McCain Newly Assertive On Judicial Views

Politico: Ariz. Senator Has Become More Aggressive In Offering His Philosophy On The Law

(The Politico)  This story was written by Avi Zenilman and Ben Adler.

---

Despite his background as a lawyer and law lecturer at the University of Chicago, Barack Obama has said little from the stump about legal issues, particularly what sort of justices he’d want on the Supreme Court, whose makeup is likely to be shaped for decades to come by the next president’s nominees.

John McCain, who has no legal background and who generally has not made matters of jurisprudence one of his signature issues in the Senate, has recently been more aggressive in offering his views on the law while campaigning.

He’s done so in part to assuage lingering concerns among conservatives stemming from his participation in the so-called “gang of 14,” a group made up of seven senators from each party who brokered a deal on judicial nominations that conservatives considered a betrayal of the prerogatives of the Senate’s then-Republican majority.

“This is mostly about base politics,” said Thomas Goldstein, who heads the Supreme Court practice at Akin Gump Strauss and a founder of the well-read SCOTUSblog. “Conservatives have always cared more about judges-have always recognized their lifetime appointments and their power much more than Democrats and progressives.”

McCain mostly soothed his base’s concerns when, flanked by admired elders of the conservative legal movement, he delivered a May 6 speech that Jeffery Toobin wrote in the New Yorker “amounted to a dog whistle for the right” that made clear that he’d nominate judges who are skeptical of the “right to privacy” that upholds the landmark abortion rights decision Roe v. Wade.

“McCain wants to appoint people like [Bush nominees] Roberts and Alito,” University of Chicago law professor and informal Obama advisor Cass Sunstein told Politico. “If you want a Court that would rethink Roe and defer to the president on large questions of presidential power, that’s more likely with McCain.”

But while Supreme Court nominees-and particularly their views on Roe v. Wade-have been a hot issue in previous presidential elections, “there are some over-riding issues this year: the war in Iraq, the economy, we’re in a bit of an energy crises,” said Larry Hart, director of government relations at the American Conservative Union. “That has shunted other issues, including judicial ones, to the back burner.”

But even if their impact is not front page news now, Supreme Court nominees will be a defining issue for the next president, since six of the sitting Justices are in their seventies. “If the next president serves eight years, he’ll have the potential to cast a lasting mark on Supreme Court, so you’ll see more talk in the coming months,” said Robert Alt, deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “There are other things that will press people on a daily basis like gas prices. But judges will be the big-ticket long-range issue.”

In recent weeks both candidates have commented on a series of high-profile Supreme Court decisions. McCain criticized a ruling granting detainees in Guantanamo Bay access to U.S. courts, while Obama praised it. Both candidates opposed a decision that found the death penalty to be unconstitutional in individual crimes (unlike treason or espionage) where the victim’s life was not taken. And both men praised the Supreme Court’s declaration that the Washington, D.C. handgun ban was a violation of the Second Amendment.

Even when Obama, who voted against confirming both Roberts and Alito, has taken the same positions as McCain, however, McCain has aggressively sought to underscore differences.

He told the National Sheriff’s Association on July 1, that the death penalty ruling was typical of what Obama’s Supreme Court appointees would likely decide. “My oponent may not care for this particular decision, but it was exactly the kind of opinion we could expect from an Obama Court.”

After Obama praised the handgun ban decision, McCain accused the Democrat of “one in a long … series in reversals of positions,” pointing to an earlier statement from an unnamed Obama staffer who’d told the Chicago Tribune that “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.” The Obama campaign, which had not otherwise made that claim, called the earlier statement an “inartful attempt” to characterize his position.

Part of the reason McCain may be aggressively bringing up these cases is that of those “that were in front of the Supreme Court this year, the left has a much less politically palatable set of positions,” said Goldstein.

Whatever his reasons, Obama had mostly shied away from discussions of legal matters. Judicial nominations are not part of his stump speech, and even when opportunities have arisen, he has mostly found ways not to elaborate on his support for nominating Justices who would oppose overturning Roe.

Thus far, legal activists on the left have held their fire about Obama's agreement with conservatives on the Court's death penalty and gun control rulings. Nan Aron, President of the Alliance for Justice, said that she is not concerned by the fact that Obama sided with conservatives on the death penalty and gun control decisions. "I think a more accurate predictor is to look at the votes he’s cast so far,” she said. “He cast 'no' votes on Roberts and Alito, which offers a very sharp contrast with John McCain. McCain wants to appoint more justices like Alito and Roberts, while Obama wants to appoint more justices like Earl Warren."

“What the left is concerned about going into the 2008 elections,” said Goldstein, “are two things that don’t have anything to do with the Supreme Court: the War in Iraq, and people’s pockets.”

Even if Obama continues to focus elsewhere, it’s not clear what further political gains McCain can extract from his aggressive stumping on matters of jurisprudence.

