Miranda Discusses Whether McCain Would be Okay on Judges
By AndrewHyman Posted in GOP Presidential Candidates — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I got an email from Manny Miranda today, talking about how a President John McCain would do on judicial nominations. Some of you may recall that Manny played a big role as a Senate aide, and thereafter, on the judges issue. Recently, he's been working for the State Department in Iraq. Here's a big snippet from his email today (which he also sent to various other people):
You and I know the importance of the judge issue. As Senator Jeff Sessions once told me, "Nobody polls on it, but it's what everyone wants to talk about back home." We need to make sure that a Republican president understands this issue without wavering and without any populist tendencies. Mitt Romney does not give us that comfort. Certainly, John McCain is not a culture warrior and yet he has been solidly pro-life in his voting record and firm in his understanding that the issue of abortion should be returned to the States, just as Justice Scalia does. For example, see here. Mitt Romney's record is not similarly comforting....MORE BELOW THE FOLD
Senator McCain would not need on-the-job training on the issue of federal judicial nomination, and he is a meritocrat. He is not likely to nominate a lightweight to the judiciary.
As I have written in several instances, Bill Frist's threat of the "constitutional option" was a necessary predicate for the successful confirmation of John Roberts and Sam Alito. Senator Frist incorrectly took the advice of his staff, however, and failed to end judicial filibusters. That began his fall from our grace.
The Gang of 14 was not of John McCain's making. It was a response to the Senate leadership's desire to avoid using the "constitutional option" while holding it in reserve if Democrats escalated its use to Supreme Court nominees. In effect then, short of ending judicial filibusters by returning the Senate to its traditions and the Constitution, the Gang of 14 compromise paved the way for the confirmation of two excellent justices. This was John McCain's role.
The Gang of 14 was not my only experience with John McCain playing the role of good soldier in the judicial nominations war. Unlike a few Republican senators I know, McCain did not absent himself from four extraordinary Senate floor events on judicial nominations in 2003 that I organized. I was right next to him when he walked into the beginning of the 40 hour Grand Debate.
Senator McCain was a good soldier on judges in 2003 as he was again in forming the Gang of 14 for the Senate leadership in 2005. I would have liked it to end differently, but I appreciate compromise in statecraft.
I am not affiliated with any campaign and no campaign has reached out to me. I just wanted to give you my opinion as between these two men.
Happy New Year from Jordan!
Best regards,
Manuel Miranda
Here's a video of McCain talking about judges. For more about McCain and the kinds of judges he'd nominate, see here amd here.
Before Fred Thompson got in
by Whacker77
Before Fred Thompson got in the race, I was a McCain supporter and I will be again if Fred gets out of the race. I don't want anyone to think I'm a moderate though. I'm not. I'm as conservative as one can be. Regardless, I want to win in 2008 and I feel McCain can win a national election. Due to his recent conversions, I don't think Mitt can.
Initially, my support for McCain was based soley on his pro-life voting record and his votes on judges. I was not a fan of the gang of 14, but he found a way to difuse a no-win situation. I know others won't agree with me, but conservatives and Republicans would have receieved horrible press and been accused of a court packing scheme like FDR.
Don't forget that McCain voted for Robert Bork in 1987. Considering the outcry from liberal groups and the press, he could have easily gone with the flow and voted against Bork. He didn't though and he's stood with conservative judges over his entire career. He strongly supported Roberts and Alito and he has had glowing praise for Miguel Estrada.
In the end, tax policy or defense policy come and go. Social policy is another thing. Presidents can really only cement their legacies long-term through the Supreme Court. Even though Bush has been a failure, twenty years from now, conservatives will look back with reverance at his two picks for the Court. Remember that if McCain wins the nomination.
The Supreme Court is the most important trophy.
McCain
by skippy1
If McCain becomes president in 2009, his 'instincts to be buddies with his "friends" in the Senate' (as you say) will give him a great 'confirmation' percentage to the COA's.
And with his glowing opinion of Estrada, and support of Alito, Bork and Roberts, I suspect McCain would appoint excellent nominees to our court.
