Far-right demands fealty on judicial nominees; McCain to acquiesce

A few months ago, asked about the kind of judges he would appoint to the Supreme Court, John McCain said, “It’s not social issues I care about. It’s the Constitution of the United States I care about.”

That, of course, is not what far-right Republicans — who do care about social issues — wanted to hear. This, along with McCain’s off-again, on-again support for banning abortion; his work with the “Gang of 14”; and his opposition to an anti-gay constitutional amendment have caused more than a little discontent on the right, which tends to put the White House’s role in shaping the federal judiciary near the top of its priority list.

It’s no surprise, then, that McCain will pander shamelessly to right-wing activists today, and promise to push the federal judiciary into even more conservative territory.

At Tuesday’s speech at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., he will articulate a conservative judicial philosophy and the principles he would use to appoint justices to the Supreme Court. That includes “strict interpretation of the Constitution” and antipathy for “judicial activism,” a McCain adviser said.

In the past, he has praised Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Judges are a key issue for conservatives, who have concluded that they can’t advance their agenda unless they have backing from the courts. The Tuesday speech is likely to tell them what they want to hear.

McCain will speak on the subject in North Carolina alongside Fred Thompson and Sam Brownback, as if to send a not-so-subtle signal to the party’s base: “They’re to the far right on judges, so I’ll be to the far right on judges.”

I’m honestly not quite sure what conservatives are so afraid of. Looking back over McCain’s 22 years in the Senate, do you know how many times he’s voted against a judge nominated by a Republican president? Zero. And given that Reagan and the Bushes sent up some real doozies, it’s safe to say McCain isn’t exactly looking for moderation or judicial temperament on the federal courts.

Like in most areas, McCain may even prove to be more rigidly ideological than Bush — it’s highly unlikely that he’d nominate someone like Harriet Miers to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the right is anxious to make McCain jump through the hoops, and McCain seems willing to play along.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will launch a new push Tuesday to ingratiate himself with social conservatives who mistrust him but whose support is vital to his hopes of winning the White House.

Right-wing leaders, who know he needs their backing, are working on a list of demands to pin him down on choosing judges with a conservative philosophy.

The two sides are engaged in a minuet that will determine the shape of this year’s Republican presidential platform…. [L]eaders are coalescing around the idea that the GOP should pledge in its official platform that the president should nominate only judges with clear conservative records. […]

Paul Weyrich, chairman of the conservative Free Congress Foundation, said he supports including the language on judicial nominees in the party platform. “I think the more we particularize that whole issue, the more people focus on the topic,” Weyrich said.

Making detailed guidelines on judicial nominees part of the platform would also help social conservatives hold McCain to account if he is elected president. “You can compare what the party says with any subsequent action by its nominees,” said Weyrich.

I’d just add that McCain is engaged in this humiliating right-wing suck-up today, when he knows the political world is largely focused on the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, and he expects most of tomorrow’s news coverage to focus on the results, not his assurances to his base to keep pushing the federal courts further and further to the right.

And of course the “liberal media” will fail, yet again, to note that the Republican candidate has promised to appoint judges who oppose many rights that the vast majority of Americans take for granted.

There just isn’t time, with all the stories about flag pins and scarey black preachers.

  • Yes, I know, the comments are going to fly that this proves we have to vote for Mrs. Billy-J regardless, to save the courts.

    Anyone care to comment on the progressive value of Billy-J’s judicial appointments? Breyer’s just sitting there these days nodding to whatever Roberts says.

  • One more thing… Do you think that this time we’ll get to know if the “pro life” Republican nominee is married to a woman who is pro choice?

    Nah.

  • I’m not sure that McCain’s disinclination to nominate someone like Harriet Miers to the Court is indicative so much of a greater ideological rigidity than Bush as it is of some modicum of competence.

  • I always find this line from the rightie wackos interesting:

    … strict interpretation of the Constitution …

    Really? Then what about this part?

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    A strict interpretation leads to only one conclusion: the only people who can own guns are members of a militia. Yet rightist judges tend to not come to the same conclusion, even though it’s the only one that makes sense.

    So they’re not actually “strict” in their interpretation — their interpretations are malleable depending on what their political cronies and allies want.

    (They also ignore the fact that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that’s adaptable as time goes on. But that’s probably too in-depth an issue for these clowns to discuss.)

    Just another reason to elect a Democrat — either one — in 2008 (and in 2012, 2016, 2020 … ).

  • not his assurances to his base to keep pushing the federal courts further and further to the right.

    What happened to the adage “run to the right to win the nomination and run to the center to win the general”?

    Is the MSM even going to notice? Arrrgggggg

  • Pingback: www.buzzflash.net
  • Judicial appointees aside, I just have to respond to Mark D. Your pov is precisely why a lot of us have left the Democratic Party.

    Regarding the 2nd Ammendment, you said: “A strict interpretation leads to only one conclusion: the only people who can own guns are members of a militia.” For your information, members of a “militia” (and I assume you’re referring to the National Guard) do not “own” their firearms, they’re supplied by the Federal Government. Further, the 2nd Ammendment was written more than 100 years before the establishment of the National Guard.

    Why is it that so many Dems/liberals constantly whine about government infringement on civil rights and individual freedoms, but would support police state action to confiscate the people’s firearms? Your interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment relies strictly upon the use of punctuation, and nothing else. Do yourself and the rest of the country a favor, and spend some time actually researching the history of that ammendment; I’m confident you will come to a more reasoned conclusion.

    Here’s something else for you to consider: There are roughly 360 million people in the U.S. There are approximately 300 million firearms privately owned by roughly 100 million people in the U.S. Do you really think all of those gun owners are hunters? Not hardly. Unlike Kerry/Obama/Clinton’s disingenuous proclamations about not wanting to take firearms from “legitimate” hunters, the vast majority of firearms in this country are owned for the purpose of self defense. Even defense against the government!

    For the weak-kneed whiners, who long for a soft life in a British style nanny state, all I can say is wake the f—k up! There’s a shit-storm coming, and it’s your obligation to protect yourself. Let’s pay attention to the real problems of the day, and stop with the non-issues; you sound like a right-wing whacko making noise about abortion or gay rights.

  • Comments are closed.