McCain Blogger Conference Call
McCain speaks (sort of) on judges and BCRA
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This will be relatively brief, as I have a lot of stuff to get done today. As my former boss has endorsed McCain, and inspired in no small part by the ridiculous Rick Sanchez CNN Youtube currently on the front page (in which I felt compelled for the first time in a long time to do physical violence to a television personality), I decided to jump on the McCain bloggers' conference call for the first time today. Portions of the call went very well, I think - when McCain was talking about foreign affairs questions, from Pakistan to Georgia and points 'round the globe, he was truly in his element. He displayed command of the issues and spoke about them in an understandable way. When he talked about issues of spending and healthcare, he created the very real sense that he is personally engaged on those issues. All in all, it was a pretty good call.
I had the opportunity to be the last questioner on the call. I asked him the question that is on the minds of a lot of pro-lifers that I know. It is well known that McCain views BCRA as one of his cornerstone legislative accomplishments. Unfortunately for McCain (in a Republican primary), the Justices that have voted to uphold BCRA have been Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and O'Connor. Roberts and Alito stopped short of striking the whole thing down in the Wisconsin Right to Life case, but indicated pretty strongly that they probably would if given the chance. So the question for us is, when McCain is picking his Justices, is he going to be looking for a Justice that will uphold McConnell v. FEC, or overturn Roe v. Wade? I asked him, directly, whether he would nominate a justice who he firmly believed would represent a vote to strike down BCRA. His answer on this point was very short: "Yes." He explained that he voted for Alito and Roberts, despite thinking that they both might vote to strike BCRA down. And then he moved on, somewhat inexplicably, to defend his work in the Gang of 14, about which he was not asked. McCain said that he was proud of his work with the gang, that it produced Justices Roberts and Alito, and that invoking the nuclear option would have set a horrible precedent for a time when the Democrats control the White House. Of course, McCain did not mention that unlike Democrats, Republicans pretty universally defer to the choice of the Presidents of either party when picking Justices, absent some evidence of personal corruption or lack of qualification. However, the Gang of 14 is beside the point for now.
Which is part of the reason that McCain's answer in this regard was so unsatisfactory. Why pick a fight that you don't need on this issue? Why not elaborate on the choices you'd make for Justices as President? It's nice to *hear* McCain say "Yes," in response to whether he'd nominate a Justice who might overturn BCRA, but if he wants to reel in primary voters like me who are more or less open to persuasion right now, he needs to make us *believe* it. And right now, I'm not sure that I do. So all in all, I was kind of disappointed by his answer, and I left the call feeling the same way about McCain as I did before it: he's probably my second choice right now, but he still leaves me feeling.... uneasy.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Comrade Wonkette, Have You Heard . . . — Comments (14) »
McCain Blogger Conference Call 22 Comments (0 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I get the impression that CFR ranks very high on his list of priorities. A lot higher than some of the other stuff you mentioned.
pro-Roe
Well, since he has has trouble making up his own mind on that in the past, I don't see this being a major concern for him.
pro-"living constitution,"
You pretty much need to believe in a living constitution to believe that restrictions on political speech jive with the 1st Amendment. Political speech is why we have a 1st Amendment.
pro-"terrorist-rights"
I'm not so sure he would have a problem with this.
The end result: judges are probably my single biggest concern with the guy.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"McCain said that he was proud of his work with the gang, that it produced Justices Roberts and Alito, and that invoking the nuclear option would have set a horrible precedent for a time when the Democrats control the White House."
In what universe would the Democrats hesitate to do the exact same thing if one of their nominees was being blocked by a Republican minority? Certainly not this one. The Gang of 14 was simply unilateral disarmament at a time when we held the upper hand.
Both Justices would have been confirmed in a post-nuclear Senate, and a few Appeals Court Judges more than were currently confirmed would have.
woogie feeling you get on this subject. In his case I think there's more than just BCRA in the background, I not comfortable with his demonstrated willingness to "work with" the most liberal members of the Senate and to be willing to defer to Senate tradition and comity.
I don't trust his judgement on Justices (SDO is his favorite), and I really, really don't trust what I perceive his "process" would be in nominating them. Noting who he voted for does nothing for me, heck he voted for RBG. I'm much more concerned with the seven nominees that have been thrown under the bus by G14 than I am encourage by who he voted for.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
That said, in McCain's defense, in the toughest SCOTUS votes he stepped up and voted for both Thomas and Bork.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
neither needed McCain's vote to win so, from my perspective, he was just one of Senators voting and don't forget, Arlen Specter voted for Thomas. We'll never know for sure, but I have a really hard time believing he would have nominated either of those Justices.