He could very well have significant coattails also (my Bush-hating friends think highly of McCain) in the 2008 election, enabling the GOP to re-capture the Senate (or at least significantly minimize any loses so that we can recapture the Senate in 2010).
Remember how well the Dems in the Senate treated ex-Senator John Ashcroft? If we have a GOP White House, it will mean the person defeated either sitting US Senator Hillary Clinton or sitting US Senator Barack Obama. I expect either of them to help lead the charge against McCain or whoever the Republican President is - past "friendships" will have nothing to do with it.
And yes McCain supported Bush's choices, but isn't his prototype justice Sandra Day O'Connor anyway? Sure a moderate is better than any of the libs on the Court, but I wouldn't expect McCain to pick anyone as solid as Alito or Roberts.
Ashcroft?
by skippy1
Yeah, but Ashcroft was not particularly well liked by Democrats when he was a Senator. McCain is quite different. Kerry wanted to pick him as his VP (Think about it - You could argue that Kerry thought that if he could not be president, he would want McCain!) Lieberman has endorsed him.
And yet McCain has a solid conservative voting record.
I also don't think McCain will pick somebody as solid as Alito or Roberts. How could he. Those men are perfect! But I do think McCain will nominate excellent judges and justices - like Estrada and Sykes, etc.
I think John McCain would be
by aurel
I think John McCain would be a disastrous president for conservatives.
McCain and conservatives
by Whacker77
aurel
I agree McCain wouldn't be the best thing for conservatives, but Bush hasn't been great either.
I think Romney and McCain
by Dienekes
would both be solid on judges. the best of the bunch, IMO.
I don't trust Rudy at all. I'm comfortable with Huckabee, with only slight worries (but accompanied by potential offsetting advantages and strengths). I don't get the sense that Fred really cares much. I think he'd be fine, but probably the most likely to make a real mistake (some of the others might name an in-some-way imperfect nominee, but it would be in keeping with their peculiar sensibilities and, with the possible exception of a Rudy choice, still an overall good pick, so wouldn't be termed a "mistake" as I'm meaning it).
I think skippy is right
by zendari
McCain won't pick someone like Alito, or anyone who he thinks will antagonize his Senate Dem buddies. He'll pick media friendly establishment types off Schumer's list.
That said, he won't be picking Reinhardt.
Well, in the end Bush got
by aurel
Well, in the end Bush got two excellent judicial conservatives on SCOTUS and quite a few on the COAs. REally, judges has been one of the best things he's done.
He has a pretty record on judges than any other Republican president in recent memory.
Glad zendari thinks I am right.
by skippy1
Glad Zendari also thinks McCain will nominate excellent judges and justices - like Estrada and Sykes. They may not be as excellent as Roberts and Alito, but they are 'solid', and given the Senate is now Democratically controlled, I don't think we could get Roberts and Alito on the court today.
Dienekes
by Matthew Friendly
Dienekes, I don't see how you could not be comfortable with Giuliani on judges. If you trust the conservative policy and legal giants he's surrounded himself with - Ted Olson, Steven Calabresi, Miguel Estrada, Douglas Cox, Bill Simon, Maureen Mahoney, et al - then you have to believe he'd have some idea how to select good judges.
There are plenty of areas for conservatives to be skeptical about Giuliani, but I don't think judges are one of them.
I suspect you are right
by skippy1
Matthew, I suspect you are right. In reality, I think all of the GOP candidates would be fine on judges. That is why, for me, the biggest issue this primary season is electability and coat-tails. I feel strongly on a few other issues too, which makes me not support Giuliani. But as far as judges are concerned, I am sure Giuliani would be fine, But I am still backing McCain, but will support whoever gets the nod.
because
by Dienekes
ultimately the choice rests with HIM. Not Olson, not Calabresi, not Estrada or Mahoney (and while I think both of these latter would probably be fine, if not the best possible, either as advisors or nominees themselves, there are those who have doubts about one or both). and who knows how much influence ANY of those people will have should he actually win? and how much less savory whisperers will have his ear?
and I dread him picking a 5 star nominee, knowing she will get rejected by the far-left Democrat senate, WANTING her to get rejected by the far-left Democrat senate, shrug, say "I tried", and then nominating the social leftist he wanted in the first place.
