Posted May 6, 2008 3:46 PM
by James Oliphant
Here's a statement from Neera Tanden, the policy director for the Hillary Clinton campaign, on John McCain's speech on judges:
We won't take lectures on the right way to approach the Constitution from Senator McCain, who voted for extreme conservative judges like Justice Thomas. In an effort to pander to conservative voters, Senator McCain has signaled his intention to appoint right-wing judges who are committed to rolling back women's rights and civil rights, elevating the interests of big business over the rights of workers and consumers, affirming executive branch power grabs, and undermining our common core freedoms. Senator Clinton has a different vision. She will appoint judges who respect the separation of powers, are steadfast in protecting civil rights and liberties, including the right of privacy, and who cherish equal justice under law.
Interesting thought about both McCain's speech and Clinton's response. Both are notable for what they don't address, i.e. the most polarizing legal issues of the day, including rights for accused terrorists, handgun ownership, and, of course, abortion.
Nobody wants to go there. And because of the predominance of issues like the economy and Iraq, so far they haven't had to.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
So Jeff won't have a hissy fit...crowd.
Posted by: bill r. | May 6, 2008 3:58 PM
If I remember my Judicial Politics course from IU, a President (or candidates to that office) shouldn't have a "litmus test" for judges. That is, judges are supposed to be impartial...a judge with a public record of coming down on one side or the other certainly will fail that test.
And it's funny that the party of "smaller government" welcomes the government into areas to enforce their own morality. That is to say that the Pro-Choice aren't advocating abortions, they're merely saying that the government shouldn't be in the business of legislating one group's idea of "morality"...it would seem to me that the party of "small government" would want that body far away from this issue.
But what do I know? I voted against Bush.
Posted by: Jeffrey | May 6, 2008 4:07 PM
Good point Jeffrey! The RNC obviously forgets what their supposed to be representing.. What a bunch of goons and the people who vote for them!!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | May 6, 2008 4:36 PM
It's funny how Republicans hold themselves up as being so patriotic when they constantly say they don't like the federal government, judges, checks and balances, and a free press.
Posted by: Paul | May 6, 2008 4:42 PM
If there's a difference between Republicans Clinton and McCain I haven't noticed it.
Posted by: John E | May 6, 2008 5:18 PM
Conservative means believing that the fundamental meaning of the Constitution should be conserved.
Imagine thinking that a judge should be conservative!
Posted by: Jason | May 6, 2008 5:20 PM
James Oliphant, tell us what Obama's responses were to those items that concerned you i.e, - rights of terrorist, handguns and abortion. If you want to do a comparison/constrast, then please fully represent all the parties involved; otherwise, don't present a slanted view point and call it object journalism.
Posted by: the truth | May 6, 2008 5:32 PM
Jeffrey, you obviously don't remember that IU class very well but that's not surprising. The constitutional problem with Roe v. Wade is that the SCOTUS essentially created a new law allowing abortions in all 50 fifty states with its decision. It further legislated from the bench by defining the time in which one could be performed (trimesters). That's a power that's not reserved to the high court by the constitution. If they'd've said the law banning Norma McCorvey from getting one was unconstitutional then that would've been fine, but arguing that a federal strike down of one particular state law needs to be extended to every jurisdiction in the entire nation is in any way "small government" shows how little you truly learned in your government class as well as that judicial politics one.
Posted by: Jeff | May 6, 2008 6:14 PM
"small government" shows how little you truly learned in your government class as well as that judicial politics one.
Posted by: Jeff | May 6, 2008 6:14 PM
What an elitist....did anyone ever tell you how pompous you sound? Did I spell that right?
Posted by: bill r. | May 6, 2008 7:25 PM
Jeff,
Are you trying to say that the last 7 years of Republican rule is a good example of "Conservative Small Govt"?
Does the $10 trillion dollar deficit that the GOPer's ran up between 2001-2006 count as "small govt" in your mind too?
Posted by: John E | May 6, 2008 9:41 PM