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]

Quote by: 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?

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]

Quote by: GHook93 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]

Quote by: Technosoul 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]

Quote by: 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?

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]

Quote by: GHook93 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]

Quote by: Technosoul 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]

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

Explain this statement better!

[GHook93]

Quote by: Technosoul 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]

Quote by: GHook93 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.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: GHook93 Explain this statement better!

It's not a statement, it's a question.

[Chancellor]

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

So can heterosexuals. I want government out of the marriage business entirely.

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.

They can start by not presuming to replace the intent of the founding fathers with their own damned opinions like they did when they defined "public use" as meaning a city can take your property and sell it to a developer just because they'll get more in property taxes from the developer.

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.

The only correct interpretations of the Constitution are those of the people who wrote and/or ratified it. Of course, there is an amendment process built into the Constitution and if the American people want the federal government to have more powers or different powers, then all I ask is that they use the amendment process.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor So can heterosexuals. I want government out of the marriage business entirely.

Good luck with that. Marriage is overwhelmingly considered a legal process.
Many do it so they can get legal things out of it.

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: grandpa 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.

the only justification for state marriage (which I don't accept) is that it provides a haven for the creation of children (which it doesn't). Either way, it shouldn't be marrying people at all. If you're religious, do that, but otherwise sleep with who you want.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary the only justification for state marriage (which I don't accept) is that it provides a haven for the creation of children (which it doesn't). Either way, it shouldn't be marrying people at all. If you're religious, do that, but otherwise sleep with who you want.

Or enter into contracts to deal with things like health care proxies, inheritance, custody/support of children if the relationship ends, etc.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: 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.

Well he is getting ahead of his self because Obama is not yet the nominated canidate. McCain is saying that a terrorist group has stated they support Obama but Obama debated back that he fully supports Israel. McCain's underhanded grab for the Jewish vote in Fla and elsewhere is doomed to failure because Obama can defend his self from falsehoods with the truth. And a terrorist group is not a voting block and so why even debate such nonsense.

The political thinking of McCain is just too old to cut the mustard. Being captured and doing time as a P.O.W. is no way to win a war and so what real experience does McCain have in planning or directing a war effort? How can a man who is totally supported by his millionaire wife going to related too working men and soccer moms?

However McCain might be in for a June surprise if the super deligates opt for Hillary Clinton because he has no workable plan to defeat her. She will restore the traditional plantform where Democrats are the party of the middle class work force, who now fear such security, and that stand will draw in much support because the stronger the middle class economy becomes the more chances the lower class has of upgrading their situation also to that of being part of the middle class. A win win situation. Lifting the country up from the bottom with poor people, which is Obama's plan, is a questionable concept. It sounds inspirational but might not be as practical as the Clinton one.

Also who Obama will pick as his running mate, and who he will select has his cabinate is still an unknown factor that can create doubt. If he picked another social worker like Jessie Jackson then that could change of whole landscape of things with white and spanish voters. If he picked a hawkish x-military running mate to off-set McCain's image then his supporters would doubt that he is a canidate for peace and not war. If he picked Hillary then independants might think he is becoming to much a part of the "establishment" and they might not come out to vote. A President can be effective or they can fail because of people selected as the White House staff. Bush's term was evidence of that when he picked his V.P. and Rumsfield, along with Ashcroft. The fowl-ups in responding to our hurricane and to the 9-11 incident is partly due to the kinds of appointments made by Bush.

The Super Deligates should know those factors before making up their minds at the Democratic convention but the canidates can keep it a secret and such secrets can open the door for doubts. They simply make up a short list to include he super deligates and hope to win their blessings, many super deligate are waiting to see what positions they will be offered by the potential canidates, or if they will be insured of having a strong influence with the White House in exchange for their support. All that "backroom stuff" remains out of the view of you the voter. That is what his election might come down too.

Note: I know about but did not edit typo goofs in this thread.

