Jeff Toobin: McCain Getting Supreme Court Advice From "The Most Extreme Elements Of The Conservative Movement"

Jeff Toobin discusses what a John McCain presidency could mean about the future of the judiciary. Below is a telling excerpt from The New Yorker article.

The question, as always with McCain these days, is whether he means it. Might he really be a "maverick" when it comes to the Supreme Court? The answer, almost certainly, is no. The Senator has long touted his opposition to Roe, and has voted for every one of Bush's judicial appointments; the rhetoric of his speech shows that he is getting his advice on the Court from the most extreme elements of the conservative movement. With the general election in mind, McCain had to express himself with such elaborate circumlocution because he knows that the constituency for such far-reaching change in our constellation of rights is small, and may be shrinking. In 2004, to stoke turnout among conservatives, Karl Rove engineered the addition of anti-gay-marriage voter initiatives to the ballots in Ohio and other states; last week, though, when the California Supreme Court voted to allow gay marriage in that state, only hard-core activists were able to muster much outrage. When it comes to the Constitution, McCain is on the wrong side of the voters, and of history; thus, his obfuscations.

Comments

[TXfemmom]

If McCain manages to steal his way into office, ala 2000, we should all be prepared to ask for political asylum somewhere, or stand up and fight for the country. McCain has demonstrated that he is willing to pander and bow to the most extreme elements within the Republican Party, who are not friends of the Constitution or our government at all.

Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves, seeing how the people of this country have turned into such browbeaten, submissive cows. Had the events surrounding 1776 been settled upon today, instead, there would never have been any Declaration of Independence and no one willing to stand for their rights, inalienable rights.

[Durango]

And you know, the Constitution was precisely written to prevent the acts of the Fool In Chief that presently sits in the White House.

It is like they could see him coming, over 200 years ago.

[woodtrain72]

This should be a top issue of the election on a par with Iraq, fuel, the economy and healthcare. If the Republicans have four more years to appoint judges at all levels and specifically the Supreme Court, we will see a narrowing of individual rights and civil rights unlike anything we have seen since the late 1800s when the Court issued decsions like Plessy v. Ferguson [sanctioning separate but equal treatment of whites and African Americans, e.g. Jim Crow ]. How any Democrat could vote out of anger for a Republican when the implications for the country and the world are so stark and potentially long lasting should be a key campaign theme.

[awcbuddy8]

Plessy v. Ferguson was a case decided on the text of the Constitution. When are you going to get it in your heads that it is not the job of the supreme court to make up the rules, but to make sure their decisions go in line with the Constitution. If you don't like something, then try and get it ammended. Until then, there is no gurantee of right to privacy, abortions, or gay marriage.

[najablah]

In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court, took the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and said that African-Americans are legally being treated equally when they are subjected to substandard conditions because they are less human than white Americans. The Court was saying that African-Americans were being treated equally when they were forced to sit in baggage carts at the back of the train because that is how they deserved to be treated.

You don't have any idea what you are talking about do you?

[wkk108]

awcbuddy8: Uhhh, when is it the duty of the Supreme Court to enforce the laws? Or is that just something liberals made up too?

Actually, the Supreme Court of The United States is the head of the judiciary, which is a co-equal branch of our gov't, and they are supposed to enforce American law. Legislative makes laws, Executive carries out law, and the Judicial enforces law. Not everything is a liberal vs conservative/ democrat vs republican issue. We are still Americans.

[najablah]

I hope that everyone considering voting for the McCain if their Democratic candidate doesn't win the nomination thinks long and hard about the consequences of McCain appointed federal judges coupled with the people Bush has already put on the bench.

[nancytheragingliberal]

McNut must not be allowed to become Pres. or else we are doomed. He will take W.'s court and continue to the far right. That Sammy the Fish alito/Roberts duo was a nightmare. The real nightmare was the idiotic way the dems bent over and did nothing. Watching and listening to their drivel during the hearings was sad. Talk about droning on and no preparation whatsoever. The dems should have fought that appointments tooth and nail. Cowards.

[UsofA]

What a sad chapter in American history our Supreme Court has been for the last 8 years. And it only worsens. This election will make all the difference as to whether the court begins to recover or squanders permanently the duties imposed on it by the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. The Supreme Court was designed to be above the political fray. Instead, it's ideologues have dragged the country down into it . They are far beneath their predecessors. Shame on them.

