Redstate

Who has regularly criticized those who think his campaign finance reform legacy is an unconstitutional usurpation of the first amendment.

The man has been pro-life, but he has not been a champion of pro-life issues.

He has been a champion of campaign finance reform -- something you'd expect he would want his judicial nominees to uphold.

solely on the basis of how many votes he thought they would get in the Senate. For him, a 100 vote confirmation would be considered a success because the man is a vote whore in all things.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

You remember Sen. Coburn's "clay pigeon" last year for the Emergency Supplemental? You remember how he tried to strike 19 amendments to the bill that added items not related to emergency appropriations? You remember how most of them failed, so Tom Coburn voted against the final package?

The package passed 77-21. Those 21 were all Republicans, all who voted against it due to excessive spending, and John McCain was one of them.

Does a Senator who votes against an emergency approprations bill with 77 votes for it sound like a "vote whore in all things"?

Surely, you have an example from his voting record to use to back up your assertion.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

McCain has been willing to stand on principle even when it puts him in the minority on both spending, entitlement reform, and the Iraqi campaign of the War. But those little details escape the mind-readers who just “know” that McCain-Only-Does-Things-That-Make-Him-Popular-With-The-Meet-The-Press-Crowd.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

To-Make-Him-Popular-With-The-Meet-The-Press-Crowd, is suspect.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

While he has more recently supported the extension of the Bush tax cuts and has previously proposed requiring a supermajority vote in Congress to raise taxes, the extent of his opposition in 2001 and 2003 supersedes any potentially redeeming votes.

He's like a Democrat who tries to brag about being "fiscally conservative" by opposing some spending increases, opposing crucial tax cuts and thinking tax HIKES would actually help balance the budget instead of cripple the economy.

Show me where McCain has supported tax hikes? Favoring deficit reduction over tax cuts doesn't mean he supports raising taxes.

And McCain doesn't oppose just "some" spending increases. In the now infamous battle in the Senate last summer, spearheaded by Tom Coburn, John McCain was by his side on every vote.

Really, you'd think that you guys would have enough reasons to hate McCain without having to resort to making things up.

Considering that tax cuts have proven to be one of the best methods of deficit reduction (our tax rates are still well on the downslope of the Laffer Curve), one would have to question his commitment to real deficit reduction. True, McCain is one of the better ones out there with respect to curtailing spending, but he's a pretty squishy Republican in terms of reducing the deficit and growing the economy through tax cuts. That being said, I doubt he'd propose tax increases, but his position on tax policy is the reason why there is no love lost between CfG and him.

"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."

You are in the minority here on that assumption.

But a "mob mentality" doesn't excuse you from what I wrote in the last paragraph.

I think you are failing to see how committed to and wedded to BCRA McCain is. After MoveOn.org attacked him two months ago, he pledged further regulations to wipe them out.

He has a history.

ever be president of the United States: his toxic personality and, to be kind, emotional volatility. It isn't his policy positions so much (and I disagree with you, Erick, in the sense that I believe McCain's pro-life position is strong enough to at least balance his anti-First Amendment extremism). At the end of the day, there is no natural constituency for John McCain. He has insulted and alienated conservatives, and the moderates he courts (as well as most conservatives) find his authoritarianism and anti-libertarian streak repulsive.

Is there any reason his campaign has all but imploded?

the MSM won't let it. As soon as Thompson gets in the race, it is going to be like the 4th of July in the RINO candidates HQs.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

about McCain's statist mindset alienating libertarian-leaning people like myself. REASON magazine just ran a cover story that properly advises people to "Be Afraid" of a McCain presidency.

This guy has even supported getting the federal government involved in testing pro athletes for steroids. There's no corner of life that McCain won't get the feds to intrude on if something offends his sensibilities. (then again, most of our current GOP presidential candidates, and federal officeholders, display the same bully/nanny-state mindset to varying degrees)

I think you're failing in your responsibility to post reasonable speculation (if any at all) on the front page. Yes, McCain has made it clear that he values the BCRA, but as I said before, there is nothing to suggest that he would appoint liberal judges to see it survive. And since there is nothing to suggest that, its irresponsible to post it, especially when you refuse to provide evidence after people have asked you to.

Supporting campaign finance reform does not preclude one from supporting an originalist view of the Constitution.

see it survive, he has to appoint an ACTIVIST judge, like say, O'Conor. And you won't find any regular posters on this site who believe the SCOTUS decision on McCain-Feingold passes logical muster on Constitutionality, only the 5-person voting muster. Which means McCain has to appoint a judge who is outside the realm of what we find acceptable.

There is nothing to substantiate the claim that McCain would appoint activist judges, either.

And the mark of constitutionality is not what the "regular posters" on this site say.

Judges are forbidden by the judicial canons from telling anyone how they would rule on an issue that might come before them. Which IMO is yet another reason why it is so foolish for conservatives to put so much weight on who they think a nominee might or could appoint to the courts. Republicans and Democrats each have their own respective pools of legal talent to draw from but in the end, it’s still a crap shoot.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

Where he missed about half of the votes in the Senate in January because he had previously scheduled a trip to Iraq. I and others who are decidedly not fans of Senator Brownback nevertheless defended him and called it a “lame criticism.” Considering that we’re not even talking about a conflict with Senator McCain’s legislative duties, this is an even lamer attack.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

Nor do I believe Senator McCain has the courage to face a hostile audience. McCain-Feingold was all about stifling criticism of Emporer John.

Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)

Senator McCain is running for the nomination of a party whose moderates are uneasy about his support for the war and whose conservatives are angry about half a dozen things. His entire campaign is "facing a hostile audience." Besides which, he had the courage to hold out a against torture for years, so I think a lack of bravery is decidely NOT one of his flaws.

This man was involved with The Keating Five, it couldn't have been the principals or anything.

Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)

You argue the opposite, but you could avoid falling for silly theories like yours by comparing their predictions with observed reality. In fact the correlation is perfect between Supreme Court justices' support for Roe v. Wade abortion rights and upholding McCain-Feingold speech restrictions.

The Supreme Court's 5 strongest supporters of Roe v. Wade abortion rights voted to uphold McCain-Feingold campaing "reform": Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, O'Connor. The 3 justices inclined to overturn Roe v. Wade voted to strike down McCain-Feingold for violating 1st Amendment free speech rights: Rhehnquist, Scalia, Thomas. The mushiest supporter of Roe v. Wade, Kennedy, voted to split the difference, joining the Roe v. Wade opponents on some but not all McCain-Feingold provisions that they wanted to overturn.

At least according to demonstrated reality, if McCain wants to appoint a Supreme Court justice who will uphold his signature legislative cause, restrictions on campaign free speech, that appointee will also be a Roe v. Wade supporter.

Of course ignoring such reality probably comes easily if you believe it takes "the broadest possible reading of the first Ammendment" to see how McCain's incumbent-protection assualt on free speech violates our Constititutional rights.

different decisions. In a recent decision Roberts and Alito were in the majority with Ginsburg, Breyer, Scalia, and Thomas all in the minority. So you can base your pick for president on the alignment of the court on a certain issue. I perfer actually looking at philosophy.
Your view on CFR may not take the braodet reading of the first ammendment, but it does take a broader reading to say that a campaign contribution is the same as speech.

Trying to use your concept of "broader reading" of the Constitution to reach an opposite conclusion than the demonstrated reality, is exactly the kind of fuzzy logic employed by activist judges to uphold Roe v. Wade and uphold McCain-Feingold. It's the same activist judges in both cases, and your theory predicts the opposite. Activist judges supporting McCain-Feingold show the same detachment from logic as clinging to a theory refuted by empirical observatation.

So you can base your pick for president on the alignment of the court on a certain issue. I perfer actually looking at philosophy.

There's perfect alignment behind the real life facts how the Supreme Court justices voted, and the philosophy behind the votes, when it comes to upholding Roe v. Wade abortion rights ("rights" that are NOT in the Constitution's text), and allowing McCain-Feingold's trampling of free speech rights (rights that
ARE guaranteed in the Constitution's text).

The philosophy behind both votes is a judge using his/her own judgement of "right and wrong" or "common sense" to decide a case, even when the actual text of the Constitution leads to the opposite conclusion.

In real life, the observed votes of the justices was perfectly correlated with their philosophy. Those judges who apply their own beliefs of "right and wrong" rather the text of the Constitution vote to uphold both Roe v. Wade and McCain-Feingold. Those judges who apply the Constitution as its written vote to overturn both Roe v. Wade and McCain-Feingold.

McCain is a jerk, but he's not a complete idiot. He's smart enough to observe what kind of judicial philosophy it takes to uphold McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform", the legislation central to his political persona. If McCain is appointing a Supreme Court justice who has the power to strike down McCain's signature legislative achievement, he's going to look for a judicial philosophy that really is linked to upholding McCain-Feingold, not your "broader reading" idea that predicts the exact opposite of how they really voted.

Real life facts of the judges' actual votes, and philosophical consistency, both agree: a judge who thinks McCain-Feingold is constitutional is almost certain to also uphold Roe v. Wade.

100 % of the time or do you think Bush betrayed us when he nominatd Judges that have allready voted differently than Scalia and Thomas. How is McCain going to be sure about picking pro CFR judges. Name me someone on the short - list of candidates that a Republican would pick from that have stated their position on the issue.

I agree that no justice is going to agree with me on everything. In some cases I might just be flat wrong in my analysis. In other cases the proper legal interpretation could be open to reasonable dispute, so two smart judges committed to the applying the actual text of the law might arrive at opposite conclusions.

Both McCain-Feingold and Roe v. Wade differ from the above in that there is no plausible way to reconcile these with the text of the Constitution. That's why the observed reality is consistent, those judges with contempt for the text of the Constitution uphold both.

How is McCain going to be sure about picking pro CFR judges. Name me someone on the short - list of candidates that a Republican would pick from that have stated their position on the issue.

Potential nominees generally don't announce how they vote, so McCain would have to make inferences about their judicial philosophy from such things as how they voted on appeals courts, just like other Presidents.