I have a really hard time making the leap from "I voted for..." to "I will nominate...". The former is an up-or-down choice that can be reconciled any number of ways (like RBG), the latter is personal (see HM). My personal preference for acquiring some kind of a comfort level with the potential nominees of ANY candidate is for the candidate to have an advisory panel such as Rudy has assembled. That, I believe, is a very meaningful step when the panel consists, as does Rudy's, of people with long public histories in both government and in legal circles. Is it a slam guarantee? Of course not, but it at least indicates what sort of judicial candidate pool the candidate will pull his nominees from.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
With Quayle available to cast the tiebreaker, that means he made it by 3 votes, with Specter, McCain, John Chaffee, Bill Cohen, Slade Gorton, Warren Rudman, Nancy Kassebaum (among others) and 10 Democrats voting yes. It was a nailbiter.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
McCain is many things, but he is certainly honest and a role model. He takes his role as a model to young people seriously. Met him up in Manchester, New Hampshire a couple weeks back and was really impressed by his obvious sincerity. I don't think you have anything to worry about, but if you don't take my word for it, there are videos up of my experiences and other young people's experiences up, see the one with McCain at http://www.campusvoices.org/phpflash/player.php?url=http://iopforum.harv....
Seriously, the guy means what he says, unlike Huckabee.
and the California voters he told different versions of the same story to in 2000.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Senator Brownback will serve as a General Co-Chair of the campaign and Chairman of the McCain Judicial Advisory Committee.
Fred voted for this while in the Senate, why does he not face the same questions? Even G W Bush supported the bill, that didn't stop him from appointing constructionist judges.
Fred has said that the reason he voted for it was there was too much special-interest money in politics, and it was an attempt to curtail that. But that it hasn't worked, has been counter-productive in some respects. I recall him saying that he's wondered if we shouldn't just repeal all the limits but require immediate disclosure on the internet of all donors.
That, to me seems a pretty fair position. Unlike that of McCain who seems to see any attacks on BCRA as a personal affront.
When asked whether he was proud of his role in enacting the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation in '01.
"Yes," replied the former Tennessee senator without hesitation (9/2207)
I don't think McCain has ever said that this legislation was perfect. If it weren't for McCain, all of this special interest money would still be playing too much of a role in politics.
anything has actually changed?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
"If it weren't for McCain, all of this special interest money would still be playing too much of a role in politics."
Did you manage to type that with a straight face? There's at least as much special interest money today as there was at the time.
You also failed to attribute the comment, to let people read the rest of what he said. Here, let me help you.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22525
This shows what follows in the interview.
If there is anything in McCain-Feingold that "has not worked out," he went to say, it is "placing limitations on ads [by independent groups] in the [political] process. Thompson hinted that he would support legislation to change this, since "the Supreme Court has better things to do with its time than hear cases on unfair limitation."
So in other words, he's for fixing one of the biggest reasons that I and a lot of other people have problems with it. This is in stark contrast with McCain who wants to go the other direction.
Frankly, I wish he'd go further than this, but at a minimum he's for moving things in the correct direction.
"Yes," replied the former Tennessee senator without hesitation (9/2207)
Wow, maybe the next sentence was "It was a good idea to try and get all the special interest money out of politics, but it hasn't worked out the way we thought, so I'm no longer in favor of it, but I'm still proud of the work we did on it."
Provide the context and a link to your quote so we can judge it instead of thinking that it is a dishonest attempt at a smear.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass notes McCain said he would retain Fitzgerald because of his anti-corruption work. See http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass14nov14,0,793459.c...
I was referring to connections between large donors, corporations, labor unions with the candidates themselves.
Sure there is money playing a role in politics, but these indy 527 groups are not connected with candidates.
are not connected with candidates.
I blew baked potato and cheeze soup out my nose on that one. I have a couple of other comments about it, but I'm already in trouble with Leon today, so I'll just keep them between Franz and me.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Reply To This is my friend...
Reply To This is my friend...
Reply To This is my friend...
Reply To This is my friend...
Reply To This is my friend...
Reply To This is my friend...
That was supposed to be linked to Brandozilla.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
1987. Robert Bork is nominated by Reagan. Bork gets 42 votes in favor of his confirmation, 58 against.
1991. Clarence Thomas is nominated by G H W Bush. Thomas gets confirmed with 52 yes votes, 48 no votes.
1993. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is nominated by Bill Clinton. Ginsberg get 96 yes votes, 3 no votes.
1994. Stephen Breyer is nominated by Bill Clinton. Breyer gets 87 yes votes, 9 no votes.
May 2001. US Senator Jim Jeffords switches political parties, handing the Democrats control over the US Senate. Most of Bush's nominees for the federal court of appeals do not get a vote on the Senate floor.
November 2002. Republicans win a 51 to 49 vote majority in the US Senate.
2003. Democrats begin filibustering Bush's judicial nominees.
November 2004. Republicans increase their majority to a 55 seats to the Democrats' 45.
2005. Republicans and Vice President Dick Cheney threaten to use the Byrd/Constitutional/Nuclear option to end the Democrats' judicial filibusters.
John McCain becomes the first Republican US Senator to announce that he will vote with the Democrat leadership on the Byrd/Constitutional/Nuclear option if a vote on the issue is held.
