The Passion Of St. John

by tristero

What turns John McCain on? Judges so reality-challenged they think the New Deal was Leninism:

[Janice Rogers Brown’s] speeches given to the Federalist Society and the Institute for Justice, Brown railed against judicial opinions in the 1930’s upholding the New Deal as “the triumph of our own socialist revolution.” Brown, almost alone among lawyers, openly yearned for a return of the so-called “Lochner-era” in which a conservative court routinely struck down labor, health and safety laws in the early 20th century. In the words of Robert Bork (no liberal he), Lochner is an “abomination” that “lives in the law as the symbol, indeed the quintessence of judicial usurpation of power.” No one in the Senate is more responsible for Brown’s confirmation to a lifetime seat on the all-important DC Circuit Court of Appeals than John McCain, a fact he touts on the campaign trail.

And why does he tout his support of Judge Brown? Well, there could be many reasons, but I think the real reason begins with the fact that placing judges as delusional as Brown in the Supreme Court is a high priority, if not the highest priority, of christianists:

As for us, we will continue to fight for judges who interpret the Constitution based upon its original meaning, and who recognize that there are distinct limits on their powers and responsibilities. As our founding fathers knew, a restrained and limited judiciary is essential to the continued freedoms of a nation. They knew from personal experience the despotism that occurs under all-powerful judges, and they put in place protections to ensure this would never happen again. Unfortunately, not many of our elected officials have read the Constitution and too many judges are on record as saying the Constitution is outdated and irrelevant.

Judges—a key issue, especially when you remember that limited, constitutional judges would not have “found” a right to privacy in the Constitution that gave us Roe v. Wade, or the separation of church and state that ripped Ten Commandment’s out of schools and court houses.

Anyway, it turns out that Janice Rogers Brown is just the kind of judge “Dr.” Scarborough hearts:

Judge Janice Rogers Brown, of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, recently gave a speech at Harding University that deserves an enthusiastic amen from every Christian in the land.

…An African-American from California, who came from an impoverished background, Janice Rogers Brown has thrown down the gauntlet to the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the rest of their ilk.

…God willing, someday I’ll write about Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown. Whether or not that day ever comes will depend on what Christians do between now and Election Day 2008. If Hillary Clinton takes the oath of office in 2009, if the Senate remains in liberal hands, the next nominee for the high court will be another Ruth Bader Ginsburg or David Souter, rather than a true judge of Brown’s caliber.

And that’s why McCain’s so proud he voted for that crackpot. Because people like Scarborough just don’t trust McCain. Here, Scarborough quotes with agreement from the “email based” edition of the Wall Street Journal’s Poliical Diary

[from the Political Diary:]Senator John McCain’s biggest challenge remains proving himself to conservatives on core issues like judges. That’s why at last week’s CPAC speech, he was at pains to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, whom he said would appoint federal judges ‘intent on achieving political changes that the American people cannot be convinced to accept through the election of their representatives.’

He echoed those sentiments in a recent manifesto for a Federalist Society symposium — and none too soon. Conservative critics, led by Rush Limbaugh, have turned their attention on former New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman, who endorsed Mr. McCain and served as co-chair of his 2000 campaign. Senator Rudman was a chief sponsor in 1990 of David Souter, now part of the Supreme Court’s reliable left flank and a “disaster” for conservatives, according to Mr. Limbaugh. “Rudman… the guy who misled us all on David Souter happens to be a top honcho on McCain’s campaign,” the radio host told listeners last Tuesday.

As it happens, Mr. Rudman is not a “top honcho” in the campaign this year, but as recently as the Florida debate, Mr. McCain did name him as an important adviser in the “the circle that I have developed over many years.” Not helping matters is a remark Mr. McCain reportedly made questioning Bush Justice Sam Alito because he “wore his conservatism on his sleeve.” Mr. McCain now says he doesn’t recall making the statement.

Voters like to know what they are voting for, and Mr. McCain has gradually come around to making clear, specific promises to appoint “proven” conservative judges. His biggest credibility challenge, however, may be his authorship of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Whatever Candidate McCain says now, the only way a President McCain would likely be able to preserve his handwork is by appointing more liberal Justices to the Supreme Court.

[“Dr.” Scarborough:] An interesting perspective–and one worth dwelling on. Senator Rudman, along with Senator Sununu, convinced President George H. W. Bush to nominate Souter to the bench–who consistently votes antithetical to our conservative values. [italics and bold in the original]

By the way, notice how Scarborough boldifies the accusation of Souter support (horrors!) but ignores the refutation. In any event, Scarborough needn’t worry about McCain. As Doug Kendall wrote in the first link above:

…one looks in vain for a judge who is too ideologically conservative for McCain: he voted to confirm Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and, unless I’ve missed something, every other Republican judicial nominee voted on in his 22 years in the Senate.

Let’s be clear. McCain didn’t vote that way to pander to anyone. He really, really likes far-right judges. He’s acting on his bedrock principles as a movement conservative.

Y’know what galls me, tho? Nick Kristof knows McCain’s record on judicial appointments is militantly extremist. And yet he persists in perpetuating utterly irrelevant myths about McCain’s straight talk. Who cares whether McCain lies or not when his record of fanatical support for some of the worst ideas in modern American politics is so stark?

Again, my friends, the issue is McCain’s judgment, including his demonstrated blindness to reality (that Bagdhad market again) and his support of the same in others (Bush, Rogers Brown). Adhering to far right principles doesn’t demonstrate a depth of character. Rather, it shows how incredibly obtuse and narrow-minded a person is.

It is high-time for pundits like Kristof, who pretend to be above the deplorable partisanship of partisan politics, to stop clowning around and tell the simple truth about the current crop of GOP candidates. They run the full gamut from deplorable to worse-than-deplorable. It is ridiculous to pretend that ’08 is a contest between two opposing but valid world views, Democratic or Republican.. Rather it is a contest between a reality-based politics and one based entirely upon myths and chimera like “straight-shooting,” “compassionate conservatism,” and “winning wars on terror.” It is high time Kristof, and other, more influential media figures, recognized this.