PrintJuly 3, 2008
Why is the New York Times Getting Hysterical about McCain's Possible SCOTUS Picks?
The New York Times is upset that a McCain victory would have all sorts of dastardly implications for a "far right" Supreme Court. But the facts of this campaign simply doesn't bear that out and makes the Times look like a bunch of hysterical old women.
Senator McCain joined with Democrats across the aisle in working out a compromise on the approval of Federal Judges which was a blueprint for future cooperation should he become President. This would dampen the "risks" that "far-right" Supreme Court Justices will be appointed to the Court should McCain win the Presidency.
Beyond that point, the makeup of the Senate will almost assuredly change in a way that would make such lurch to the right exceedingly unlikely. An assuredly Democratic Senate that will most likely lean more to the left than any other in history and a Senate Judiciary Committee headed by the very liberal Patrick Leahy is completely at odds with the Times scenario.
This is why The Times does not care to mention these caveats; it would diminish the panic. On the other hand, one could argue, that a President Obama,with a compliant Senate, will appoint very liberal Judges to the Supreme Court that will shift the Court too far to the left.
He will not face the check of a majority Democratic Senate that a Republican President would have to take into consideration in selecting judges. Barack Obama would not base his selection on scholarship or legal talent which have been the historic criteria but would base his choices on completely subjective criteria
Can you imagine how riled the Times would get if McCain talked like that about judges?
Senator McCain joined with Democrats across the aisle in working out a compromise on the approval of Federal Judges which was a blueprint for future cooperation should he become President. This would dampen the "risks" that "far-right" Supreme Court Justices will be appointed to the Court should McCain win the Presidency.
Beyond that point, the makeup of the Senate will almost assuredly change in a way that would make such lurch to the right exceedingly unlikely. An assuredly Democratic Senate that will most likely lean more to the left than any other in history and a Senate Judiciary Committee headed by the very liberal Patrick Leahy is completely at odds with the Times scenario.
This is why The Times does not care to mention these caveats; it would diminish the panic. On the other hand, one could argue, that a President Obama,with a compliant Senate, will appoint very liberal Judges to the Supreme Court that will shift the Court too far to the left.
He will not face the check of a majority Democratic Senate that a Republican President would have to take into consideration in selecting judges. Barack Obama would not base his selection on scholarship or legal talent which have been the historic criteria but would base his choices on completely subjective criteria
He also talks about the need to appreciate what a judge's "vision of what America should be."
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom." "The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
Can you imagine how riled the Times would get if McCain talked like that about judges?
