Supreme Court
Here is video of Sen. John McCain on his campaign bus conducting an impromptu press conference with reporters. He comments on the Supreme Court decision striking down the D.C. Gun Ban and hits Barack Obama for his changing positions on the issue.
Fox News reports on Sen. John McCain's reaction to the Supreme Court decision today which struck down the D.C. Gun Ban, and upheld the 2nd Amendment right of Americans to "keep and bear arms":
UPDATE: Hot Air has what went down at today's Team McCain conference call with the media on this decision.
John McCain issued the following statement regarding Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban:
“Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbias ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.
“Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
“This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr also weighed in on the Supreme Court decision:
The ruling “will go down as one of the Supreme Court’s most important rulings on behalf of liberty.”
“Today’s decision marks a new era for gun rights in America … By protecting an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment ensures that all Americans are able to participate in sporting activities, hunt, and protect themselves and their families.
“Where crime rates are high, a gun may be the only means for law-abiding citizens to safeguard themselves and their families … Lawful gun ownership deters an untold number of crimes every year.
- brianinmo's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Greetings all, I apologize for the recent hiatus -- I've been busy becoming engaged (I'm a lucky guy) and therefore haven't had time to post recently.
However, recent Supreme Court rulings have brought me out. Despite George W. Bush having appointed Roberts and Alito, it is increasingly apparent that the Supreme Court is increasingly liberal, with Anthony Kennedy slowly drifting left.
The two most glaring examples of this were in the GITMO decision and in today's decision regarding the death penalty being applied to child rape cases.
While Barack Obama is paying lip service to the cause of being against the court's ruling today, he did support the GITMO rulling and there is no doubt he would appoint very liberal justices in the old of Ginsburg. Heck, Bill Clinton was a political animal as much as anything, and HE appointed Ginsburg and Breyer, so what would an openly avowed liberal like Obama do? It's very scary, especially given the U.S. Senate is going to be a 54/46 or 55/45 split if current trends continue.
To me, this is the issue that should get social conservatives off their butts in support of John McCain. If fighting the war against terror wasn't enough, then this should be. Yeah, McCain may not exactly be marching in pro life rallies and going to social conservative events all the time, but the man has a pro life record and you could argue without him we wouldn't have Roberts and Alito, depending on how you argue the Gang of 14 debate.
Imagine this scenario for a moment. Sometime in 2009, John Stevens, who is in his 80's, gets ill and has to resign from the court. Many issues before our country and world are in the balance -- GITMO, the death penalty, Roe v. Wade, eminent domain. Who would you want?
John McCain might appoint someone like Diane Sykes, an attractive conservative, pro-life appeals judge out of Wisconsin. Barack Obama? Someone like Sonia Sotamayor, a liberal judge out of the 2nd circuit.
The recent rulings out of the court -- hopefully the 2nd amendment one tomorrow goes against his trend -- put into light the #2 issue, behind the war, of why conservatives must put aside their primary quabbles and go out and work for Senator John McCain.
When Americans are deciding this November who should be the next President of our great nation there are many things to look at. For me one of the most important things is what kind of justices they will nominate for the Supreme Court. One can make a good argument that the 9 people on the court are the most powerful in our nation, they can strike down laws or actions by any other branch both federal and state. There are currently 6 Justices that are 68 or older, with one being 88 years old, so the next President will likely nominate at least 1 Justice to the highest court in the land. So lets look at what the two presumptive nominees have said regarding judicial appointments. Senator McCain said in a speech on May 6th, "I will look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint. I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist -- jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference. My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power. They will be men and women of experience and wisdom, and the humility that comes with both. They will do their work with impartiality, honor, and humanity, with an alert conscience, immune to flattery and fashionable theory, and faithful in all things to the Constitution of the United States." On the other hand Senator Obama has said that in order for a justice to be acceptable he has to share "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." The things Senator Obama looks for would make sense if you were selecting a therapist , but not a Supreme Court Justice. One's empathy is completely irrelevant to interpreting the law. The Supreme Court is supposed to be impartial and not inject one's personal feelings into cases, but strictly interpret the law. You would think since Obama graduated from Harvard Law School and was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School he would know that empathy isn't relevant but you would be wrong. Senator Obama is just like all other liberals when is comes to the courts, they want to use it as a tool to advance agendas they can't through normal democratic means, I'll give an example. Let's take probably the most hot button issue that has come before the court, abortion. The famous case Roe v. Wade made it so that states couldn't outlaw abortion, if you support abortions then you would probably say that's good, but the court doesn't decided what is good. The question of the constitutionality of abortion isn't a question of whether it's moral or pragmatic but whether there is a constitutional right to have an abortion. Liberal justices have invented a right of abortion that is found nowhere in the constitutional because they think a women should have the right to choose. The flaw in this logic lies in the fact that we live in a democracy where what is or isn't moral or pragmatic isn't decided by 9 people in black robes, but by the people through elected representatives. In Roe v. Wade the legislature of the state of Texas had decided they didn't want abortion, but the Supreme Court took the power of the people to decided away. If there were votes in each state to decide whether the people wanted abortion to be legal or not some states would want it legal others would not, and that is democracy. Instead of this method, which is the method the founders put in our constitution, Obama wants to appoint justices who find rights in the "penumbras" of other provisions, like the court did in Griswald v. Connecticut. The choice in November will be a clear one between Senator McCain's vision of a Supreme Court which lets the people decide ambiguous moral questions and just simply interprets the law, or Senator Obama's vision of a Supreme Court which creates rights it likes (abortion, privacy ect.) and dismisses rights it doesn't (gun, property ect.). In the next presidential term, with liberal justices Ruth Ginsburg and John Stevens turning 79 and 92 respectively, there is a real opportunity to have 6 solid originalist justices on the court. To me on the issue of justices there is no question, John McCain is the right choice.
Here is Fox News' Carl Cameron's report on Sen. McCain's speech on Judges at Wake Forest University yesterday, May 6, 2008.
- brianinmo's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Here is a CNN report by Dana Bash on Sen. John McCain's speech on Judicial Nominations made at Wake Forest University in North Carolina yesterday, May 6, 2008. McCain made it clear he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges who seek to faithfully interpret the U.S. Constitution rather than those who want to use the bench to make law.
- brianinmo's blog
- Login or register to post comments
John McCain hit Barack Obama hard for his votes against confirmation of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, calling Obama an "elitist activist lawyer."
- brianinmo's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Sen. John McCain made a major address today on the kind of judges he would nominate if elected President. McCain made it clear he believes in a conservative, strict constructionist philosophy on the order of Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Samuel Alito. You can hear a key portion of McCain's remarks in the video above.
Read the Full Text of Sen. McCain's Speech
NOTE: Notice Sen. McCain was accompanied to Wake Forest for the speech by Sen. Fred Thompson, a strong proponent of the Strict Constructionist philosophy for Judges.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain, seeking to shore up conservative support, vowed to model his Supreme Court appointees after George W. Bush's and accused his Democratic opponents of favoring ``activist'' judges.
McCain today said Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton ``don't seem to mind at all when fundamental questions of social policy are preemptively decided by judges instead of by the people and their elected representatives.''
The speech, given at the Wake Forest University chapel in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, marked McCain's most detailed comments on his criteria for appointing judges. McCain hailed Bush's appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, as ``jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference.'' read more »
- brianinmo's blog
- Login or register to post comments




