Regular readers will know that Senator John McCain was not my first choice in the race for the presidential nomination. I disagree with some of his policy stances, but understand that the president’s role on policy is constrained to the bully pulpit, and his use (or pocketing) of the veto pen.

Aside from his role as commander in chief, one I am satisfied Sen. McCain will fulfill with the highest regard for the best interests of our nation, the presidential power of appointments, particularly judicial appointments, can not be over emphasized.

The speech given by Sen. McCain at Wake Forest University on Tuesday expressed a clear understanding of the role of the judiciary and the importance of having a president who will nominate men and women that understand that role.

For decades now, some federal judges have taken it upon themselves to pronounce and rule on matters that were never intended to be heard in courts or decided by judges. With a presumption that would have amazed the framers of our Constitution, and legal reasoning that would have mystified them, federal judges today issue rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. Assured of lifetime tenures, these judges show little regard for the authority of the president, the Congress, and the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people. And the only remedy available to any of us is to find, nominate, and confirm better judges.

Quite rightly, the proper role of the judiciary has become one of the defining issues of this presidential election. It will fall to the next president to nominate hundreds of qualified men and women to the federal courts, and the choices we make will reach far into the future.

I believe that potential nominations from Sen. McCain would be quite different than those put forth by either of his opponents.

For both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, it turned out that not even John Roberts was quite good enough for them. Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Senator Obama than it did the guy who can get things done. He went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee. And just where did John Roberts fall short, by the Senator’s measure? Well, a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it — and I quote — should 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.”

These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism — come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Senator Obama’s standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law, a nominee of clear rectitude who had proved more than the equal of any lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, and who today is respected by all as the Chief Justice of the United States. Somehow, by Senator Obama’s standard, even Judge Roberts didn’t measure up. And neither did Justice Samuel Alito. Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it — and they see it only in each other.

It is this presidential power that concerns me most about Clinton and Obama, and encourages my support of Sen. McCain. It is a power that can not be over looked, or over emphasized.

The drink that comforteth the brain and heart and helpeth digestion. ~ Sir Francis Bacon

Happy 1st Blogiversary to:
Dry Bones Blog

Captain’s Quarters (Ed Morrissey) Doubling Down — “George Bush signaled yesterday that he will continue to fight for his judicial nominations. He sent the Senate the names of five judges previously nominated for appellate court positions, including at least one whom the Democrats had threatened to filibuster:”

Flopping Aces (Wordsmith) The “Big Myth” — “Ok…now this is one of those “big lies” that the mainstream media pushes….kind of like the 16 words in the President’s State of the Union Address. I have never been led to believe that Iraq/Saddam attacked us on 9/11 by the Bush Administration. And yet, this is what many of the critics keep telling us.”

GOP Bloggers (Mark Noonan) The Fractured Democratic Party — “Emanuel represents raw political power, Dean represents raw political emotion – and if things go smash as I expect them to for the Democrats this November, then look for their to be a major fight between the two sides – a fight which could permanently wreck the Democratic Party.”

In The Bullpen (Chad Evans) List of Proposed Sanctions Upon Iran — “In terms of what Iranian leaders have told the public relating to the nation’s supposed full cooperation with the IAEA and a transparent nuclear program, the NYT reports the IAEA report likely will shed some light on just how false those statements are.”

The busy little bees in the Senate confirmed the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit today.

White House aide Brett Kavanaugh won Senate confirmation as an appeals judge Friday after a wait of nearly three years, yet another victory in President Bush’s drive to place a more conservative stamp on the nation’s courts.

Kavanaugh was confirmed on a vote of 57-36, warmly praised by Republicans but widely opposed by Democrats who said he is ill-suited to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

In a statement, Bush said Kavanaugh will be “a brilliant, thoughtful and fair-minded judge.”

The usual suspects were less pleased.

“It’s clear that he is a political pick being pushed for political reasons,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “This is not a court that needs another rubber stamp for this president’s exertion of executive power.”

[...]

Ralph Neas, president of the liberal-oriented lobbying group People for the American Way, said that Bush and Senate Republicans “have succeeded today in putting a partisan lapdog into a powerful, lifetime position on the federal bench. Brett Kavanaugh has spent his career as a partisan operative, carrying out the will of the Bush administration and twisting legal arguments to benefit his political ideology. “

I can only watch the debate on the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh in small bites. I was unfortunate enough to click back over while Dick Durbin was speaking. The comment I heard was, “Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t have the poorest credentials of any nominee, just the second worst.” [This is a paraphrase. I wasn't in front of the computer where I was watching.]

