• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

religious liberty and religious freedom news

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
Home » Significant Differences Emerging Between McCain and Obama in Prospective Judicial Nominees (NY Times)

Significant Differences Emerging Between McCain and Obama in Prospective Judicial Nominees (NY Times)

May 27, 2008 by ReligiousLiberty.TV

It is looking more and more likely that either Barack Obama or John McCain will be the next President of the United States.  They will leave a lasting legacy in the form of their judicial appointments. The New York Times today posted a good analysis of how they may decide who interprets the law.  Thanks to Greg Hamilton of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association for alerting us to this story. Admin.

Read the full article online at http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=169472&f=77&single=1

WASHINGTON – The presidential election, lawyers and scholars agree, will offer voters a choice between two sharply different visions for the ideological shape of the nation’s federal courts.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, has already asserted that if elected he would reinforce the conservative judicial counterrevolution that began with President Ronald Reagan by naming candidates for the bench with a reliable conservative outlook.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has been less explicit about how he would use the authority to nominate judicial candidates, but he would be able to – and fellow Democrats certainly expect him to – reverse or even undo the current conservative dominance of the courts.

Both have been resolute soldiers in their parties’ political wars over judicial nominations during the last several years. While Mr. McCain has supported President Bush’s judicial nominees, including John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice of the United States and Samuel A. Alito Jr. as an associate Supreme Court justice, Mr. Obama opposed those nominations and favored Democratic filibusters to block many Republican nominees deemed too conservative.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who remains in the Democratic race, has similarly opposed many of Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees and also voted against the confirmations of Judges Alito and Roberts.

. . .

Read the full article online at http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=169472&f=77&single=1

Filed Under: Constitution, Current Events, Politics, Supreme Court Tagged With: McCain, obama, supreme court nominee

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Russell says

    June 4, 2008 at 6:06 am

    I think it is very important that Obama appoint judges that will readily reverse the gross violations of our civil liberties that the Supreme Court has previously let slide by. Though the court cannot instigate action, any review of laws in place with proper respect to the constitution would go a long way to repairing this country.

  2. Russell says

    June 3, 2008 at 11:06 pm

    I think it is very important that Obama appoint judges that will readily reverse the gross violations of our civil liberties that the Supreme Court has previously let slide by. Though the court cannot instigate action, any review of laws in place with proper respect to the constitution would go a long way to repairing this country.

Primary Sidebar

Geneva, Switzerland - December 03, 2019: World Health Organization (WHO / OMS) Headquarters - DepositPhotos.com

Biden admin could hand over US control of health emergencies to WHO next week

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The ultimate control over America’s health care and its national sovereignty will be put up for a vote next week at a meeting of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).  On May 22-28, 2022, the 75th World Health Assembly will convene at the United Nations […]

Statement on the Leak in Dobbs

The leak was intended to disrupt the processing of the decision and we are not going to dignify the leak or the unidentified leaker by analyzing it prematurely. As a constitutional republic we cannot go down that road without doing severe damage to the institution of the Supreme Court where there must be professional courtesy between the justices and their staffs.

Boston City Hall - photo from Supreme Court Opinion

Supreme Court rules 9-0 that Boston violated 1st Amendment in refusing Christian flag at City Hall

This morning the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Shurtleff v. Boston (Dec’d 5/2/2022) that the city of Boston violated the free speech rights of a Christian group when it refused to allow them to participate in a city flag raising program.

Active Liberty - a survey of Justice Stephen Breyer's religion clause jurisprudence - Supreme Court

Active Liberty: A Survey of Justice Stephen Breyer’s Religion Clause Decisions

A comprehensive review of retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s decisions in Free Exercise and Establishment Clause cases.

Canadian gov’t calculates that expansion of assisted suicide will save taxpayers millions of dollars

In Canada, it is easier for the disabled who do not suffer terminal illness to get approval for assisted suicide than approval for affordable housing. The government has calculated the cost of providing healthcare versus providing assisted suicide.

Random Quote

Since the days of Thomas Jefferson, religious freedom has been at the absolute center of American values and an essential component of our foreign policy, and it is especially relevant right now for all of the obvious and tragic reasons.

— John Kerry

Get the ReligiousLiberty.TV Newsletter!

Comes out a couple of times a month. Unsubscribe anytime automatically, no questions asked.
* = required field
unsubscribe from list

powered by MailChimp!

Copyright © 2022 Founders' First Freedom is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
0
0
0
0