John McCain's Supreme Court Confirmation Votes are None of Our Business
While we're on the subject of this weekend's candidate Faithfest, Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren offered Barack Obama and John McCain an opportunity to bitch about the Supreme Court, asking "Which existing Supreme Court Justices would you not have nominated?"
McCain didn't have to think twice…
"With all due respect, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter, and Justice Stephens."
This morning Taegan Goddard took the nosy step of comparing that list to McCain's voting record in the Senate…
McCain wasn't a senator when Stevens was nominated, but why did he nevertheless vote to confirm Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter?
I have no idea, but this looks like a blatant attempt to invent controversy where none exists. Seriously, what's the point here? It's not like someone, in a big, overly-hyped television interview, asked McCain a question about which Supreme Court justices he would not have voted to confirm.
I've been searching my newsfeeds for an hour and I don't see any references to anything like that.
Am I missing something?
RSS
It's interesting to note that Ginsberg and Breyer are identified as having Jewish backgrounds. Is McCain trying to tell us something about his personal preference for Justices of Christian background?
Also, I don't buy this notion of having to vote up or down a nomination based on political realities. He claims to be someone of high moral standing. If so, shouldn't he be voting his conscience? To me, he sounds foolish to be contradicting his own votes to confirm Supreme Court nominees if he really feels they are wrong for these life-time appointments!
so the real story shouldn't be the disparity in his voting record, but in who he though the supreme court could do without – and who, if elected, he would probably nominate. *shudder*
Who cares about the attempt to invent conttroversy? Can you imagine what The Court would be like without Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens? That's some scary shit. Scalia and company would eviscerate the Bill of Rights.
Dems, I know I've said some…ok, a lot of bad shit about you in the past, but you really, really gotta win this one. Please, don't fuck this one up.
true, koba; my understanding (as Russ Feingold explained it after confirming two conservative justice he doesn't agree with) is that you're supposed to confirm them based on qualifications, not on political issues (which has got to be the hardest task in the world in the partisan world of D.C.). Nominations, on the other hand, can be chosen for whatever reasons you like.
McCain should've known better than to expect anyone to be able to make that distinction, though.
Not to get serious or anything, but the question was which justices he would not "nominate." Once nominated, justices are often confirmed by Senators who don't really like them, but figure it's the best they'll get from a President from the other party.
So, you're right, it probably is an attempt to create controversy where none exists.