Politics

Now Playing at Reason.tv: Damon Root on Supreme Court Pandering by McCain & Obama

|

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.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Truman Project

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 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.

  2. “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.

  3. 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.

  4. “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?

  5. Hey Seitz. Cat got your tongue? Just curious.

  6. 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.

  7. “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.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.