GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
And if you do, you can expect Barack Obama to replace at least three Supreme Court Justices with “sensible judges” who believe that the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to protect a pedophile’s right to child pornography. As Erick Erickson notes:
I always scratch my head at the purists among us. They won’t go vote for John McCain because of their one little issue when objectively Obama is to the left of him on that issue. But because John McCain dared to say something not nice about the purist’s favorite position, by God we are all traitors to the cause if we go vote for the man because he has sold us out.
The argument, of course, is B.S. Some people are just too sensitive for politics. As Krempasky said, it ain’t bean bag, so as I would say, suck it up.
Here again, is another clear difference.
McCain, asked about judges, has mentioned Roberts and Alito and Scalia and Thomas.
Here’s a Wolf Blitzer exchange with Obama on judges from May 8, 2008:
WOLF BLITZER: “Are there members or justices right now upon whom you would model [your Supreme Court nominations], you would look at? Who do you like?”
OBAMA: “I think actually Justice Breyer, Justice Ginsburg are very sensible judges. I think that Justice Souter, who is a Republican appointee, is a sensible judge.“
Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on child pornography was decided 7-2.
Justices Souter and Ginsberg were in the minority. Souter opposed the crack down on child pornography.
Heck, even the liberal lion of the Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, supported the law. Oh, wait, Stevens wasn’t one of those Obama liked. But Souter and Ginsberg were on the list.
McCain matters on judges. You may not like him on a number of issues, but he has not disappointed us on supporting conservative judges. And in this day and age, we need good conservative judges.
No matter what your differences are with John McCain, I can assure that your differences are far greater with Sen. Obama. The issues are too important for any Conservative to stay home.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I won’t stay home but………..McCain may or may not get my vote. For most conservatives it’s not just one thing its a laundry list of things that we are not happy about.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Me too, Sean. Whether I vote for McCain is all wrapped up in his VP decision making. It will tell me a lot about his decision making processes, his ego, his biases, his hubris , his gravitas. All that stuff that ought to be important
May 20th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Souter would never have been on the court w/o Warren Rudman vouching for him, which doesn’t make sense b/c HW should never listen to a liberal Republican. I think that HW was thinking of putting a very conservative woman on the Court, the one from TX.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Hm.
I’m with Ginsburg and Souter on this one, actually.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:09 am
The decision, Kavon, wasn’t about “a pedophile’s right to child pornography” — of course, no such right exists.
It was about leading someone to believe that you have it.
I can see the breaking-the-law-to-enforce-it cycle starting right…now.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:20 am
IR-MN, John Sununu (the father of the current NH Senator) also misread David Souter and was advising Bush. Bush would not have listened strictly to Rudman because Rudman didn’t back Bush in ‘88; he backed Dole. Kavon, I have no insurmountable differences with John McCain. I do have differences with some commenters on this blog who say that no one takes socially conservative voters seriously. However, I realize I should not hold McCain responsible for what some bloggers say. However, when upper class suburbanites wring their hands and talk about how concerned they are about so-cons damaging the party, I feel like saying to them, FINE, have your party back, win on your own, and I feel like becoming a conservative Democrat like some of my ancestors.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:23 am
I consider myself a civil libertarian and usually oppose laws that try to curb free expression of any kind, but I draw the line at child pronography. I am fully in favor of laws that crack down on purveryors of this material, especially over the internet. I understand, however, the concern that the law could be misused by overly aggressive law enforcement, but I agree with Scalia that prosecutions of a grandfather for sharing pictures of a grandchild will be dismissed out of hand.
That said, I can’t make the leap Kavon suggests.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Thank you, Kavon.
Do conservatives realize what a huge victory it would be for McCain to be appointing judges for the next 8 years?
And everyone stop it with pushing the Nintendo Reset button in 2012 because you’re down 21-0 in Madden. If Mac wins this year, he’s running again in 2012 and if he wins that he’ll still be alive with a razor sharp mind in January 2017.
#1 “McCain may or may not get my vote. For most conservatives it’s not just one thing its a laundry list of things that we are not happy about.”
I probably agree with you on the laundry list that we disagree with McCain on. The thing is, it’s not just a laundry list of policy items. There are goals that need to be achieved. One of them is continuing to appoint quality judges. The other is to win the War on Terror. McCain keeps the momentum going in both those movements. Obama not only halts it, but reverses many of our gains in both of these areas.
As for the other things like immigration, environment, etc. Obama is worse and further to the left of McCain. I mean if a Ross Perot or a Bull Moose Teddy was running I can understand not knowing what to do as a conservative in November, but since there is no credible alternative to Mac, I honestly don’t know what anyone to the right of 55% are undecided about as far as the Presidency is concerned.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:34 am
that’s right,kavon,Souter was appointed by a republican. I don’t believe McCain will put any conservatives on the bench. Democrats will pick up, from what I’m hearing 70 seats??? Good Luck trying to nominate a conservative in that envioronment
May 20th, 2008 at 10:36 am
I agree with Scalia that prosecutions of a grandfather for sharing pictures of a grandchild will be dismissed out of hand.
I have no idea what this has to do with whether leading someone to believe that you have child pornography should be a federal crime.
It is sufficient basis for investigation into the person’s computer, but it should not be a crime in and of itself!
May 20th, 2008 at 10:37 am
If Mac wins this year, he’s running again in 2012 and if he wins that he’ll still be alive with a razor sharp mind in January 2017.
