Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Senator McCain and Judicial Appointments
By Rep. Tom Feeney Posted in 2008 | John McCain | Judicial Appointments — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Over the last half of this century, the United States Supreme Court has frequently elected to decide what the law should be rather than what the law actually is. Through routine applications of substantive due process and an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause, the Court has elected to form the contours of American law from the bench rather than deferring to Congress and the States.
While The Supreme Court must review legislation through the lens of constitutionality, the role of our courts is to say what the law is, not what it should be. If the Court feels that a piece of legislation does not pass constitutional muster, then it may require the originating legislative body to make a second effort to comply or render the law inoperable. The Court should not make determinations of policy or social issues that are properly left to the consideration of publicly elected officials.
When the Court strays from strictly interpreting the law and the Constitution, we are left with abortions at a whim, brutal murderers receiving reduced penalties, and private property being seized by state and local governments for private commercial gain.
Earlier this week, Senator John McCain pledged that his judicial appointments would have "a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint." As we approach the coming election, we must have leaders that are dedicated to upholding the rule of law and finding judicial nominees that are able to exercise the kind of restraint that Senator McCain promotes.
Senator McCain recognizes that the real and desired activism in our country is democratic rather than judicial. As Senator McCain mentioned, "Real activists seek to make their case democratically – to win hearts, minds, and majorities to their cause." Americans have a duty to be involved in the political process, to make their opinions heard by their elected officials, and to vote for candidates that reflect their values.
If our next President nominates activist judges to force an agenda that could not otherwise garner the approval of the people, he will betray the trust and silence the voice of the very people who put him in office.
« The Netroots Are Angry — Comments (37) | Tim Mahoney admits he has no freaking clue about the sub-prime lending crisis — Comments (9) »
Senator McCain and Judicial Appointments 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Not in That Sense
by Whitehorse
What is happening with that issue is the courts are not following the constitution. I guess it can be called "activism" to push for the application of laws as written, but not negative activism & not the activism of judges simply legislating from the bench.
Due process clause
by JSobieski
If you can't know the law in advance because judges are just making it up, then your due process rights are being violated
Funny thing is, liberals try to cite due process for all sorts of substantive rights when the provision is clearly procedural.
Scalia had an opinion back in the 80s scoffing the idea of substantive due process.
Procedural Due Process
by dt
As long as a person gets a condemnation hearing prior to the states purchase of the property, in what sense are that person's procedural due process rights violated? I suspect that the "right" you seek is more akin to the substantive due process rights you pillory than you might care to admit.
I was not talking about the condemnation of property
by JSobieski
The "Takings Clause" controls on that issue.
Maybe you are right, maybe Article III would be the better place to start. Nothing in Article III provides for making laws.
This thread started with my question regarding the defense of private property under the Constitution, so I thought you were responding to that point. I take it I'm correct that you're responding more generally, however?
If so, I agree with you that Article III doesn't explicitly allow courts to draft laws in a legislative sense, but I don't know how far that gets us. Article III provides that "[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . . ." Ever since Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has been the final (though not the sole) arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. Thus, unless that decision should be revisited, the Court arguably does make law through the interpretation of the Constitution.
Rep. Feeney
by Oz
Thanks for joining us here.
I think most of us would agree with Senator McCain's stated intent should he become President.
What more of us would like to see RIGHT NOW from McCain is some hardball with the Democrats to get Bush's nominees like Keisler to be confirmed.
Right now McConnell and McCain are all talk and no fight when it comes those.
Yes, the WH got a deal on Michigan and that is good, as far as it goes.
But Keisler was promised for removing the 12th DC court and that seat is gone now and I don't see McConnell or McCain doing anything about Keisler.
Show us some fire, shut down the Senate, and then we'll believe you more on judges.
judicial activism from either side of the political spectrum. I like the judges of the United States of America to adhere to the Constitution and if change is needed the states have the rights to make those changes. It has worked this long and I find no need to change it.
I don't believe that judges should ever decide the social issues of the day and I hope that Senator McCain has no litmus test for any judge other than their history on the bench has shown them to be strict Constructionists.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
of the president's power to nominate judges, and the impact this has over generations.
And they need to be reminded often!
Ditto on Thanks to Rep. Feeny
by Whitehorse
To echo another poster I'd like to see some movement on judges already in the pipeline. We can see plainly that judges appointed by either Clinton or Obama would have to pass reems of litmus tests on issues, & none would be positive/conservative winners.
Thank you Rep Feeney,
by PhxG
Sen. McCain has that habit of trying to "get along" with Democrats and if he, as President nominates a strong conservative (as I believe he will have several opportunities to do so) will he collapse when the Democrats decry foul and move to block the nomination?
Senator John McCain pledged that his judicial appointments would have "a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint."
While I know neither of us can predict the future, I am hopeful that President McCain does indeed nominate Scalia like conservatives to the bench. And not just the SCOTUS but to all of the federal judiciary.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
For clarity, my sentence was
by Han PritcherI don't mind accepting this about Hitchens' position
by jonlesterYou've known who your
by Han PritcherIt's all imagery and obfuscation, GC ...
by rbdwigginsExcellent reasoning, GC.
by FlagstaffA good Marxist would move
by AchanceFox6 and ABC33/40.
by RothnFor it's own sake
by benjjnebThat's what I'd expect as a natural course
by jonlesterI'm tickled pink that they
by Han Pritcherbillionaire Peter Lewis
by David HinzI have a book with the
by FlagstaffThis is overblown
by Han PritcherWho are they an affiliate of?
by dglennLOL, been there-nt
by gamecock
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
Thank you for your comments Congressman Feeney. Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but how is advocating for constitutional protection from "private property being seized by state and local governments for private commercial gain" not activism (albeit activism of a different stripe)? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.