The reason seems to be that he was well liked by those he worked for, which Durbin parses to his nomination being a gift for services rendered.

Moron.

Just watched the vote limiting debate on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on C-SPAN2. The final vote Aye 67 – No 30.

Coffee is a beverage that puts one to sleep when not drank. ~ Alphonse Allais

Right Wing News (John Hawkins) Bush’s Upcoming Speech On Illegal Immigration — “If Bush really wants to stem the bleeding on illegal immigration, what he needs to do is announce that he changed his mind and believes that the immigration bill needs to be split up into two parts. Bush could say that he wants the Senate to split its work on illegal immigration into two parts. The first part, would be a bill that deals solely with border security and immigration enforcement. In other words, the Senate should put together a bill similar to one in the House.”

Captain’s Quarters (Ed Morrissey) No Sitting, Just No Dimes — “Instead of staying home, we need to get more involved. If your Representative or Senator votes for pork, bigger government, and ignores border security, look for a credible primary challenger to represent conservative values instead. Organize and speak out on behalf of candidates and politicians who do the right thing, even if they don’t represent your district or state.”

Stop The ACLU (Jay) Bush To Address Nation On Immigration Monday — “So, will it be more lip service, or will he actually address the issue with real action? Will it be more of the same, or has the public outcry finally been heard? Will the speech be in English or Spanish?”

Michelle Malkin WHO’S RUNNING AMERICA? — “President Bush may finally be coming around to beefing up the border with National Guard troops, but it’s not stopping foreign governments and activist judges from interfering in the enforcement of our immigration laws.”

BitsBlog (David L) California judge: Stupid is good — “The San Fransico Chronicle has a story on a California judge, Robert Freedman, has deemed that all California high school diploma shall be worthless, and that school work shall not be rewarded. Freedman has ruled that California must give diplomas to students who not fluent in English and can not do simple math.”

The senate is scheduled to vote today on the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Brown, who has been waiting in limbo since November of 2003, is the second “controversial” nomination to come up for a vote. Priscilla Owens was confirmed several weeks ago and sworn in Monday. Detractors portray her as a judicial activist with a record of supporting limits on abortion rights, limits on corporate liability, and opposing affirmative action. In my opinion, all good reasons for moving her on to the DC Bench. In reality, however, her record is one of judicial restraint and the belief that judges should interpret the law, not create it.

Here is the thing that astounds me. In most, if not all, of the rhetoric surrounding the President’s nominees the left appears to argue that if the judges decline to rule in a proactive way that supports their agenda then they are activists. What? If you can read between the rhetorical lines you see that what the left tries to disguise as an argument against judicial activism is in fact just an argument against anti-liberal bias. It has become a merry-go-round mind-set that sees anything contrary to the support of liberal doctrine as right-wing activism and any mention of judicial activism from the right as interference with an independent judiciary, “radical” dogma, and creating an atmosphere of violence against judges. The inconvenient fact that none of that is true does little to stop the incessant calliope music that accompanies this ride to nowhere.

Their arguments against Judge Brown are based mainly on speeches she has given rather than decisions she has rendered. One argument that is repeatedly presented is her dissent in San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco. Peter Kirsanow examines this, along with other issues surrounding Brown, in this NRO Article.

“Taylor suggests that Brown’s dissent from the majority opinion upholding the law indicates she “would invalidate laws redistributing wealth from one group to another.” Obviously, such invalidation could affect much New Deal and Great Society legislation, including Social Security and Medicare.

But Brown’s dissent is not nearly so expansive. Rather, it’s wholly consistent with mainstream (although, admittedly, libertarian-leaning) jurisprudence that holds that broad societal burdens may not encumber the property rights of a discrete or insular class of individuals. Moreover, Brown was referring only to laws pertaining to real property rights, not legislation that may otherwise have the effect of redistributing wealth (Social Security, etc.).”

Finally, Brown is among the “protected” group of nominees on the “Memorandum of (one-sided) Understanding”. It will be interesting and perhaps informative to listen to the left as they reluctantly, but benevolently, “allow” this nominee to receive the vote she deserves. I think that the quote from Harry Reid is particularly telling. “We’ve spent weeks and weeks debating radical judges,” he said. “But we haven’t spent a single day debating a health care plan, or a jobs plan, or an education plan that will help hardworking Americans. Radical judges don’t deserve our attention.”

I can’t get the Calliope music out of my head.