[blue saki]

Quote by: Technosoul Well he is getting ahead of his self because Obama is not yet the nominated canidate. McCain is saying that a terrorist group has stated they support Obama but Obama debated back that he fully supports Israel. McCain's underhanded grab for the Jewish vote in Fla and elsewhere is doomed to failure because Obama can defend his self from falsehoods with the truth. And a terrorist group is not a voting block and so why even debate such nonsense. The political thinking of McCain is just too old to cut the mustard. Being captured and doing time as a P.O.W. is no way to win a war and so what real experience does McCain have in planning or directing a war effort? How can a man who is totally supported by his millionaire wife going to related too working men and soccer moms? However McCain might be in for a June surprise if the super deligates opt for Hillary Clinton because he has no workable plan to defeat her. She will restore the traditional plantform where Democrats are the party of the middle class work force, who now fear such security, and that stand will draw in much support because the stronger the middle class economy becomes the more chances the lower class has of upgrading their situation also to that of being part of the middle class. A win win situation. Lifting the country up from the bottom with poor people, which is Obama's plan, is a questionable concept. It sounds inspirational but might not be as practical as the Clinton one. Also who Obama will pick as his running mate, and who he will select has his cabinate is still an unknown factor that can create doubt. If he picked another social worker like Jessie Jackson then that could change of whole landscape of things with white and spanish voters. If he picked a hawkish x-military running mate to off-set McCain's image then his supporters would doubt that he is a canidate for peace and not war. If he picked Hillary then independants might think he is becoming to much a part of the "establishment" and they might not come out to vote. A President can be effective or they can fail because of people selected as the White House staff. Bush's term was evidence of that when he picked his V.P. and Rumsfield, along with Ashcroft. The fowl-ups in responding to our hurricane and to the 9-11 incident is partly due to the kinds of appointments made by Bush. The Super Deligates should know those factors before making up their minds at the Democratic convention but the canidates can keep it a secret and such secrets can open the door for doubts. They simply make up a short list to include he super deligates and hope to win their blessings, many super deligate are waiting to see what positions they will be offered by the potential canidates, or if they will be insured of having a strong influence with the White House in exchange for their support. All that "backroom stuff" remains out of the view of you the voter. That is what his election might come down too. Note: I know about but did not edit typo goofs in this thread.

Pardon the hair trigger on assuming Obama has the nod. I may be pulling the same hair trigger in assuming you intend to support Obama if he gets that nod. As to your point of BO's supporters/contributers/associates may I suggest you do your homework before lending such unchecked support? Being from IL, I can tell you with a strait face he is not what he purports himself to be. He spouts bi-partisonship and yet his "voting record" is so far to the left there is no middle. His "defense" also leaves alot to be desired and like you, I am concerned over who he would include in his administration. John Kerry's wife is also very well to do. I don't recall that being such an issue among conservative like myself.
(hiccup..... John Edwards)

John McCain? I haven't made up my mind about supporting him as of yet. I will wait to see whom he chooses as a VP candidate. However, his policies are much clearer than BO or HC. (tax & spend) For the most part, his voting record which is relatively conservative, backs up his rhetoric. In other words, what you see is what you get....... so far. However, I am baffled somewhat by his latest stands on various issues.

Again pulling the hair trigger here can I assume you are a Bush basher? There is plenty of blame to go around for the Katrina fiasco for both sides. I will remind you though, the first front in aiding in that disaster was a La. democrat Gov. and a democrat Mayor of New Orleans.

Are you seriously blaming Bush for 9/11 who was in office for 8 months prior while the previous administration ran the show for 8 yrs? While those in B. Clinton's admin. and his own party were crying out for action against Bin Laden and Sadaam?

The DNC should have done their homework as well..... on both candidates. They certainly have not presented Presidential material as far as I can see; as the GOP has also failed in doing so imo, although not to such a degree.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: blue saki Pardon the hair trigger on assuming Obama has the nod. I may be pulling the same hair trigger in assuming you intend to support Obama if he gets that nod. As to your point of BO's supporters/contributers/associates may I suggest you do your homework before lending such unchecked support? Being from IL, I can tell you with a strait face he is not what he purports himself to be. He spouts bi-partisonship and yet his "voting record" is so far to the left there is no middle. His "defense" also leaves alot to be desired and like you, I am concerned over who he would include in his administration. John Kerry's wife is also very well to do. I don't recall that being such an issue among conservative like myself. (hiccup..... John Edwards) John McCain? I haven't made up my mind about supporting him as of yet. I will wait to see whom he chooses as a VP candidate. However, his policies are much clearer than BO or HC. (tax & spend) For the most part, his voting record which is relatively conservative, backs up his rhetoric. In other words, what you see is what you get....... so far. However, I am baffled somewhat by his latest stands on various issues. Again pulling the hair trigger here can I assume you are a Bush basher? There is plenty of blame to go around for the Katrina fiasco for both sides. I will remind you though, the first front in aiding in that disaster was a La. democrat Gov. and a democrat Mayor of New Orleans. Are you seriously blaming Bush for 9/11 who was in office for 8 months prior while the previous administration ran the show for 8 yrs? While those in B. Clinton's admin. and his own party were crying out for action against Bin Laden and Sadaam? The DNC should have done their homework as well..... on both candidates. They certainly have not presented Presidential material as far as I can see; as the GOP has also failed in doing so imo, although not to such a degree.

