McCain Woos Conservatives With Promises On Judges

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. — Republican John McCain criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for voting against John Roberts as U.S. chief justice, reaching out to the Christian right on one of their chief concerns: the proper role of judges in government.

Conservatives contend that federal judges have upset the constitutional balance of power among the courts, the Congress and the presidency by making far-reaching decisions, such as one in 2005 that let cities seize people's homes to make way for shopping malls.

"My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power," McCain said Tuesday in a speech at Wake Forest University.

McCain, the eventual GOP nominee, promised to appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, saying they would interpret the law strictly to curb the scope of their rulings. While McCain didn't mention abortion, the far right understands that such nominees would be likely to limit or perhaps overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Obama, on the other hand, voted against Roberts and Alito. So did Obama's rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, but McCain focused on Obama.

"Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done," McCain said. "But ... he went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee."

In response, Obama's campaign said McCain would pick judges who would threaten abortion rights as well as McCain's own campaign finance reform bill.

"What's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

Story continues below

The Arizona senator said his role models interpret the law strictly, paying attention to what lawmakers intended, as opposed to "activist" judges who, by striking down statutes or court decisions, make laws rather than interpret them. "Activist" is a term conservatives use pejoratively to criticize liberal justices.

McCain did not spare his own party, pointedly criticizing opinions written by Republican appointees, Supreme Court justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy. He didn't name the justices but used their writings to make his case against judicial activism.

McCain spoke derisively of Kennedy's 2005 majority opinion banning executions for killers younger than 18. McCain said the opinion contained "airy constructs ... as poor substitutes for clear and rigorous constitutional reasoning."

Kennedy recently defended his reasoning in the case, decided on a 5-4 vote, saying it was "a matter of interpretation of our own Constitution."

In the private property case McCain mentioned, the Supreme Court chose to defer to local officials rather than impose their own will from afar. Justice John Paul Stevens, in his majority opinion, wrote of the court's "long-standing policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field."

McCain wasn't in the Senate when Stevens became a justice, but he voted for Kennedy's nomination by President Reagan in 1988.

For a moment Tuesday, McCain appeared confused about where he was, saying, "I appreciate the hospitality of the students and faculty of West Virginia," then correcting himself to say Wake Forest as the audience laughed.

By speaking about judges, McCain offered an olive branch to the Christian right, which has been deeply suspicious of McCain. He has clashed with its leaders and worked against them on issues like campaign finance reform. He also joined the "Gang of 14," a group of senators _ seven Republicans and seven Democrats _ who avoided a showdown over judges by agreeing to preserve the minority party's right to block President Bush's nominees with the filibuster.

Despite his rocky relations with the right, McCain's record on their top priorities _ cultural issues like abortion _ is very conservative.

While he did say once in 1999 that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, that amounted to a blip in an otherwise unbroken record of opposing abortion rights for women. McCain repeatedly has voted against federal funding for abortion and has opposed federal Medicaid funds for abortion even in cases of rape or incest.

Several conservative activists said they liked McCain's speech.

___

Associated Press writer Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report.

Comments

[comebackid]

Have you ever seen the jump suits the race car drivers wear in the Indy 500?

After Mclame appoints his picks for the supreme court that is what the robes on the judges will look like!

They will be covered with corporate logos.

They will likely find some loophole in the law to exploit which will allow it!

[AdobePhsyko]

What are they all going to do when Sammy Alito comes out of the closet.
He sure seems to be "Light in the Loafers"
Not That There's Anything Wrong With That
Hopefully he likes men his own age ,Unlike the typical Repug Child Molester

[bija]

The fact that Obama voted against Roberts to be a judge on the Supreme Court makes me want to vote for Obama all the more!!!!

[Puller58]

McCain speaks in code. Translation: I'm one of you. Frankly, McCain will go along with whatever his handlers propose in terms of judges. I for one would like the court to reverse rulings to jolt the sheeple into realizing what the Hell happens when loonies run the asylum. After that, if they couldn't figure out how to improve government, I'd say to Hell with it.

[helonias]

Christian Right=Pharisees

[JoeBlough]

McCain isn't very good at the stuff he says he's good at, is he.