“There is not an independent voter in America, said Goldstein, “who is going to choose a president on the basis of the Supreme Court.”

[chrisl45]

To show my support for John McCain offer you a little comic diversion! Yes, I want to talk about senator Barack Obama''s name. The "O" in Obama can be thought of as a hint of praise, "Barack" sounds like US barracks, "bam" sounds like bomb, and the last letter in his name "a" stands for America. If you put this together Barack''s name is saying to the American people ''praise the bombing of America''. Since, the 60s anti-semites have spread like a disease. What makes things worst when you think about Barack''s name is Obama has worn muslim cloths, and attended an anti-semite church. Believe me, it''s just like someone walking around with an Adolph Hitler mustach an playing football on the lawn of the white house. How could senator Obama do this to the country. Doesn''t he look at what his name would mean to other people. I saw the name "Barack" and "Obama" and though of the bombing of the US barracks in 1983 Beirut, and the bombing of the US barracks in the Gulf War by friendly fire. His initials "BO" are like he''s saying if you vote for me you will be making the country stink with radiation. Barack''s latest attacks on John McCain can also be related to Barack''s name. Barack''s name can be seen to be saying "baa" like a sheep saying "bad", "rack" pointing directly towards John McCain''s torture at the hands of the Vietnames. "rack" is a term applied to being hung by ropes with your arms behind your back.

[Gary Kempf]

McCain mostly soothed his base%u2019s concerns when, flanked by admired elders of the conservative legal movement, he delivered a May 6 speech that Jeffery Toobin wrote in the New Yorker %u201Camounted to a dog whistle for the right%u201D that made clear that he%u2019d nominate judges who are skeptical of the %u201Cright to privacy%u201D that upholds the landmark abortion rights decision Roe v. Wade.

McCain will complete the destruction of America that Bush and Cheney started.

[callistemon-2009]

to raoul12:

I DO :)
and that''s what matters.

[whitepicks2]

Under McCain we''d end up having a court strongly backing torture; opening up the application of the death penalty; banning women''s reproductive rights; and allowing rampant spying on U.S. citizens.

There would be fewer checks and balances on the abuse of power like we''ve endured under Dubya. People better wake up before America becomes some despised Fascist society.

[raoul12-2009]

i am a Clinton voter who has gone over to McCain. Roe v. Wade won''t change my mind.

Posted by callistemon at 10:34 PM : Jul 08, 2008
__________________________

Who gives a *****?

[raoul12-2009]

Jan 29, 12:00

[callistemon-2009]

i am a Clinton voter who has gone over to McCain. Roe v. Wade won''t change my mind.

[clovisbuford]

I do not trust Obama who has not served his country proudly,in some form or another, or who feels ''''obligated'''' to wear a USA pin ( having it on only in question) or to be at a Church that hates Americans for over 20 years. Period. Whatever policy''''s he promises is mute to me. I am white 30''''s yr young woman in the middle of America and I believe I speak for all women who feel that honor and patriotism are first and foremost to being a leader of a nation.
Posted by Ariel133 at 04:23 PM : Jul 08, 2008
Ma''am like most people on this forun you have an opinion not a mandate to speak for women .I am a middle aged white male who lives in TX.Do I speak for all middle aged white males in america?If I do ,,, we are all for Obama ....presumptious isnt it? and rather silly.Thouth I can understand your confusion ,GW declared a mandate in an election he won by 3& if 1.6% of americans had voted different he would have lost ..but He declared a mandate,of course in his defense ,vocabulary or even common english are not his strong suits ,now baseball he knows something about.

[ixoye_02]

likeitis5050, tell us about the virtues of deregulation, which is the republican alternative to government. You tell me why prices are NOT lower under deregulation. And why the quality of services are also poorer because of deregulation. I live in California where they have deregulated the energy industry. Ever since that has happened, energy prices have skyrocketed and the customer service is poor because they don''t have enough equipment and people to fix the infrastructure. Name an industry that has been deregulated and where the prices and services have increased. Where are the efficiencies? So if you say government can''t do it, I also say that private companies can''t seem to do a better job for the customer either...maybe the private corps can do better for their ceos and executives in terms of salary and benefits, but the customers seem to alway lose in the long run. I will list the airline industry, oil industry, and energy industry to name a few deregulated industries that have failed the customers with broken promises of lower prices and better, more responsive service.

[kansas1946]

%u201CMcCain wants to appoint people like [Bush nominees] Roberts and Alito,%u201D University of Chicago law professor and informal Obama advisor Cass Sunstein told Politico. %u201CIf you want a Court that would rethink Roe and defer to the president on large questions of presidential power, that%u2019s more likely with McCain.%u201D

********************************
Yes, that is just what we want and need. A court that gives up their third leg in the tri-pod to the president. That is exactly what the founders did not want. The powers should be equal. Nothing should be "given" to the president. His powers are defined in the constitution as are everyone elses. King George tried for a coup but fortunately failed, largely because of judges that care about the balance of power. McCain is just the type of person that would love to run the whole show with no restraint.

