When Does Consistency Equal Flip-Flopping?

When you’re a liberal.

Eric Luedtke somehow thinks that he’s clever:

Ha. McCain, during his little sit-down with Rick Warren, said he wouldn’t have nominated Ginsburg, Breyer, or Souter to the Supreme Court. Except he voted to confirm them as a Senator. Flip-Flop John strikes again.

No Eric. This is one instance where McCain is being quite consistent. McCain believes, as do most conservatives, that appointments to the federal bench should be supported unless there is evidence of something that disqualifies them for the bench.

The question given to McCain on Saturday night was, “Which justices would you NOT have nominated?”. There is a big difference between who you would nominate and voting for confirmation.

Trending: Candidate Survey: Chris Chaffee for US Senate

I realize that it was Democrats who began the complete ideological politicization of the the judicial nominating process (it was always political). I realize that it is the left who believes in “litmus tests” for confirmation to the federal bench.

Despite ideological differences, there was nothing that disqualified (at the time of nomination) any of the justices noted by Luedtke. While I would argue that Breyer’s love for imposing foreign law on Americans would disqualify him now, judicial appointments are for life and no one knew of Breyer’s euro-centric views when he was up for confirmation.

I may despise Ginsberg’s judicial philosophy. I am sure that Luedtke hates the judicial philosophies of Justices Scalia and Thomas. The difference is that I respect Justice Ginsberg’s abilities and President Clinton’s right to nominate who he wished. It is the left who wants to legislate from the bench and nominate judges from the Senate floor.

I prefer the U.S. Consitution.

cross posted at Delmarva Dealings

Send this to a friend