As some of you know, I have been researching the previous votes of Senator McCain and evaluating his current positions as he seeks the highest civil office in the United States. One of my primary areas of evaluation is Senator McCain’s position on judicial appointments. Many of my friends are bewildered at Senator McCain’s votes in favor of President Clinton’s nominees Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Here’s the obvious issue – both of these nominees were and are liberal. Both support the killing of children. How could Senator McCain claim to be pro-life and justify these votes?
I was likewise confused and troubled by this. Until I checked with Senator McCain’s staff. Now I understand his reasoning. Let me try to lay it out.
For the past 8 years, conservatives across the land have been up in arms at the way the democrats in the Senate have blocked many of President Bush’s judicial nominees. We have called, we have written, we have protested. Yet the democrats have rarely budged. They continue to hold back many qualified nominees. Often for one reason – the nominees are pro-life.
The democrats and liberals in the Senate have overstepped their constitutional bounds. The Constitution gives the President the right and responsibility to select justices for our nation’s federal courts. The Senate has one responsibility in this process – approve or disapprove the nominees only on their qualifications. The Senate’s only criteria for refusing a nominee is on their ability to perform the task, not their ideology.
Senator McCain, in a speech given last May at Wake Forest University, said this…
I have my own standards of judicial ability, experience, philosophy, and temperament. And Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito meet those standards in every respect. They would serve as the model for my own nominees if that responsibility falls to me. And yet when President Bill Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to serve on the high court, I voted for their confirmation, as did all but a few of my fellow Republicans. Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the president’s call to make.
For the record, Senator McCain not only voted for nominees Bork, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito, he actively worked for their approval.
If we want conservatives in the Senate to reject nominees based on ideology, we should not be surprised when the liberals do the same. However, this is a violation of the spirit of the Constitution either way.
Senator McCain has further said that his nominees for judicial office “will be in the cast of Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. These are jurists of the highest caliber who know the difference between their own minds and the law.”
Click here for more on Senator McCain’s judicial philosophy.
If we seek a return to a government where the Constitution is held in honor, if we desire a government where the executive, legislative and judicial branches stay within their boundaries, perhaps we should consider voting for a man who has shown that he values constitutional authority.
That’s absolutely amazing! Thanks for sharing that with us. This really increases my respect for Senator McCain.
By: Hannah Hill on September 20, 2008
at 11:53 am
Those of us on the conservative side of things are often condemning of liberals who vote down judges according to their beliefs as opposed to their qualifications. That is, until a liberal president gets in office. Then it’s okay. It’s nice to have someone with the ability to see issues with a more open mind. I don’t agree with McCain on a lot of issues, but I find that he tends to be true to his word.
The issue of judges, and therefore abortion, are of great importance in this election. Obama has already promised to put judges on the Supreme Court who will uphold Roe v. Wade. Thank you for your willingness to explore these issues further than the surface.
By: Stephen Miller on September 20, 2008
at 1:29 pm
I see your point, and this is not the first time I’ve heard that. The thing is though, that the Republicans continue to say they’re pro-life and do nothing about it.
If a justice believes that simple human rights don’t apply to all citizens, including the unborn, how can they be “qualified for office.” No one would be arguing about whether to vote against a jurist who thought that hispanics shouldn’t get 5th and 14th amendment rights. But voting down a jurist because living, heart-beating babies aren’t thought to have any rights at all–that’s partisan and divisive?
It’s another case where the issue is just not as important to McCain and other republicans as it ought to be.
By: James on September 20, 2008
at 1:52 pm
James, with all due respect, I think this comment is unfair. Certainly there are Republicans who are not pro-life, but there are many who are.
Senator McCain has received a 0% voting rating from NARAL, one of the largest pro-abortion groups. They have given the junior senator from Illinois a 100% rating.
On the other hand, John McCain is on record stating life begins at conception. He has voted to oppose Roe v Wade. He has voted to stop partial birth abortion. He has voted to provide care for the survivors of abortion. He has voted to stop taxpayer funded and federally funded abortion. He has supported the parental notification law. He directly supported conservative jurists at all levels.
This is a far cry from doing “nothing about it.”
This is a complex issue. We live in a representative republic with three branches of government. In such a government, change is slow. For the most part, this is a good thing. Of course, I pray for an immediate reversal of Roe v Wade – and have for years. But when the term for Supreme Court justices is perpetual, it is a slow and arduous process.
Conservative Republicans, even conservative Democrats, have worked to end abortion. In God’s timing, it will end. And I believe a McCain presidency will be a step in the right direction.
Blessings,
By: James McDonald on September 20, 2008
at 2:26 pm
Good day Pastor!
As I read the Constitution, it sounds as if the President has sole responsibility to nominate SC Judges, and the appointment is not an individual decision or responsibility, but done by the President with the advise and consent of the Senate.
What you said here:
… seems to be different from what the Constitution actually says. Does the Constitution specify or limit the grounds on which the Senate is to give consent? I did not see that anywhere, so perhaps you could point me to where it does.
Second, where would we find the “qualifications” for deciding whether to confirm judges?
Third, if the Constitution actually did say that I was not allowed to object to people who would approve of murder being appointed to the Supreme Court, my gut response is that as a Christian, I could not in good conscience approve such a candidate. Especially if it was my responsibility to advise and consent to any appointments. If it ever came to either not following the Constitution or enabling murder, I’d feel that I would have to say “good-bye Constitution”.
Could I get your thoughts on those three points? I feel as if I might be “missing something” here.
By: floydturbeville on September 20, 2008
at 6:40 pm
Hi Floyd,
I will try to answer quickly as I am trying not to be late to a hymn sing.
The Constitution says in From Article 2, Section 2 – He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
There is much interpretation here. From what I understand, the historical practice of the Senate has been to approve those nominated by the President unless there were significant gaps in their character and/or training. For instance, when GWB nominated Harriet Miers for the high court, I think the Senate rightly questioned her qualifications. If you were to look at the experience of Breyer and Ginsburg, I think you would agree they have impressive resumes.
Now, as to voting for a person who supported the murder of innocent children, Senator McCain and I would certainly differ. However, as I have layed out above, his own choices for the Supreme Court will not be the Breyers and Ginsburgs, they will be the Roberts and the Alitos.
OK, back to work so I can try to be at the hymn sing on time.
Blessings,
By: James McDonald on September 20, 2008
at 6:54 pm