So, given that McCain has been in the US Senate for this entire chronology of events surrounding judicial nominations, given McCain's support for a terrorists' bill of rights and his McCain-Feingold legislation, why should we not assume that McCain simply sympathizes more with the Left then the Right on legal issues?
Doesn't McCain's record appear to be one in which he is doing the absolute minimum to help the Right win the battle over the federal courts while occasionally providing help to the Left when such help is desparately needed?
Think of how differently Republican primary voters would view John McCain if he had announced back in 2003, when the Democrats began filibustering Bush's judicial nominations, that he would wholeheartedly support the Byrd/Constitutional/Nuclear option and if he reminded his Democrat opponents that he not only didn't filibuster Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Stephen Breyer, but he voted for those nominees.
McCain would draw much less skepticism from conservatives if he had acted like someone determined to steer the US Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals to the Right.
In fact, that is exactly how Jon Kyl, the other Republican US Senator from Arizona conducted himself. And that is even how Blue State Senators like Rick Santorum and Norm Coleman handled the issue of judicial filibusters. Even Arlen Specter kept a (publicly) open mind on the Byrd Option issue.
But McCain, from a fairly conservative state, acted more like Lincoln Chafee than Jon Kyl or Rick Santorum.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
...but if I remember right, didn't some in the GOP hold up some of Clinton's judges and not let them get to the floor? I seem to remember something about some in Michigan in particular. I'm no expert on this - the courts are way down my list of things i care about, but I seem to remember hearing about this.
I think everyone should get an up and down vote, but I was opposed to using the nuke option to get to that. I think that would have been a really, really bad idea.
didn't some in the GOP hold up some of Clinton's judges and not let them get to the floor?
Yes. This, however, was when the Republicans held a majority in the US Senate. Still, despite some dilatory tactics by the Republican majority (which existed during the last 6 years of Bill Clinton's 8 years in the White House), Clinton got almost as many federal appeals court nominees confirmed as did Ronald Reagan (and Reagan had his own party, not the opposition party) in control of the Senate for 6 of his 8 years. So, the Republican Senate from 1995-2001 did not abuse the judicial nominating process in the same was as the Demcorat Senate did from 2001-2003 (after the Jim Jeffords party switch).
But even if the 1995-2001 Senate Republican majority had been as partisan as the 2001-2003 Senate Democrat majority, this would still leave the behavior of the 2003-2005 Senate Democrat minority in question.
Beginning in 2003, the Democrats used the 60 vote cloture rule as a means of stopping Bush's judicial nominees. And they didn't just do it against one of Bush's nominees. They denied cloture to 10 nominees.
Now, if Republican US Senators had denied cloture using the 60 vote cloture rule against Clinton judicial nominees, it would have been an example of "tit for tat." But the Democrats clearly escalated the war over the federal bench in this case.
The problem with John McCain's explanation (that he would like to retain the judicial filibuster option so that he could stop a Democrat president from getting a Left Wing nominee confirmed) is twofold:
(1) It's not clear that Republicans have the stomach for filibustering Democrat judicial nominees. In 1993, John McCain voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg, despite the fact that Ginsberg was an ACLU General Council and had supported lowering the age of sexual consent to age 12. Given that Republicans didn't see fit to filibuster (or even vote against) Ginsberg, it doesn't seem likely that they will against a future Left Wing nominee.
But what if the Republicans did decide to be more partisan in their opposition to Left Wing nominees to the federal bench, in response to the Democrats' recent willingness to filibuster Bush's nominees to the courts?
(2) The Democrats could simply use the Byrd Option, as they have in the past.
So, McCain might have fooled some Republicans with his tough talk - no action, approach to the war between the Left and Right over the federal courts. But I would bet that most informed Republicans know that McCain was simply carrying water for Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer on judicial nominees.
The reason why Alito and Roberts are on the US Supreme Court today has more to do with the fact that the Republicans ended the 2004 Senate elections with 55 seats, 5 short of the 60 needed for cloture and 5 more than needed to successfully use the Byrd/Constitutional/Nuclear option. And most Republican US Senators made it clear that they would vote for the Byrd option if a cloture vote failed.
So, McCain taking credit for Alito and Roberts is sort of like Joe Stalin taking credit for the collapse of the Soviet Empire.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
I'm not really worried about who McCain would put on the bench. As we've seen to date, the kind of judge that would uphold BCRA against all-comers, would almost certainly be against McCain on virtually everything else McCain believes in. Pro-BCRA judges would also be pro-Roe, pro-"living constitution," pro-"international law," pro-"terrorist-rights" and a dozen other positions that would be totally antithetical to McCain as President. How many good war on terror decisions is a pro-BCRA judge going to generate?
And really, if upholding BCRA is the worst thing a nominee would do, we're in pretty good shape. My guess is that a judge that would do so would generate many more objections on many more issues close to our hearts.