We've seen that upholding McCain's "Campaign Finance Reform" is very closely correlated with contempt for the text of the Constitution, so naturally McCain would go looking for a bright judge who's record demonstrates sufficient contempt for the Constitution. Of course judges with that kind of contempt are also the type who vote to uphold Roe v. Wade.

does not mean that you are going to rule against the constitution each and every time. You argue that all McCain has to do is find a Judge that has contempt for the constitution. However, a judge might not like CFR on policy grounds and might strike it down even though he has contempt for the consitution. So McCain is going to have to do more than what you suggest. I think he may not even try for judges that uphold CFR and appoint origanlist judges.
Anyway I guess you would agree that someone who says that Roe V. Wade is good constitutional law has contempt for the Constitution. So we can agree on Rudy.

... at finding judges who will uphold his most precious achievement, i.e. McCain-Feingold's restrictions on free speech. You're right there's no guarantee on how any judge will vote on a particular issue, but you can certainly find high correlations.

The most perfect correlation we've seen is between judges who vote to uphold Roe v. Wade and judges who vote to uphold McCain's beloved "campaign finance reform".

Anyway I guess you would agree that someone who says that Roe V. Wade is good constitutional law has contempt for the Constitution. So we can agree on Rudy.

Maybe. That would depend on exactly what he said, in full context, and how recently he said it. I generally ignore characterizations.

You say,
"The most perfect correlation we've seen is between judges who vote to uphold Roe v. Wade and judges who vote to uphold McCain's beloved "campaign finance reform"." Do you have a source for this. I realize that there was this correlation in the SCOTUS decision, but that is just one case do you have any other evidence.

The issue was Supreme Court judges, and the correlation between SCOTUS judges who vote to uphold Roe v. Wade and uphold McCain-Feingold is as perfect as it gets. I said it's the "most perfect correlation we've seen" which is true unless there's a better correlation to be found.

Supreme Court votes are in the public record, so if there's a better correlation you can find it. So tell me, what correlates with upholding Roe v. Wade more strongly than upholding McCain's campaign finance reform?

I'll concede there can be equal correlations, such as correlation between upholding McCain's bill and upholding government mandated racial discrimination in the U of Michigan affirmative action case. Generally there's a high correlation between different kinds of clear cut judicial activism.

When the most consistently activist Justices Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens vote on one side of a case (e.g. upholding Roe v. Wade, upholding McCain-Feingold, upholding Michigan's racial discrimination) and the the most consistent adherents to Constitutional text Justices Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist vote on the other side (against Roe, against McCain, against racial discrimination), it's almost always a case divided along lines of judicial activism vs. Constitutional text. You don't dispute this do you?

There can be cases where there is close call on text which divides the Constitutionalists, and/or a difference in policy preferences of the activists, which leads to a vote that doesn't shed much light on Constitutional text vs. activism. But when all the activists are lined up on one side, and all the adherents to the law's text are lined up on the other, it's pretty obvious what's going on.

If a President McCain appoints Supreme Court justices who won't strike down the legislation dearest to his heart, they would almost certainly also uphold Roe v. Wade; I put it in terms of Roe v. Wade because that was your point which I replied to. A more general statement is that the Supreme Court appointees McCain would like are almost certainly judicial activists, which in turn implies upholding Roe v. Wade.

about the constitutionality of CFR. However it seems that using the logic that a senator will pick judges that have the same philosophy as ones that upheld a certain piece of his legislation is rather faulty. Using such logic one could draw many contradictary conclusions. It is a problem if McCain went ahead with CFR, thinking that it was unconstitutional, however I see no reason for why McCain might have a different opinion on its constitutionality than what you have. McCain's job is not to resarch an issue constitutionality, that is the Judiciary's job. You believe that McCain will pick judges on the sole purpose of protecting his legislation. However I do not see the evidence for why McCain would not pick judges based on judicial philosophy rahter than his own personal opinion. You have several months to point this evidence out to me.

in the CFG white paper on McCain. The categories they grade him on are:

taxes
spending
free trade
entitlement reform
regulation
school choice
political speech
tort reform

Based on these categories CFG concludes:

"John McCain's record on spending, school choice, and free trade is extremely positive. His go-it-alone moralism sometimes results in pro-growth policies, as is the case in his anti-pork crusades. However, this moralism often manifests itself in the form of more government, less freedom, and a distrust of the individual and the free market system. This is dramatically the case in his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, his class-warfare rhetoric, his occasional support for large-scale increased government regulation, his willingness to raise Social Security taxes, and of course, his abysmal record on political free speech."

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

The "freedom of speech" provision of the 1st Amendment protects the right to burn flags, even though no vocal cords or tongue motion is required to burn a flag.

Likewise exhorting voters in a TV commercial to throw some alleged bum out of office, is the free speech right of any individual American or group working together. McCain's law takes away that right during a campaign from all Americans except those who own a media organ or can afford a lawyer who knows to jump through all the right bureaucratic hoops.

The kind of legal obstacles McCain erected against criticizing an office holder in a paid commercial are surmountable, but certainly are more onerous than it would take to be stricken down as an "undue burder" on the right to abortion.