[awcbuddy8]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! THIS COMING FROM A LIBERAL-PROGRESSIVE?????!!!!!!!

[Honza]

And to think Bush , McCain, and the Supremes all put their hands on a bible and swore to uphold the the constitution. The very same one Bush called just a" fucken piece of paper" This group wants to rewrite it, the very words coming from McCain prove it. Alito's comment recently to more than half the people in America who claim the election was stolen back in 2000, amounted to " get the fuck over it"

[Toochi]

CORRECTION: the "christian" said of the Constitution " a goddamned piece of paper". GET IT RIGHT! :-)

[BrighterStar]

That is an internet hoax. It is easy to be taken in when you suspend thought.

[MACS]

.
The neocons have BASTARDIZED the word "RIGHT" to no longer infer either ACCURATE or CORRECT.
.

[BrighterStar]

It is funny haw far we have come in this country where interpreting the constitution based on what it actually says and not overturning democratically enacted laws is some how radical. If Obama gets the chance to appoint a majority the Supreme Court will lose what little legitimacy they have left and we will all be subject to subject to the political whims of a group of unelected people in robes.

It always amazes me how little respect the left has for democracy. As long as they get there way democracy be dammed. If we want abortion on demand and gay marriage we will have the court institute it. Who cares about the voters as long as radical liberalism is achieved. Quite sad really.

[comebackid]

I suspect that you are a christian fundamentalist or you work for the feds. Perhaps even in the courts on some level? You may even profit from the decisions of this fascist regime?

Bonito Mussolini said , fascism is the perfect marriage between government and corporate industry. Do you deny that this is what we have in Washington today?

[BrighterStar]

So in your world letting voters decide issues is Fascism? I guess that says it all.

[biglover]

The dems have far more respect for democracy and the constitution than the republicans. It is not about gay marriage or abortion. It's about human rights for all not just a few which is how the republicans want to stack the courts. This radical court has made decisions that defy our democracy and our constitution.

[BrighterStar]

If they have respect why don't they follow it? No, liberals have respect for liberalism at the expense of the constitution. It is about gay marriage and abortion. The fact is that there is nothing in the constitution about abortion, but an unelected majority decided to throw out a law passed through the democratic process. You are willing to overlook the blow to democracy because you agree with the outcome. That's just wrong.

[najablah]

Since the "right to privacy" is not stated explicitly in the Constitution, I suppose you won't mind if the government wire taps all your phone calls, digs through your emails, and bugs your home then. Right?

[dsbsh]

The conservative Supreme Court under Rehnquist overturned more democratically enacted laws than any other Supreme Court in our history. In fact, there were three periods of significant judicial "activism" (a stupid, simplistic term, but that's for another post) in the 20th century-- two conservative (the Rehnquist Court, continuing into the Roberts Court, and the 1880s-1937), and one liberal (the Warren Court of the mid-50s to early 1970s). Sadly, the MSM and the public have allowed the far right to control the conversation over the judiciary for so long that people actually believe your claim about liberal activism vs. conservative restraint. "Interpreting the Constitution based on what it actually says?" Funny how "what it actually says" always seems to align precisely with conservative ideology. Justice Brennan described it best: "arrogance cloaked in humility."

As for "abortion on demand," the Court has never instituted it-- not even close. In fact, the Court's position on abortion is almost precisely where the public is, far closer than the current Congress or most state legislatures.

[speakingtruth2power]

Early in 2009 we need to enact a strong new fairness doctrine and SCOTUS13 to keep

the MSM and the Bush Court from defeating all our deBushification and reform efforts!!

[BrighterStar]

Heaven forbid freedom and democracy would get in the way of your leftwing agenda.

[noneIn2008]

For a full fairness doctrine, every comment on this blog would need to be balanced with an opposite comment. That is freedom of speech? What about a 3rd opinion in a different dimension. No, fairness only means allow the Democrats and Republicans to publish their views and lock out real alternatives.

[SURRYMARK]

We have the Bush court courtesy of democrats. If we get a McCain court, it will be by the same route.

[jubo]

That is normal, it has become The Extreme Court.

[NEWSJUNKIEINNY]

Thats a witty reply, but it is still" THE COROPORATE COURT" TOO.