As the campaign season grinds on, it seems his brain is wearing out. By November, he'll be a rickety, old man that will require super-human handlers to keep him on course.

[elr50]

McCain already IS a rickety old man.

[dbdzen]

I'm waiting for November because if McCain wins the election, someone will file a brief with the Supreme Court preventing the Senate from confirming his election by challenging his status as a "natural born Citizen."

With Democrats holding the floor, they will judiciously choose to delay the vote and defer to the Court's interpretation of the strict criterion laid out in the Constitution. His eligibility for office under the Constitution will be struck down by the conservative, strict constructionist justices (like Scalia) on the Supreme Court because they cannot interpret the founders words to include the Panama Canal Zone, which was always an unincorporated territory. It will be ironic that the liberal justices will be the ones that save him because of their more generous "living" interpretation of the Constitution by considering natural born to mean having both or one American parent.

Anybody wanna bet? The ambiguity in the Constitution is too juicy an opportunity for history seeking litigious Americans to pass up. You could drive a semi full of lawyers through the gap. PCZ, while under US military control like the Philippines and Guantanamo, was never part of the United States.

[Agnim]

McCain's age-health (physical/mental) is FAIR game!

McCain's age-health (physical/mental) is far more important an issue for America than the HARMLESS religious rhetoric of some pastor!

[TocinoHumano]

Health, yes. Age, no. That's bigotry.

[timothe]

I, for one, would LOVE to see issues of morality decided at the state level. I think it's the best solution for conservatives and liberals alike.

Let Texas ban abortion, allow for prayer in schools, celebrate Judeo-Christian holidays.
Let California perform gay marriage, have sanctuary cities, remove every reference of God from all schools and government buildings.

Most importantly, let the people of each state decide their own morality...not a judge.

[zendem1]

There he goes again. The Maverick. He's lost that olvin' feelin"

[NWGuy]

Selecting judges who will already have their decision made before they even hear a case is not justice nor is it what this country once stood for. Promising to select judges that will make a sham of justice and make the Supreme Court nothing more than a kangaroo court is something that no self-respecting American would do. This is not the work of a patriot but only the work of a self-serving power hungry man who is interesting only in ruling, not governing.

[awcbuddy8]

Are you kidding? You do realize the Constitution is about 220 years old. If you have not made up your mind on the issues then you should not be a federal judge. Period.

[TocinoHumano]

I'm with you. If you have not made up your mind where Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and the rest of the founding fathers stood on, for example, digital copyright laws, then you don't belong on the Supreme or any other court.

[aintnogod]

Golly Gee! He's as limp as a wet noodle.

[raker]

As Tim Russert could tell you, Americans don't care about the Court, the Constitution or their rights, so drop it. Nine Alitos or Scalias or Thomases or Robertses to impose their facist pro-business anti-individual "interpretations" of the Constitution toward the destruction of American society are not important. Torture isn't punishment, don't you know. Besides, American Idol's on! There's outrage that someone sang a song with Jeebus's name in it. Grab a torch and take to the streets. Judas was an elitist! Praise Jeebus! Rally 'round the flag pin.

[awcbuddy8]

I'm pretty sure this is why Obama can't be elected president.

[TocinoHumano]

I'm pretty sure you once posted the comment "Your stupidity is hilarious" in response to your own earlier post.

I still laugh about it.

[Mike169]

I've never understood the concept of strict contructionism. We'd still be wearing tricorner hats if we stuck to that nonsense.

[TocinoHumano]

A true "strict constructionist" would argue that the Second Amendment guarantees every American the right to own a musket.

[helonias]

With armor piercing ammo?

[Janus]

KY J.D. asserts this downstream:

"As a STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST myself, that REALLY gladdens my heart!"

So, then as such, what is your opinion of the so-called Constitution in Exile with some frequency being brayed about by the lunatics of the far-Right? I suspect that John McBush would love it if someone explained it to him, together with his lessons in Economics.

What is your opinion, as a strict constructionist, of the liberty aspect of Fourteenth Amendment Jurisprudence, that has been recognized for decades as an important part of Constitutional Law?