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 on August 16, 2008 9:53PM
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 at August 16, 2008
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 at August 17, 2008
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 at August 19, 2008
McCain's accusation of "legislating from the bench" is in the eye of the beholder, and shameless pandering to the conspiracy theory crowd. When is he going to show that he can think beyond clichés, buzzwords and PowerPoint briefings by his handlers?
On the other hand, I may be unfair here... Would he know what PowerPoint is if he saw it?
In any case, I saw him on Charley Rose claiming that the GOP is all about states' rights, the political theory of white privilege, class privilege, male privilege, Protestant privilege...to pretentiously imagine one's self as God's regent on Earth. (However, I don't think McCain has actually appeared at Regent University this campaign cycle, unlike other GOP leaders.)
So, someone who once took an oath to defend the Constitution, as I did as well, is not living up to his word, let alone America's highest ideals. The Constitution starts with "We the people...," not "We the privileged." Someone with slaveholding ancestors in the not so distant past, especially should have learned from history about where that sort of arrogance leads.
Alas, if old folk tales are true, poor Lincoln's bones are probably revolving like high speed turbines at the GOP's abject surrender to the neo-confederacy. It truly is the former party of Lincoln.
Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 19, 2008
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 at August 19, 2008
A "Living Constitution" is a bad thing, so therefore a dead Constitution is a good thing, right?
Mr. Obama taught Constitutional law and racism and law at the fairly conservative University of Chicago, recommended for the position by a conservative who was impressed by Obama's acute mind and editorial skills (and embarrassed by the lack of diversity).
If Obama has disagreements with Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy, you can be sure that he knows what he's talking about, and we probably all should be concerned.
W E B Dubois once wrote a speech as a university student, where he observed that Jefferson Davis represented a type of civilization which has as a "foundation of the idea of the strong man, individualism coupled with the rule of might...of stalwart manhood and heroic character, and at the same time, for moral obtuseness and refined brutalities."
This sounds like a good observation of conservatives like Scalia today, for that matter...my artist's mind sees a scene of blinding gas lit search lights bobbing aimlessly around in a dank, miasmal swamp of the searchers' own creation; where every shadow, real and imagined, hides a satanic conspiracy that must be dealt with by..."heroic" use of a tool kit of refined brutalities, physical and mental. As I've observed over my 57 years, the foolish have to be brave.
Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 22, 2008
Post a comment