I feel that Conservative in-put is of value to keep things in balance. As well as liberal in-put. Finding a middle ground where both aspects are employed where they are the most useful.

I do not know if McCain is being honest about trying to be a progressive moderate like Hillary with his lastest activites or not. I am offically for a mixture of socialsim and capitalism relative to economics.

I would agree that finger pointing is somewhat useless nowadays because, in spite of what they might say in words or as a philosophy, they all have fumbled the ball when in action. Same as if you had two basketball teams who did not make every shot a into the hoop. (aka basket).

I do not give President Bush that excuse. I do not think the lies he said about Saddam was done in error, but were intended for the purpose of deception.

There is difference between Clinton and Bush about Bin Laden. He had a radicial terrorist group and not a government. When it was confirmed he used a small bomb to blow a hole in a ship Clinton responded by sending in a missle to blow up Laden's terrorist training camp. The situation at that time demanded a measured response and not total war. Clinton gave Bush a passdown about the group of men who came here to learn how to fly an airliner and Bush knew they might hijack an airliner, which was common those days. And that they were funded by a questionable source. Bush basically ignored that and did not direct the CIA / FBI to monitor those people.

However, what those guys did do was totally unexpected. And if the jets had only caused damage to the top floors of the WTC, and if the other people escaped and the fire was put out. Then the incident would have had less of an impact on us and we might not have had a full scale war with the government of Afganistan. Although more security would have been called relative to air traffic, along with a serious attempt to get Bin Laden and his group of people, which would have been a sensitive issue as the relatives of Bin Laden were visiting with the VP and Halliburton about a pipeline that would run through Afganistan.
And the Laden family were important contractors used internationally by private businesses here, relative to the business of oil and natural gas production. Just like Shell Oil now has a gaint contract with Iran to develope natural gas production for Iran.

I do not know why Bin Laden found the Laden-Hallibuton pipeline project in Afganistan offensive to his religious ideals. But for some reason he deciced to become the black sheep of the family. But he did get some of the money (millions) earned by the Laden contractor and construction business and so in a way he was funded by Hallibuton who had hired that company to do constructive things for oil interests. For which the VP was the CEO of.

It is stranger then fiction that the Bush/Chaney White House did not have a clue about that riff in the Laden family and that it represented a dangerous situation. Nor can I comprehend why all this stuff was not being seriously investigated by Congress.

Now one famous conservative once said "give me a break" and those words fits our current situation. Let the Democrats give a break from the conservative based Republican policies that now still dominate.

We hear the same claim about some myth that Democrats will tax and spend. McCain is recomending better management of pork spending, and I agree. Hillary is recomending that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes like they used to do before Bush gave them too many tax breaks, or allowed them to go tax free by putting their head offices off shore. If her plan is activated then any those social programs would have funding without rasing taxes for people in the middle or lower tax brackets. Obama has echoed her plan, that he o-dopted from her and then presented it as his idea.

Nearly all of Obama's ideas were created by Hillary Clinton only he just modified them a bit to make it sound like he is presenting something different and better. Hillary coined this motto about "change" also.

The idea that McCain is sticking with his voting record is coming into queston as you pointed out. The "you get what you see" idea does not impress me because I see that as four more years of Bushism. And I have been a Bush basher for a long time, even before he was elected the first time.

I was protesting the war in Irag before it happened and was unhappy that Congress allowed him to use trickery to get away with his pre-emptive strike when Hillary made it clear he has no permission to act on that authority without the full blessings of the U.N. Somehow her concerns were overruled because Congress was still controlled by a Republican majority and she was in the Senate, and as a newly elected person in the Senate she still did not have a lot of influence back then.

When Bush asked for funding the package included all war expendatures, also for Afganistan and the war on terrorism, grouped in with the war in Iraq. A no vote would have also cut funding for Afganistan and related efforts to stop terrorism. Keep that fact in mind when you cite voting records.