Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Incoherent
Despite my better judgment, listening to tonight's debate.
Manchurian Candidate McCain took a completely incoherent position on Supreme judges.
He said, approximately:
"(1) As Senator, I didn't impose any litmus test on judges. I voted for Clinton's appointees because I think the President should be able to determine the ideology of the judges. Elections have consequences.
(2) As President I will not impose litmus tests on the judges I appoint."
Let's see if I can follow this. As President, you're going to continue being a Senator. You will continue to allow the President to decide the ideology of judges. Okay then, if you're going to be Senator when you're President, who's going to be President when you're President?
= = = = =
Aside from logic, the basic notion that we should appoint judges only for their "qualifications" is hopelessly naive. It's certainly a good rule for trial judges, and before the Communist takeover of our legal system it was also a good rule for appellate and Supreme judges. But under the current setup, where judges make the laws and Congress merely writes the checks, it's dangerously irresponsible to leave out the ideological aspect of a Supreme appointment. ¶ 7:12 PM
Manchurian Candidate McCain took a completely incoherent position on Supreme judges.
He said, approximately:
"(1) As Senator, I didn't impose any litmus test on judges. I voted for Clinton's appointees because I think the President should be able to determine the ideology of the judges. Elections have consequences.
(2) As President I will not impose litmus tests on the judges I appoint."
Let's see if I can follow this. As President, you're going to continue being a Senator. You will continue to allow the President to decide the ideology of judges. Okay then, if you're going to be Senator when you're President, who's going to be President when you're President?
= = = = =
Aside from logic, the basic notion that we should appoint judges only for their "qualifications" is hopelessly naive. It's certainly a good rule for trial judges, and before the Communist takeover of our legal system it was also a good rule for appellate and Supreme judges. But under the current setup, where judges make the laws and Congress merely writes the checks, it's dangerously irresponsible to leave out the ideological aspect of a Supreme appointment. ¶ 7:12 PM
