John McCain made a speech today to the National Sheriff's Association. He criticized the justices who decided the recent child rape case, asserting that those five justices substituted:their judgment for that of the people of Louisiana, their legislators, their governor, the trial judge, the jury, the appellate judge, and the other four justices of the Supreme Court. It's a peculiar kind of moral evolution that disregards the democratic process, and inures solely to the benefit of child rapists….More to the point, why is it that the majority includes the same justices he [Obama] usually holds out as the models for future nominations?….My opponent may not care for this particular decision, but it was exactly the kind of opinion we could expect from an Obama Court.Obama’s spokesman responded today by asking why McCain would suggest that only "an Obama Court" would favor child rapists, given that McCain backed four of the five judges who supported the decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana. But it’s extremely disingenuous for Obama to suggest that voting to confirm a nominee indicates that a Senator would have nominated the nominee in the first place. Obama himself once defended Russ Feingold's "deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution’s design."McCain previously explained the same thing:[W]hen 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. In the Senate back then, we didn't pretend that the nominees' disagreements with us were a disqualification from office – even though the disagreements were serious and obvious. It is part of the discipline of democracy to respect the roles and responsibilities of each branch of government, and, above all, to respect the verdicts of elections and judgment of the people. Had we forgotten this in the Senate, we would have been guilty of the very thing that many federal judges do when they overreach, and usurp power, and betray their trust.Well said.UPDATE: Ann Althouse also thinks that Obama's response was disingenuous.read more
original article