Judicial Philosophies

A witty editorial in the NYTimes attacked "moderate" John McCain for statements he made yesterday about his determination to support far-right nominees for the Supreme Court, should he become president. "On a day when Mr. Obama won a decisive victory in North Carolina and Mrs. Clinton eked out a win in Indiana, Mr. McCain spoke about his judicial philosophy. He is determined to move a far too conservative and far too activist Supreme Court and federal judiciary even further and more actively to the right."

It seems absurd that after 8 years of having their civil liberties watered down by the Bush Administration that the American people would stand to listen to, let along endorse, a candidate with the audacity to speak openly about installing judges who would support similar policies. Does he really find the citizenry to be so dumb as to allow him to walk all over us in these policies too? Aligning oneself with the conservative moral stances of the court is one thing, but to endorse individuals who have also been at the forefront of creating public policies that discriminate and marginalize is another matter all together.

Mr. McCain predictably criticized liberal judges, vowed strict adherence to the Founders’ views and promised to appoint more judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. That is just what the country does not need.

Since President Bush chose Justices Roberts and Alito, the Court has ordered Seattle and Louisville to scrap voluntary school integration, protected employers who illegally mistreat their workers, and constrained women’s right to choose and voters’ right to vote.

Mr. McCain did not mention, of course, how the Roberts-led Court blithely overruled Congress by nullifying a key part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. He did wax nostalgic about what “the basic right of property” has meant “since the founding of America.” (He did not mention that in 1789 many women could not own property and African-Americans were property, but he did criticize the idea that values evolve over time.)

The WashPo article was obviously more balanced as they reported on McCain's remarks. They also quoted Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor and his counter argument: "Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves."

It is that judicial philosophy that runs counter to the political culture in DC these days, and counter to all that is Bush, that has gotten so many individuals involved in this political election cycle. The American people are tired of courts being stuffed with politically aligned candidates who are more than willing to roll over for the current President and his cronies. We are tired of being marginalized from the process and want to be included. We are tired of being fed lines (and lies) from the Republican camp without real discussion of the alternatives. We want a leader who will speak honestly and debate the heart of issues, not the political consequences of issues, with his/her advisors behind closed doors. We want a leader who will speak honestly about our country's challenges and struggles. We want a leader who will work with other parties in power to achieve the best possible outcomes for all.