McCain hits a freakin' home run...

[Judge]

gave a speech at Wake Forest on judicial appointments... read this part carefully:

<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.>


Outeffinstanding.

John McCain 2008 - John McCain for President

[PackerfanXD]

That's great but I'm bracing for his speech to the pro-illegals.

[one-eyed-fatman]

Originally Posted by PackerfanXD

That's great but I'm bracing for his speech to the pro-illegals.

Free taco's for everyone except Americans.

[gsx1138]

My only issue with a polititian that loves to talk about "activist Judges" is that they in the end only want judges who'll also pass laws that coincide with their views. They all do it but try to pass themselves off as bastions of the law.

[Judge]

actually there is a difference.... there are those that believe that the original intent of the laws should be the main consideration in arriving at a conclusion, and that other standards, such as the UN charter, do not apply to US jurisprudence...

There is a standard, it's up to the writiers of the law to make the determinations, it's up to the judges to follow it.

That's the difference with McCain, we'll have a good chance to get judges appointed that don't interpret the law according to their whimsy..

Originally Posted by gsx1138

My only issue with a polititian that loves to talk about "activist Judges" is that they in the end only want judges who'll also pass laws that coincide with their views. They all do it but try to pass themselves off as bastions of the law.

[one-eyed-fatman]

Down here in Texas judges make decisions on which lawyer wins based on which lawyer contributed the most to their campaign fund.

[DanTheEldest]

Overall I agree with him, but something in the first paragraph pulled me up short. It reads:

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.

It really irks me that he said this, because he was one of the chief instigators of the Gang of 14 that had a chance to deal decisively with an unconstitutional super-majority of nominees (definitely qualifies as "unfair treatment"), but torpedoed it instead.

I'd take him over the two Dems, but man I wish we had a different nominee this time around. McCain has just plain p****d me off too many times in the past for me to really get behind him.

[PackerfanXD]

Originally Posted by one-eyed-fatman

Free taco's for everyone except Americans.

Ha! I see you've read his first draft.

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by one-eyed-fatman

Free taco's for everyone except Americans.

Of course, who else will be sponsoring the free taco campaign!

[one-eyed-fatman]

Hey come on guys I'm trying to get the multi million dollar contract to supply the free taco's.