Nah. McCain ain’t runnin’ in ‘12.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:40 am
How can Obama be any more liberal on immigration than McCain when McCain wrote the ammnesty bill? I confess not to know how they stack up on global warming but I do know they both support cap and trade. McCain does talk about restraining spending, which I like, but one can’t escape the fact that he has been in congress for 25 years and spending has exploded over that time.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:41 am
As to this particular issue, I just read the article, and it is so convoluted that I’m not sure whether Souter and Ginsburg are right or the others are right. Alex is certainly right that you should not break the law to enforce it, but for this issue I would have to read a lot more about it to say who is right.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:42 am
#11 Alex, the grandfather example was used in the case.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:46 am
13 — Yeah, the article is poorly written, so I just extracted the issue and ran with it.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I’m just saying that I can see it now — policemen telling online pedophiles that they have child pornography and then asking them if they want to exchange it.
There’d be two criminals there, y’know!
May 20th, 2008 at 10:49 am
For those who’d like to read the Court’s opinion…
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-694.pdf
May 20th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Alex is right on that.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Okay, I read the decision. I agree with the court on this one. Their logic and response is solid and the interpretation makes sense. I’d suggest everyone read the court decision who wants to have an informed opinion on the matter…news articles are rarely able to explain SCOTUS decisions accurately.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Creepy justices. NO to MCCain, No to Obama.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Ron Paul/Barr ‘08
May 20th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Kavon,
McCain has a long, a very long history of going along with the liberals in order to get along. Do you really, REALLY think that he would actually fight all his good friends on the other side of the aisle — not to mention his good buddies in the mainstream media — by nominating someone they don’t like for the Supreme Court?
When I look at a McCain supporter pleading with Conservatives to support McCain because “He will appoint conservative judges”, I am reminded of the Simpsons episode entitled “Kamp Krusty”. In it, Bart and Lisa are sent to the Kamp Krusty summer camp. They are all excited about going to a camp run by their hero, Krusty the Klown. What they find is a summer camp that is a living hell. Through it all, Bart keeps saying over and over again, “When Krusty gets here, he will fix it. When Krusty gets here, he will fix it. It will be all right”. Well, Krusty is off in Europe enjoying life and couldn’t care less about the kids as long as the money was rolling in.
Do McCain supporters not sound more than a little like Bart? “McCain will appoint conservative justices. McCain will appoint conservative justices. All will be well. All we have to do is trust him. He will appoint conservative justices. He will fight the liberals in Congress and the press by appointing conservative justices. He will. I just know he will.”
And what will you do when he doesn’t? What will you say when he instead selects a moderate-to-liberal justice, “because that is all he could get through…you understand”?
How many conservative judges did he throw under the bus so his “gang of 14″ could “preserve the civility of the Senate”? And you actually think he won’t throw conservatives under the bus again for the exact same reason? He is very good at throwing Conservatives and his fellow Republicans under the bus. Sometimes it seems his favorite thing to do. When has he ever thrown Democrats or the MSM under the bus? That seems to be a treatment he reserves for Conservatives and fellow Republicans. And you think he will magically change once inaugurated?
We have already seen where he has changed his tune on a number of issues as soon as he has the GOP nomination wrapped up. What makes you think he won’t change his tune once he is elected? It is what he does, and does very well.
Why should we believe he will change?
May 20th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I agree with this article, but wasn’t Erick the guy who was urging folks to vote for Fred, AFTER he’d dropped out? It seems rather odd for him to chide people for wanting to stand on principle now, despite the futility (surely conservatives who stayed home or voted for Fred in the primaries hurt their cause by not throwing in with Rudy or Romney, to stop McCain) and despite the fact that it’ll likely lead to a worse result.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
McCain doesn’t seem to understand large parts of the US constitution either.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Ummm…
The two justices likely to be replaced in 2008-2012 are JPS and RBG - the two most liberal justices on the court. Therefore, if Obama gets to replace them, it’s a wash. No further harm can be done - the court can’t get any further left than those two.
Plus, with the Dems likely to have a supermajority in the Senate, a conservative justice isn’t likely to be confirmed anyway. Strategy would say if McCain loses this year, we are likely to pick up seats in the 2010 midterm, then when we elect a GOP Pres in 2012 they can nominate some good justices in a much more favorable environment. Meanwhile, no harm done until 2012 - just maintaining the status quo.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
By the way… NOT saying I want John McCain to lose…!!! Just saying if he does, all is not lost as far as SCOTUS… it’s not as pressing of an issue as it may seem.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
#26 I don’t disagree with your angle there as it will be tough to get straight conservative judges through a democratic senate, but I struggle understanding the logic if our choice is between Obama and John, there is no way I vote for the far left liberal. In our political system, getting a third party up for a win is tough. I do not like McCain, but from all the political discussions here, on other websites, etc. I still do not see an option better than putting the republicna nominee in the white house (regardless of his inconsistencies, they are still better than Obama’s direction for the country). Nothing tells me yet that a third party can beat either Obama or John. And nothing scares me more than the extremely left leanings of Obama. So as it looks like an Obama, McCain, Barr choice, I will plug my nose all day long to get McCain in who will be a better choice than Obama (sorry, I don’t believe the libertarian candidate can get enough votes to win).
May 20th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
It is hard to take this site seriously sometimes when the founder describes the most recent Supreme Court case about whether or not the first amendment “protect(s) a pedophile’s right to Child Pornography”. How about some intellectual honesty, please.