   Ryan, what do you mean, “his voting record backs up such talk?” Because he voted for Roberts and Alito? He also voted for Ginsburg and Breyer; did you forget that? Oh, yes–and he voted to preserve the Democrats’ right to filibuster. Why do we have so many judicial vacancies that the Fourth Circuit–once the pride and joy of the Federalists–is now evenly balanced between Rs and Ds? Because of John MCain. So much for his wonderful voting record.

   And if you think there’s anything “suttle” (the word is spelled SUBTLE, by the way) about Roberts, you obviously missed all the commentary on his votes and opinions since becoming chief justice. Just because he’s less of an originalist than Scalia or Thomas doesn’t mean he’s subtle. He’s got the Left on red alert. There’s nothing subtle about anything Roberts has ever written on the Court.

   By the way, after all the lies and inconsistent statements that have come out of McCain’s mouth, why would you ever take him at his word?

   Mark my words: you’ll be sorry you supported him. I’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that I didn’t vote for the Souters we’ll get from St. John of Arizona. But you? You’ll be beating your head against a brick wall long before St. John leaves the White House.

   In advance: I told you so.

8. Ryan May 6th, 2008 at 9:45 pm 8

   Alan… talk about being harsh over one spelling mistake. This comes from the same crowd who attacks Publius for being so vocal about his education.

   I have to say I do not understand why so many on the right want to eliminate the filibuster. While it has been used against our nominees, throwing it out the window would prevent us from using it in the future when we are in a weak position. Just look back at the 1970s to see why we need the filibuster as a healthy institution in the Senate.

   By the way, you have not read the opinions of Scalia if you think those written by Roberts are not subtle. Furthermore, of course the left has become afraid of Roberts and Alito because they cannot be painted as radicals as easily as someone like Scalia or Thomas. Its kind of hard to point to someone and scream extremist when they do not come of as one to the public.

9. ChemistryDave May 6th, 2008 at 9:57 pm 9

   Out of curiousity Alan, who was your man in the primary?

10. Alan May 7th, 2008 at 9:33 am 10

    Of the electable candidates? Thompson, until it became clear to me that he was never going to run a serious campaign, at which point I very reluctantly shifted my support to Romney.

    Lots of conservatives thought I was nuts. But the way I saw it, whereas I can’t trust Romney to do the right things, I know I can trust McCain to do the wrong things. Romney is an unprincipled flip-flopper, but that’s better than someone who consistently delights in making conservatives miserable.

11. Alan May 7th, 2008 at 9:48 am 11

    “By the way, you have not read the opinions of Scalia if you think those written by Roberts are not subtle.”

    Ryan, your reasoning is almost worthy of Publius.

    Roberts is not subtle. In every case, he lays everything out very neatly, making it clear where he stands–no shrouding his views, no guessing what he means. And now it’s clear, after two-and-a-half years with him as chief justice, that he’s a generally conservative justice. It’s clear as a general matter what he thinks about each of the areas of constitutional law to which he’s contributed. Where’s the subtlety? There is none. There’s no mystery, nothing to figure out; it’s perfectly obvious how Roberts views the law. You don’t have to look closely to see what kind of justice Roberts is. And that means he’s not subtle.

    I have indeed read Scalia’s opinions. Scalia is even less subtle than Roberts, but how does that make Roberts subtle? I seriously want you to answer that question for me. Your logic is the same as saying that Richard Kiel, at seven foot two, isn’t tall because there are people who stand more than eight feet tall.

    “Furthermore, of course the left has become afraid of Roberts and Alito because they cannot be painted as radicals as easily as someone like Scalia or Thomas. Its kind of hard to point to someone and scream extremist when they do not come of as one to the public.”

    Um, no, that’s quite wrong. Roberts and Alito already have been painted as radicals. If you mean that they can’t be painted as radicals in a way that persuades the vast majority of the public–the way most people are persuaded that Scalia and Thomas are radicals–then, again, I’ve got to call you out here on your reasoning. Far fewer people now think that Roberts and Alito are moderates than thought so when they were nominated, and fewer people will think so tomorrow than today.

    You don’t seem to understand that public perceptions aren’t frozen in time. Scalia himself was confirmed 98-0–which would never happen today. What happened? People’s perception of Scalia changed over time. And there’s still plenty of time for the public to get the picture that Roberts and Alito are almost as extreme as Scalia and Thomas. Roberts and Alito haven’t been on the Court for very long, so they haven’t finished establishing themselves. Was Scalia the infamous right-wing justice right from the moment he took his seat? No. If he were, he wouldn’t have gotten Ted Kennedy to vote for him.

    “Alan… talk about being harsh over one spelling mistake. This comes from the same crowd who attacks Publius for being so vocal about his education.”

    Yes, because he’s an idiot. I’m not an idiot. I don’t pretend to be brilliant while hurling stupid comments hither and yon. By the way… You imply there’s some kind of inconsistency between my harping on a spelling mistake and my ideological compatriots’ attacks on Publius for being so vocal about his education. (Otherwise your talk about “the same crowd” would make no sense.) Where exactly is this inconsistency you see? That’s another thing I’d really like you to explain.