What Is Gleanings?

At Christianity Today, we’re constantly tracking important developments in the church and the world. Often we use our network of reporters around the world (and for that, visit our main site). But we also monitor other news outlets, bloggers, newsmakers’ social media feeds, and countless other information streams. Gleanings compiles the most urgent and interesting items we’ve found, explains why you need to know about them, and gives you the background you need to understand them. It’s our snapshot of what God is doing in the world, hour by hour.

Free Newsletters

« More on Obama and abortion | Main | In case you missed it »

August 16, 2008

The candidates on Supreme Court justices

Sarah Pulliam

One of the more surprising questions from Rick Warren was, "Which Supreme Court justice would you not have nominated?"

Barack Obama said Clarence Thomas.

"I don't think that he was as strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution. I would not nominate Justice Scalia although I don't think there's any doubt about his intellectual brilliance because he and I just disagree, you know. ... One of the most important jobs of I believe the Supreme Court is to guard against the encroachment of the executive branch on the power of the other branches and I think that he has been a little bit too willing and too eager to give an administration whether it's mine or George Bush's more power than I think the constitution originally intended."

John McCain said Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter, and Justice Stevens.

"This nomination should be based on the criteria of proven record of strictly adhering to the constitution ... and not legislating from the bench. Justice Alito and Justice Roberts are two of my most recent favorites. I’m proud of President Bush for nominating them."

posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey | Comments (4)

Share thisShare this post

Comments

Please tell me then why Mcain voted for all four judges he now says he wouldn't have!!!!!!!! This is more of McCain saying what he thinks we want to hear, but his record proves otherwise. This man is scary

Posted By: karen | August 16, 2008 10:43 PM

Karen, I don't have a problem with a Senator voting to CONFIRM a judge he would not have chosen to APPOINT. These are fundamentally different rolls under our constitutional system.

Posted By: Gideon | August 17, 2008 12:54 AM

Notice that Barack Obama has no clear and consistent principle at work in picking Supreme Court justices.

For Thomas, Obama says he's not brilliant enough at the time for the elevation to Supreme Court justice and sets aside his legal disagreements with Thomas as a determining factor. But for Scalia, Obama does not doubt his judicial acumen and intellect but cites disagreements with Scalia as a determining factor.

So, which is more important in picking a justice? Intellectual brilliance or agreement with one's judicial philosophy? You can't have it both ways, Senator.

Posted By: Conway | August 19, 2008 8:29 AM

Barak Obama's no-principled principle: I'm picking a justice who thinks just like me (but I'm not going to admit it, instead I'll try to confuse people with a bunch of words).

Why not Thomas? Barack says he was not smart enough at the time to be elevated to Supreme Court Justice. Barack sets aside their judicial philosophical differences about interpreting the Constitution. Then is intelligence and judical acumen the key to who he will pick as President?

Nope.

Look how he answered concerning somone like Scalia. Barack admits Scalia is brilliant but points to his judicial philosophical differences. So, it comes down to nothing but agreement with Barack's view of interpreting the Constitution (aka "living" constitution theory which is code for legilating from the bench).

Posted By: Conway | August 19, 2008 1:54 PM