McCain vows to appoint consitutional judges

[Technosoul]

McCain is now giving a big speech about the constitution, federal judges, and what he intends to do about the current problems of getting judges appointed.

He basically said that many of the federal judges not respecting the limits of the consitution anymore, and are trying to make laws instead of going by what the Consitution dictates, he vows to appoint judges that are more humble and who comprehend that they must rule in a consitutional manner, rather then basing their rulings on other kinds of standards. In effect he reported that the federal justice system is distroying our Consitution. And hearing cases they have no business ruling on relative to issues of morality and so forth where the Consitution does not offer pretections for, or guidelines to give them direction.

He sounded a lot like Ron Paul in many apsects of his speech (presently being delivered).

McCain pointed out that Obama rejected voting for some judges who were qualified for reasons that the judge did not meet his own moral standards. Rather then showing that he did not comprehend the Consitution. Hundreds of federal judges are now on hold awaiting for confirmation and meanwhile our court systems remain under-staffed with judges to deal with all the cases, McCain pointed out.

People vote for a President to find and to promote judges who are the best qualified to protect the Consitution, and the Senate should honor the voters will and not hold up confirmations of judges just because the President is not a member of their party. McCain said.

As some of you know. McCain feels that the Supreme Court has no business making laws about things that are outside of the power of the consitution to regulate. Keep in mind that McCain is for anti-abortion agendas and has voted to eleminate the IRS and income taxes.

Perhaps by tomorrow we can get a link to that speech to post here.
Given at a collage in North Carolina.

So is McCain going to copycat some of Ron Pauls ideas to get the young voters away form Obama?

[Technosoul]

Here is a link to the lastest McCain speech on the Constitution and about Federal Judges.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - McCain makes pledge on conservative judges « - Blogs from CNN.com

Any comments?

[GHook93]

Here is a link to the lastest McCain speech on the Constitution and about Federal Judges.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - McCain makes pledge on conservative judges « - Blogs from CNN.com

Any comments?

By constitutional he means conservatives in the mold of Scalia and Alito. What the conservatives hear is that Roe v. Wade will be overturned!

[Technosoul]

By constitutional he means conservatives in the mold of Scalia and Alito. What the conservatives hear is that Roe v. Wade will be overturned!

That is how I read it also. And correct me if I am wrong, but it sounded a lot like what Bush was saying when he had trouble getting his judges approved of. I left out "conservative" in my O.P. title.

I am of the opinion that Conservatives miss-use the Consitution and it's reported limitations on the Feds to push the objectives of the wealthy few and the big businesses rather then when it comes to not regulating the average individual citizens.

[GHook93]

That is how I read it also. And correct me if I am wrong, but it sounded a lot like what Bush was saying when he had trouble getting his judges approved of. I left out "conservative" in my O.P. title.

I am of the opinion that Conservatives miss-use the Consitution and it's reported limitations on the Feds to push the objectives of the wealthy few and the big businesses rather then when it comes to not regulating the average individual citizens.

He had trouble getting the first judge approved. I can't remember who she was. However it was seen as a puzzling pick, since she was considered left of center. The Alito got in.

Judge appointments and Presidential party candidates are judged so much on their stance on gay marriage and abortion. Therefore, I wish a constitutional amendment was created to address these 2 areas. Personally I wish that the Amendment gave exclusive rights to the states remaining within certain parameters, such it can't be between sibling or parent and child or possibly.

Take these decisions on of the courts hands. The courts shouldn't be making laws either way, that is Congress's job.

[Chancellor]

McCain is now giving a big speech about the constitution, federal judges, and what he intends to do about the current problems of getting judges appointed.

He basically said that many of the federal judges not respecting the limits of the consitution anymore, and are trying to make laws instead of going by what the Consitution dictates, he vows to appoint judges that are more humble and who comprehend that they must rule in a consitutional manner, rather then basing their rulings on other kinds of standards. In effect he reported that the federal justice system is distroying our Consitution. And hearing cases they have no business ruling on relative to issues of morality and so forth where the Consitution does not offer pretections for, or guidelines to give them direction.

He sounded a lot like Ron Paul in many apsects of his speech (presently being delivered).

McCain pointed out that Obama rejected voting for some judges who were qualified for reasons that the judge did not meet his own moral standards. Rather then showing that he did not comprehend the Consitution. Hundreds of federal judges are now on hold awaiting for confirmation and meanwhile our court systems remain under-staffed with judges to deal with all the cases, McCain pointed out.

People vote for a President to find and to promote judges who are the best qualified to protect the Consitution, and the Senate should honor the voters will and not hold up confirmations of judges just because the President is not a member of their party. McCain said.

As some of you know. McCain feels that the Supreme Court has no business making laws about things that are outside of the power of the consitution to regulate. Keep in mind that McCain is for anti-abortion agendas and has voted to eleminate the IRS and income taxes.

Perhaps by tomorrow we can get a link to that speech to post here.
Given at a collage in North Carolina.

So is McCain going to copycat some of Ron Pauls ideas to get the young voters away form Obama?

So, let's say he appoints some judges that actually adhere to the Constitution: does that mean he'll give up his big-government nanny stater ways? Don't count on it!

[Technosoul]

He had trouble getting the first judge approved. I can't remember who she was. However it was seen as a puzzling pick, since she was considered left of center. The Alito got in.

