McCain: Obama would nominate bad justices.
Is it time to throw the Supreme Court under the bus?
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 | McCain | Obama | Supreme Court — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
We remember Kennedy v. Louisiana, in which the 5 in the 5-4 split Supreme Court ruled that the State of Louisiana lacks the discretion to apply the death penalty to those who rape very, very young girls. The same ruling applies to the five other States who deemed that such crime was so heinous to their communities as to warrant "the ultimate punishment."
Barack Obama felt the wind on his finger and told his audience that he disagreed with the Court's majority, but in a speech to the National Sheriffs Association in Indianapolis, John McCain pointed out that if elected, Obama would nominate justices like those who ruled in favor of the child rapists:
McCain acknowledged that Democrat Barack Obama had also disagreed with the decision that struck down a Louisiana law allowing capital punishment for people who rape children under 12. Obama said he believed carefully crafted state laws permitting execution of child rapists do not violate the Constitution.
Nevertheless, McCain asked: "Why is it that the majority includes the same justices he usually holds out as the models for future nominations?"
"My opponent may not care for this particular decision, but it was exactly the kind of opinion we could expect from an Obama court," the Arizona senator said.
Indeed, when asked by CNN in May what kind of justices he would nominate, Barry answered: Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter. Throw in the tremulous Anthony Kennedy and the antique and rusty John Paul Stevens, and there is your Court majority who sided with monsters.
I think that time has come for Obama to toss these justices under the bus; after all, they are not the Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter he's known. Right?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | A New Kind of Sleaze — Comments (32) »
McCain: Obama would nominate bad justices. 4 Comments (0 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
a President offers simply because it is a President offering him/her, we'd be best to have a President who would not nominate a Ginsberg-Breyer-Souter, as would Obama.
Water is wet, the sky is blue, and the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
McCain - master of the obvious.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Ann Althouse also thinks that Obama's response was disingenuous.
Obama’s spokesman responded today by asking why McCain would suggest that only "an Obama Court" would favor child rapists, given that McCain backed four of the five judges who supported the decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana. But it’s extremely disingenuous for Obama to suggest that voting to confirm a nominee indicates that a Senator would have nominated the nominee in the first place. Obama himself once defended Russ Feingold's "deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution’s design."
McCain previously explained the same thing:
Well said.