Nick Gillespie | August 26, 2008
reason Associate Editor Damon W. Root takes both presidential candidates to task for pandering when it comes to discussing their Supreme Court predilections. Why is Barack Obama anti-Clarence Thomas? And why did John McCain vote for three justices he says never should have been on the bench?
Click below to watch this three-minute video.
Read more about the topic by going here.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
And why did John McCain vote for three justices he says
never should have been on the bench?
McCain the Maverick is now McCain the Pandering Conservative - a
huge difference.
If it weren't for his expansionist foreign policy I would love to
see him as president - and watch the wingnuts pull their hair out
when he compromised over and over again with the Democratic
Congress.
"And why did John McCain vote for three justices he says never
should have been on the bench?"
Because he has now had time to see them in action.
I voted for Carter in 1976; I now would say that his was the most
failed presidency in my lifetime and should never have been in the
Whitehouse.
It's called the benefit of hindsight.
Obama's answer was pure Liberal boilerplate. Clear as day if one
follows the Supreme Court. Thomas is an excellent jurist.
Thomas is an excellent jurist.
Wow, if an incurious jurist who does whatever Scalia tells him is
your idea of an excellent jurist, I'd hate to see your idea of a
super-duper jurist.
"Wow, if an incurious jurist who does whatever Scalia tells him
is your idea of an excellent jurist, I'd hate to see your idea of a
super-duper jurist."
And you know he is incurious, how? Did someone tell you that, did
you read it somewhere, or have you personally witnessed his
incuriousity?
Thomas is an excellent jurist.
It always seems a dangerous thing to say in mixed company, but
Thomas has slowly become one of my favorites. Or at minimum, the
one I'm most interested in via libertarian philosophy. All jurists
eventually disappoint on one ruling or another. Scalia has failed
miserably on federalism. And in fact, Scalia has gotten to where he
disappoints, even when he doesn't.
"It always seems a dangerous thing to say in mixed company, but
Thomas has slowly become one of my favorites. Or at minimum, the
one I'm most interested in via libertarian philosophy."
I always appreciate a person free of rivets. Thanks for your
insights.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245