I'd vote for him if he got the nomination, but I think that would be a tragic event, like I and my party would be voting away a part of our very souls. I'm sorry, I just don't trust him on judges.
Yes, he'll be better than any Democrat, but with the number of Reagan and BushI judges he'll be replacing (plus new judgeships filled), I have little doubt his net effect on the judiciary would be to move it to the left. And if he serves only 4 years, and is then followed by an 8 year Democrat administration, who will get to replace the remaining Reagan/BushI judges, plus several of the BushII judges, we're going WAY to the left.
You really think that a
by aurel
You really think that a pro-abortion Republican would nominate the fifth vote to overturn Roe???
Giuliani himself thinks Roe was rightly decided!!
The idea of Rudy as a
by Whacker77
The idea of Rudy as a nominee was always crazy. At its core, the Republican party is a pro-life party. He threw Olsen and the rest on his staff to ease concerns, but in the end, positions matter. His aren't in line with Republicans and hais big state strategy was always dumb anyway. As Kristen Cavallari from "Luguna Beach" might say, he's dunzo! Sorry, I couldn't resist the pop culture reference. :-)
It's a possibility aurel
by zendari
There are 2 options:
1. He's forced to by pressure from the Republican base.
2. He tries to pick an acceptable pro-choice nominee and gets Soutered...err backstabbed.
Missing the Point with McCain and the Court
by stealthlawprof
I am afraid people are missing the point with McCain and Court appontments. To McCain, the most important issue on the Court's docket is campaign finance, not Roe v. Wade. And he will only appoint Justices who agree with him on campaign finance. If someone happens to agree with him on campaign finance and also wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, I suppose that would be fine for him. But do not think for a minute that the abortion tail will wag the nomination dog with McCain -- campaign finance is the preeminent judicial issue for him.
The trouble then is that there are not a lot of judicial conservatives (if any at all) who believe that McCain-Feingold is constitutional and yet would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. The positions are not inherently inconsistent; they just don't happen to reside in the same person very often. If anyone can name names that fit that profile, I would be pleased to hear them.
Suffice it to say that I have not heard any pro-campaign finance discussion at Federalist Society events, and we should all worry deeply about a would-be Republican president who cannot look to that organization for a pool of Court candidates.
article
by skippy1
silly article
by stealthlawprof
That is a patently silly article. It postulates that McCain is most electable because of Obama and substitutes that found wisdom for the author's previous match-up "analysis" with Giuliani and Clinton. It also suggests that McCain should promise a one term presidency, and it says nothing of substance about judges or judicial appointments.
Electability is the last ditch stand for an otherwise poor candidate. The match-up with Obama discusses weaknesses with Obama that will exist regardless who the GOP nominee is. The one term suggestion is a joke.
McCain remains a very troubling choice for conservative Republicans for a host of reasons. One of those reasons is his fixation on campaign finance legislation and the widespread rejection of his views by conservative jurists and legal scholars. If he gets to make appointments to the Court, he will be making them from a different pool of candidates than his opponents in the nomination process.
I disagree
by Oz
My order for believing that I'll get good judges is:
Fred
Mitt
Mike
Rudy
John
With Fred and Mitt quite a bit higher than the others.
Respectfully, I dissent. I think Miranda is wrong about McCain. His instincts are not conservative, although he has retained some conservatism typical for a man of his generation and station.
McCain's instincts are to be buddies with his "friends" in the Senate and the Media.
I think it's a pipe dream that a President McCain would nominate movement conservatives.
As for Romney: I actually think Romney might be more likely to nominate good judges. But I just don't think he could get elected.
I suspect that, strangely enough, Giuliani might be the Republican who might make the best nominations, but I don't think he should be President for other reasons.
The best would of course be Fred Thompson, but he doesn't seem to catch fire.