On The Supremes – what I didn’t write yesterday when it came across my desk but should have

Boring comment by McCain about which Supreme Court Justices he would not have nominated – the liberal voting ones – three of which were appointed by a democrat. Of course McCain voted to confirm these Supreme Court Justices acting as a Senator, just as McCain has reached across the aisle constantly to unite instead of divide. Just the same, McCain should not be expected to nominate liberal justices. The comment was one of the most boring out of all of his in the Warren Forum interview.  However, most interesting was Obama’s comments about how he would not appointed Clarence Thomas due to his lack of experience – even though Thomas has more experience than Barack himself. (Wall Street Journal) [And since so much has been written on this topic, I am still searching for the article that came up last week that quotes Obama from two years ago lauding McCain for his ability to unite and reach across the aisle.]


– Beltway Bob


3 responses to “On The Supremes – what I didn’t write yesterday when it came across my desk but should have

  1. polisciafterparty

    Of course he voted for them before he would have voted against them! (Sound familiar?) He has a staunch record of bipartisanship and changing his mind! Wait, scratch that, just bipartisanship! You see, when McCain changes his position it’s because he was so bipartisan and reached across the aisle. When others do so, they are weak and “flip-floppers.” A very useful rhetorical tool. Why didn’t we think of that.

    – Legal Eagle

    This isn’t to say I necessarily believe that the characterization of “flip-flopper” applies to McCain in this position- I am just very aware that had Obama made statements so incongruous with his actions, Karl Rove would be licking his chops and Obama would be forced to double-talk his way out of the “flip-flopper” characterization.

  2. polisciafterparty

    There is a difference between the voting for and appointing that is the issue here. I am not saying that flip flopping is out of the question.

    I agree with Arnold the Governator that changing minds as different things develop is a good way to be a leader, however, McCain is frequently more ready to admit he changed his mind on certain issues while the flip-flopping mentioned in the media usually points to places where Obama denies changing his mind. If the follow up question were to ask why then McCain voted to ok the Justices, I am sure the discussion would be in the direction of the difference between voting and appointing. I also find flip-flopping to refer to changing your mind to get votes where changing your mind to be bi-partisan is to do what is right. If you walked in to a room of Republicans and brought up the fact that John McCain changes his mind on issues “flip flopping” I am sure they will start throwing shoes at you – McCain doesn’t change his mind for votes. McCain’s independent thinking overall is what gets him in trouble with conservatives and why we were hard pressed to find McCain supporters when there were 7 other Republicans in the pool. I am sure plenty of liberal commentators felt the same way in the outset of this race and could have never seen him getting the nomination for this reason.

    I wouldn’t be suprised if one of our contributing staff writers here also said that at a previous meetings of the minds in Shoalin.

    -Beltway Bob

  3. polisciafterparty

    Initially, I agreed with you. McCain was a “maverick” of sorts- insofar as he didn’t follow the party then. But that was then- what has been so surprising during this campaign has been McCain’s strong shift to the orthodox right. Far from being a Maverick, he has moved right into line with the Republican platform during the course of this election cycle. So, yes, he has “changed his mind” in order to garner votes. The notion that he doesn’t do so is ludicrous.

    Straight talk!

    As for the issue of Clarence Thomas, I may disagree with his reasoning for why he wouldn’t nominate him, but there is basically no argument against the selection. Unless one is so tied to “originalist” thought that one ignores Thomas’ ultimate irrelevance (and, frankly, incompetence) on the Court, Thomas should be anyone’s first choice for removal from the Court. He has probably opened his mouth twice in oral argument. His opinions are poorly argued, his voting pattern is painfully predictable, and his decisions lack a coherent jurisprudence. He reflexively votes on the conservative side. At least Scalia has a more coherent approach and a flair for excellent writing; Rehnquist presided over a successful Court during his term as chief, and even Roberts is known for being especially smart. Thomas is the obvious choice- for anyone.

    Legal Eagle

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s