Once More Into the Breach: McCain, Obama, Clinton and the Supreme Court

McCain is a difficult candidate to get enthused about because he is such an enigma. He supports a gas tax holiday and defends it by saying the only bridges to suffer from the lost revenue would be the pork barrel projects that go to nowhere, then he shows up a La Raza event to spout nonsense about immigration. Now he has come out to say he would appoint only strict constructionist judges to the bench.

This is not the first time he has said this and his voting record backs it up even though he did get involved in the whole gang of 14 stupidity. What sets him apart on this issue is highlighted by the comments of his counterparts on the Democrat side of the presidential beauty pageant on this subject.

In response, Obama's campaign said McCain would pick judges who would threaten abortion rights as well as McCain's own campaign finance reform bill.

"What's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

Obviously Obama has no problem with judges that use criteria other than the Constitution to decide the cases before them. Does Obama support class or economic status as the determining factors in who receives favor from the law? It appears from the statement of his campaign spokesman that he does. He also seems to think the campaign finance law is unconstitutional. If so, why has he not pressed for its repeal?

Hillary Clinton is no better in her response.

.

Clinton's campaign shot back over McCain's charges of partisanship, arguing that he had voted for "extreme conservative judges" including Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

"In an effort to pander to conservative voters, Senator McCain has signaled his intention to appoint right-wing judges who are committed to rolling back women's rights and civil rights, elevating the interests of big business over the rights of workers and consumers, affirming executive branch power grabs, and undermining our common core freedoms," Clinton Campaign Police director Neera Tanden said.

"Senator Clinton has a different vision. She will appoint judges who respect the separation of powers, are steadfast in protecting civil rights and liberties, including the right of privacy, and who cherish equal justice under law."

How do judges who uphold the Constitution threaten "women's rights and civil rights, elevating the interests of big business over the rights of workers and consumers, affirming executive branch power grabs, and undermining our common core freedoms,"? She seems to be agreeing with McCain when she describes the type of judges she would appoint but we know by he rejection of Alito, Thomas and Roberts that she does not.

The Constitution is the contract we have made with those who we ask to govern us. Those who claim it is a "living" document do so to negate those inconvenient clauses that limit the power of our government officials. When one signs a contract for work to be done it is to protect both the parties by defining the work and the compensation for completing it. If such a document was living, i.e. subject to change, it is a fraud and subject to the whim of the more powerful party. If Obama and Clinton are interested in protecting the week and preserving the rule of law that they should be strict constructionist themselves. But then they could not shove their socialist agenda down our throats if they were.