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

[rajoro]

Someone send this article to geraldine (i might not vote for obama...he is a sexist) ferraro

[lisakaz2]

If the article in full doesn't mention it, you should be made aware of a recent speech where McCain used language that suggested an opposition beyond Roe -- to that of Griswold v. CT, a 1967 decision that made the government get out of the business of legalizing birth control (the kind women control of course). This just follows more extremist argument that these pills "kill children."

Something else for these so-called HRC "feminists" to consider.

[Arbos]

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/05/08/does-john-mccain-want-criminalize-contraception

For anyone who is interested about what lisakaz2 is referring to

[lisakaz2]

Thanks for the link, since I didn't explain it.

[Freedomscap]

Thanks for being my attention to the contraception/birth control issue, too. Griswold v. CT.

[Freedomscap]

Thanks for bringing my attention to the Griswold issue.

[Janus]

In Griswold, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Connecticut statute that banned the use of contraceptives. The holding was based on the Constitutional right of privacy.

[Ihaveadream]

First of all HRC is not and never has been a feminist. No feminist would support and enable a serial sexual harasser. But she didn't stop there. She was part of every effort to continue to harass and discredit the women when they came forward. Read Kathleen Willey's book and see what was done to her.

You can thank the Bush family for Roberts, Alito (Mr. signing statements) and Thomas, and Ronnie Reagan for Scalia, who has no ethics whatever. So, if you want more of the above vote for Turdbrain Mccain. Hey, maybe that's Dubya's nickname for him

[trollsbwild]

The best advertisement yet for the Democratic Party.
Vote for MyCane- say goodbye to whatever is left of our country.

[Arbos]

The Front Page Editors at the HuffPo should give this story a little bit more attention. I don't think a lot of people realize the power that the next President is going to have over the Supreme Court.

I mean...it's only the next 50 years or so of laws that we're going to have to consider.

[DennyCrane]

I hope all those Hillary supporters thinking of voting for McCain over Obama or not voting at all keep this in mind. The next President will most likely get to appoint one, possibly two, Supreme Court justices. After seeing what Bush has done to the court by appointing Roberts and Alito, it's not hard to imagine how much worse things could get if McCain is allowed to fill a vacancy. Obama, being a constitutional law expert, is perhaps the person who can be trusted the most to find someone who'll make a great judge. Someone needs to tell the Hillary supporters that if they vote for McCain or don't vote at all, then Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

[neocon43]

You think majority of Americans want supreme court people like Ginsberg.This will be a killer for Obama in debates.Most Americans want people in the Roberts category which Obama voted against.Wait till Obama trots Ginsberg out at the debates.See how that plays with normal Americans.

[koromuso]

What's wrong with Justice Ginsburg? You don't say. You just assert that "most Americans want in the Roberts category {sic}" without any supporting facts or figures. Where did you get this information? From the Federalist Society?

People who presume to speak for "most Americans" (especially when they presume to do so on a progressive blog) need to do more than suck an opinion out of the ends of their thumbs.

[stevietheman]

Just because you surround yourself with archconservatives doesn't mean a majority of the country agrees with you. Notice the rapid decline in membership in the Republican Party and get back with me.

[dsbsh]

Ginsburg is the favorite target for the GOP, but it's a load of BS. She is, and as a judge has always been, a moderate. Clinton nominated her on the recommendation of Orin Hatch, who tagged her as someone the GOP would easily confirm because of her moderate record-- voted with the conservatives more than the liberals while on the D.C. Court of Appeals. Her record on the SCOTUS is much the same.

The current SCOTUS has four ultra-conservatives, four moderates, and Justice Kennedy, a solid conservative who today is in the middle. No liberals; no one even close. We've been lied to for years about this being a "balanced" court. Stevens, the most "liberal" justice today, was appointed by Ford and was right of center when appointed. He really hasn't changed at all; the court has shifted around him.

[Arbos]

This is the one thing that escapes me about the women claming Obama is a sexist and them pledging not to vote for him.

A vote for McCain is a vote against Roe V. Wade. Do they not realize what is at stake here? President Bush laid the groundwork....John McCain will finish the job.

[Freedomscap]

Yes, it is the most phony argument and it makes these women seem merely silly. They are so called feminist (whatever that means) and yet, they are willing to risk the abrogation of Roe v. Wade. I guess they figure that it is worth it.

Or, rather, the women posting are the most ill/misinformed Hillary women supporters. I think most women Hillary supporters understand the issue much better than this and will support Obama.

[lisakaz2]

I've been seeing 'em as "so-called feminists" for a while since I don't find HRC much of a feminist.

[dsbsh]

Roe is just the tip of the iceberg. One more far right conservative would put Griswold at risk, as has been noted above. But it also could bring back a pre-New Deal reading of federal/state relations, including dramatic limitation of federal commerce and regulatory powers and overturning of the Civil Rights Act; major steps towards a theocracy; further gutting of the 4th and 5th Amendments; and an even greater upsurge in presidential power.

[MajorKong]

All your wombs are belong to us!

[themne]

The sky is blue and it has always been blue.

[BatMasterson2]

The SCOTUS as currently composed has shown it self more than willing to disregard women's civil rights.

[AliHajiSheik]

Why do women need Roe v. Wade when they have a chance to cast a protest vote against Obama?

[laylahb]

I am really hoping that this "underground women's movement" of disgruntled Hillary supporters fades into the sunset, sooner rather than later. Hey ladies, why not cut off your nose to spite your face?

[Freedomscap]

I'm hoping you are right, too. However, I do know many women are spiteful, revengeful and bitter and I'm a woman.