Judge appointments and Presidential party candidates are judged so much on their stance on gay marriage and abortion. Therefore, I wish a constitutional amendment was created to address these 2 areas. Personally I wish that the Amendment gave exclusive rights to the states remaining within certain parameters, such it can't be between sibling or parent and child or possibly.

Take these decisions on of the courts hands. The courts shouldn't be making laws either way, that is Congress's job.

The same sex people only want to have the same standards of equality with male-female relationships. To be viewed as a family unit like everyone else (as not everyone who is married have children). Not just because of the legal reasons but also so they can view their own life with a sense of normality within the rest of culture. In modern time marrage is not what it once was, as a way to have legal and moral sex, but they feel that taking vows in front of a person authorized to marry people is important to them also, as it is with most men and women who what to vow to love one another and none other. I really do not know why other object or why we must amend the Consitution of battle this out in courts. The very sense of "equality for all" and even for minority groups should be basically understood to be covered by the Bill of Rights and the Consitutional agenda. Why draw a line for where equality is no longer to be applied?

For most of our history women had few real rights in our country, but they struggled the odds and got those rights. The right to say "no".
The courts have determined that womens rights are to be covered by the principles of the Consitution (and we have had enough debates about this already). If women have attained those consitutional rights then it is not the business of Congress to rewrite things to take away those rights. We cannot just flip flop the Consitution every four years when we have a different President or members of Congress by constantly re-writing it to suit the lastest group of protesters.

The trouble is that we think all judges are too bias because of how they have ruled in lower courts, too liberal or too conservative. The Consitution does not favor ether perspective. So a good President would try to make sure the Supreme Court and higher courts are manned in a balanced way. A court that is 50-50 is most likely to get more consitutional and could be less of an activist in their rulings.

What President would vow to keep the court system in balance?

[grandpa]

The same sex people only want to have the same
standards of equality with male-female relationships.
To be viewed as a family unit like everyone else
(as not everyone who is married have children).

The government needn't be involved in our intimate relationships, or in society generally. Of course, people generally deserve the same benefits that you do.

Grandpa h.

[GHook93]

does that mean he'll give up his big-government nanny stater ways?

Explain this statement better!

[GHook93]

The same sex people only want to have the same standards of equality with male-female relationships. To be viewed as a family unit like everyone else (as not everyone who is married have children). Not just because of the legal reasons but also so they can view their own life with a sense of normality within the rest of culture. In modern time marrage is not what it once was, as a way to have legal and moral sex, but they feel that taking vows in front of a person authorized to marry people is important to them also, as it is with most men and women who what to vow to love one another and none other. I really do not know why other object or why we must amend the Consitution of battle this out in courts. The very sense of "equality for all" and even for minority groups should be basically understood to be covered by the Bill of Rights and the Consitutional agenda. Why draw a line for where equality is no longer to be applied?

They want more then that, as they should get. They want marriage property rights, tax benefits, right to alimony and divorce proceeding protections. All which they desire, but the courts should decide this, since the constitution never addressed this, so its left up to the States to decide.

For most of our history women had few real rights in our country, but they struggled the odds and got those rights. The right to say "no".
The courts have determined that womens rights are to be covered by the principles of the Consitution (and we have had enough debates about this already). If women have attained those consitutional rights then it is not the business of Congress to rewrite things to take away those rights. We cannot just flip flop the Consitution every four years when we have a different President or members of Congress by constantly re-writing it to suit the lastest group of protesters.

Yea, but there was also a constitutional amendment that provided for woment sufferage!

The trouble is that we think all judges are too bias because of how they have ruled in lower courts, too liberal or too conservative.

Many are. There are many bad judges either liberal or conservative. I would perfer a fair judge and they can come from either side.
But if you listen to juctice Gilberts she states that you don't have to stick directly to the consitution and its the supreme courts job to make adjustments, she is on the left.

[blue saki]

Sounds like McCain may be well on his way to spur debate with Obama on the issues.... just as he should.

Thankfully, as of late the Supreme Court seems to be leaning in the conservative direction. I say thankfully because it may be the last hope for the next 4 yrs. of Socialism even if McCain wins.

[Technosoul]

They want more then that, as they should get. They want marriage property rights, tax benefits, right to alimony and divorce proceeding protections. All which they desire, but the courts should decide this, since the constitution never addressed this, so its left up to the States to decide.


Yea, but there was also a constitutional amendment that provided for woment sufferage!



Many are. There are many bad judges either liberal or conservative. I would perfer a fair judge and they can come from either side.
But if you listen to juctice Gilberts she states that you don't have to stick directly to the consitution and its the supreme courts job to make adjustments, she is on the left.

They can get all those legal rights by creating a legal contract and that can be done without a marrage ritual.

Gilberts is not on the left, she is not on the right. That kind of thinking is totally outside of everything that can be included inside of Amreican justice. That kind of thinking represents that she is an undocumented thinker and an alien of all our established standards.

We need judges not Goddesses and Gods. So in the case of that one person then McCain has a point that we need judges that at least try to honor the Consitutional standards.

Of course wisdom has always been a factor in the make up of a good judge, wisdom that has a sense of fairness which is in fact what the spirit of the Consitution is all about. If the ruling reflects the spirit and intent of the consitution for fairness and equality, then that is better then some lawyer's fundamentalistic interpretation which might violate common sense.