[likeitis5050]

you want a Big Brother 1984-type society, McBush is the one for you. Why does the GOP always want to intrude in private matters as long as personal behavior is concerned, but always wants the government to keep away from financial affairs? I''''m sick of these moralistic authoritarian figures that the GOP keeps hacking up.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by steeepe

What do you think is going to happen under Obama''s big government plan to take care of everyone from any number of government programs run on tax payer money? Do you really think after the government takes over the of job health care, oil regulation, banking, and all the other big ideas coming forward that YOU are going to have a say in how things run? When was the last time you saw a government program running effeciently and with every consideration of customer service in place...are you serious?

[likeitis5050]

%u201CThere is not an independent voter in America, said Goldstein, %u201Cwho is going to choose a president on the basis of the Supreme Court.%u201D

I love these kind of universal, blanket statements that speak for everyone...coming from someone who speaks for no one.

[steeepe]

If you want a Big Brother 1984-type society, McBush is the one for you. Why does the GOP always want to intrude in private matters as long as personal behavior is concerned, but always wants the government to keep away from financial affairs? I''m sick of these moralistic authoritarian figures that the GOP keeps hacking up.

[noloyalisti]

What is wrong with questioning the policies of an imperial power like America? How can you make change for the better if you don''t question reality and don''t dissent? Does anyone still think we are on the right road with Butch in the White House and McSame leering in the wings? God help U.S.

[ariel133]

I do not trust Obama who has not served his country proudly,in some form or another, or who feels ''obligated'' to wear a USA pin ( having it on only in question) or to be at a Church that hates Americans for over 20 years. Period. Whatever policy''s he promises is mute to me. I am white 30''s yr young woman in the middle of America and I believe I speak for all women who feel that honor and patriotism are first and foremost to being a leader of a nation.

[aldon61]

Let''''s see how many of those Clinton voters are going to be won over by McCain''''s "new" view on Roe v. Wade.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by koko98 at 03:07 PM : Jul 08, 2008

That''s just the tip of the iceberg, check out my earlier post. If McCain appoints more right wing nut jobs to the court, our nation is screwed for another 30 or more years. This is just plain scary!

[zerato-2009]

One more conservative justice on teh court will bring back the reactionary court that the US had during the 1930''s. The one that ruled roosevelt social programs unconstitutional.

[terrapin78]

I do support the GOP, because they are the ''''''''brighter'''''''' yet ''''''''misunderstood'''''''' party. I have faith in the system and cannot with a clear conscience support a man, such as Obama, whom I have not been convinced has a shred of credibility or experiance. Between the two choices it is important to vote- one must choose- if you want to be heard after the fact- so, the bottom line- MCCAIN gets my vote- He is a Patriot and Hero. Sure, you can disagree, this is America, afterall. Have a good day!

Posted by jack3213 at 11:20 AM : Jul 08, 2008

In my book McCain is a flip-flopper that has flip when Bu$h has said Flop.

From torture to No offshore drilling he has changed his views with the blowing winds.

[rgrxx175]

Lincoln Savings and Loan, headed by Keating, had become embroiled in scandal and federal regulators were looking to shut it down and investigate. Keating, who had known McCain since the latter''s days as a lay about schmoozer for his father in law the Vice President of Public Relations for the Phoenix Budweiser distributor, began looking for a way to get the government to drop the investigation. Between 1982 and 1987, Keating had given McCain $112,000. Directly after two meetings with Keating, McCain called Edwin J. Gray, the chief of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, which was investigating Keating, and requested that Gray ease off the investigation. Gray testified that four other Senators, all of whom were recipients of political donations from Keating, had also contacted him with the same request. These became known as the "Keating Five." The saddest part of the entire situation, even more sad than the 21,000 mostly elderly people who had their entire life savings completely wiped out, was that it brought the appearance of conflict upon Senator McCain. And what a terrible impression that can be. Almost as terrible as working your *** off your entire life, little by little putting enough money away for retirement, and then right before retirement finding out your life savings has been robbed from you and instead of working to try to get your money back, your own senator is busy trying to quash the investigation.
yeah i''m voting for this guy

[dan9111]

Sure, you can disagree, this is America, afterall.

Posted by jack3213

No, actually we cant disagree. If either McCain or Obama win, then their policy can be forced on us under the threat of being shot if we do not comply or choose to spend our money differently. That is not respectful of disagreement -- it is merely an act of coercion disguised as allowing disagreement. If a rapist says the victim can disagree if they want then I suspect the rapist wont get let off jailtime with the argument that ''hey, at least verbal disagreement was a kind of disagreement that was tolerated''.