Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

What Would a McCain Supreme Court Look Like?

By Doug Kendall, Huffington Post. Posted February 18, 2008.


The man is no moderate on judges, my friends.
mccainsunglasses
McCain shades
Advertisement

A close look at John McCain's Senate voting record on judicial confirmations makes it painfully clear that progressives need to ignore the rantings of the Ann Coulter crowd and believe John McCain when he says he will listen to Sam Brownback and appoint judges like Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia. On judges, McCain's no moderate: if given the chance, he will appoint justices that move an already conservative Supreme Court sharply to the right.

Indeed, one looks in vain for a judge who is too ideologically conservative for McCain: he voted to confirm Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and, unless I've missed something, every other Republican judicial nominee voted on in his 22 years in the Senate.

Even more tellingly, as part of his negotiation in 2005 of what has been dubbed the "Gang of 14 Deal" (more on this later), McCain pushed, hard, for the confirmation of both William Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown, the two hardest-edged conservatives appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush.

Pryor famously said of Bush v. Gore: "I'm probably the only one who wanted it 5-4. I wanted Governor Bush to have a full appreciation of the judiciary and judicial selection so we can have no more appointments like Justice Souter." As the Washington Post editorialized in a piece called "Unfit to Judge," that statement indicates such a nakedly political view of judging that it alone should have been disqualifying for a lifetime position on the federal bench.

Brown's views were even more outlandish. In speeches given to the Federalist Society and the Institute for Justice, Brown railed against judicial opinions in the 1930's upholding the New Deal as "the triumph of our own socialist revolution." Brown, almost alone among lawyers, openly yearned for a return of the so-called "Lochner-era" in which a conservative court routinely struck down labor, health and safety laws in the early 20th century. In the words of Robert Bork (no liberal he), Lochner is an "abomination" that "lives in the law as the symbol, indeed the quintessence of judicial usurpation of power." No one in the Senate is more responsible for Brown's confirmation to a lifetime seat on the all-important DC Circuit Court of Appeals than John McCain, a fact he touts on the campaign trail.

McCain was also more than willing to rough-up President Clinton's judicial nominees. McCain missed many important votes on Clinton nominees in 1999 and 2000 while campaigning for the White House. But he was present in 1994 and was among just 12 Senators to support a filibuster of Judge Lee Sarokin, a nominee to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals who was rated unanimously "well qualified" by the ABA (the highest possible rating). McCain's decision to side with the likes of Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond in this vote, and against Orrin Hatch and Trent Lott speaks volumes.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election, supreme court, john mccain, judicial nominations

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
An Under-Reported Consequence
Posted by: QQOblivion on Feb 18, 2008 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish the issue of Supreme Court judge picks by a President McCain would get more exposure.
So many moderates (and even some Democrats, if Hillary wins the nomination) will vote for McCain. I wish they would take into account more the ramifications of a McCain presidency.
And if you think that the Senate could just not confirm McCain's picks, look at who HAS been confirmed to the SC lately! And an issue not mentioned in the article: If McCain wins the White House, his coattails will likely lead to the Senate (and possibly the House too) having a Republican majority. Then confirmation processes would be a snap, no matter how nutty the Supreme Court nominations are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK ...
Posted by: Ryan on Feb 18, 2008 10:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But in the last 22 years (and especially the last 10) democrats have pushed the conservative nominations just as hard and voted in favor of those judges despite evidence of their biased views.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

clinton would appoint moderates,obama might appoint
Posted by: whealeydj on Feb 23, 2008 5:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a real liberal. the moderates have voted this week for bad things including more power for corporations and government secrecy claims trumping Bill of Rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]