[CommonSensePlease]

What about separation of power branches? If McCain gets advice fro members of the Supreme Court, how can they be fair and impartial in the future on cases involving McCain and anybody else?

WHAT HAPPENED TO COMMON SENSE AND ETHICS?

IS EVERYTHING CORRUPTED IN THIS COUNTRY?

I know that Bush and the Republicans have long practiced the "GOVERNMENT OF THE CORRUPTED BY THE CORRUPTED FOR THE CORRUPTED". Not exactly what Abraham Lincoln wanted a few centuries ago! How the times have changed! For the worse!

However keep Hope! Obama will cleanup the mess starting in January2009!
Go Obama, Go! We need you badly!

[speakingtruth2power]

The Bushies have attempted to permeate every aspect of our government

and what they can't do legally, they get a staff lawyer to rewrite the rules!!!

[Counterglow]

If ever there was a reason for Clinton, Obama and even centrist Republicans to form common cause, this is it. Now that the far right isn't even bothering to keep up a pretense about seeking a great jurist rather than a partisan hack to fill the next Supreme Court vacancy you can believe this: they have every reason to name candidates that are very young, so they'll stay on the court for 30, 40 or even 50 years (advancing medical science could keep a 40-year-old going into his 90's easily enough). And rest assured that those candidates will be willing to sacrifice however much of the Constitution is necessary to enshrine a fundamentalist agenda.

Can you say "theocracy"? I knew ya could...

[BrighterStar]

Partisan hack best describes the the liberal members of the court. It is them that want to interpret the constitution based on their own political beliefs rather than what it actually says.

[Counterglow]

Wasn't it Clarence Thomas, whose entire judicial career was one long psalm of praise to States' Rights, who cast the deciding vote against Florida's rights in order to provide a legal fig leaf to Bush when he stole the election?

[Counterglow]

Re: Your later comment (which isn't available for reply) is inaccurate. And your grammar and spelling aren't worth much, either.

[UncleJimbo]

If Toobin says McCain is getting advice from the "Most Extreme Ellements",he must mean the Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court themselves!

[mikegoodyearaz85338]

Let us wait and see how Californians vote on a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman before we start calling oneone on the wrong side of the voters.

[KHAAANNN]

First I'll wait to see if TEXAS adopts that law.
Of course then the FLDS will have to move back to Mexico.

[mc]

Mexico? Don't you mean New Mexico?

[simplecitizen]

If you are ready to surrender more of your rights and have government run every aspect of your private life a McCain election will guarantee America will be set back to the dark ages. I love the argument that these constuctionist judges are literally interpeting the Constitution as opposed to making new law. That great document was an incredible instrument for the founding of our country but I'm sure our forefathers couldn't have envisioned how everything would look today. So while I think the document is still very appropo as it exists some interpretation in line with how we live our lives today wouldn't hurt. Just as Bush has abused this sacred document and set us backwards in preserving our liberties' McCain's selection of judges for the Supreme Court will continue the erosion until we can no longer recognize our democracy, and the freedoms it guarantees. Womens rights, civil rights, and a host of other rights could be in danger. We need to have new leadership in the White House. A Democratic President must be elected.

[reasoned]

simplecitizen, I have two questions:

1) If you are truly concerned about more government control over our freedoms, rights and choices--"every aspect of your private life," as you say--then why would a Democratic president be a better choice? I myself see no difference between the two parties in this regard.

2) Although you didn't expressly state this, I infer from what you said about "constructionist judges" and "interpreting the constitution," that you believe the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade was good law. Why?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

[CommonSensePlease]

You are probably like Raph Nader who in 2000 did not see a difference between Al Gure and George W. Bush!
Now, we know!

WHAT A DISASTER FOR THIS COUNTRY, the 4000+ who lost their life in vain! I feel so sorry for them, their families and the whole country. The country is in such a mess.
Who is accountable? Nobody?
Nobody is Bush! He should spend the rest of his life in jail in La Hague (Netherlands) or somewhere else.

[rinpochet]

Roe vs Wade may not have been good law. So, the law should not say that a woman has a right to an abortion but also, it should not say that a woman does NOT have the right to an abortion. In other words, keep the law off the bodies of women. This should be a decision between a woman and her physician. Whatever happened to the Republicans view that we should keep government out of our lives?