In a Wednesday column decrying John McCain's condemnation of the Supreme Court's ruling giving Guantanamo detainees access to the courts, former Washington Post reporter and editor Ruth Marcus illustrated that no matter how unexcited conservatives may be about McCain liberals still see him as dangerous as she expressed fear of what McCain's efforts to appease conservatives will mean for the Supreme Court if he wins:
As his evolving reactions to the Guantanamo case may indicate, legal issues are not at the center of McCain's policy interests. But they are a top priority for conservative activists, which makes me all the more nervous about what a McCain presidency would mean for the court.
Marcus, the Post's deputy national editor from 1999 through 2002 (bio), noted that “the oldest justices are also the most liberal,” so she worried “a President McCain could shift the court significantly to the right” while, she lamented, “a President Obama would be lucky, even with a Democratic Senate, to nudge the court even a bit in a liberal direction.”
Earlier in her June 18 column, Marcus, who is now an editorial writer for the paper, quoted McCain on the Guantanamo ruling: “'One of the worst decisions in the history of this country,' he thundered last Friday.” She then exposed her liberal position on abortion as she asked: “Worse than Roe v. Wade, to take an example on which McCain and I differ but that illustrates the overheated nature of his reaction?”
(Screen shot is from when Marcus was past of the roundtable on ABC's This Week on May 11.)
An excerpt from her column, “The Court McCain Wants,” which appeared in the June 18 Washington Post:
Conservatives, seizing on the Supreme Court's ruling last week on Guantanamo detainees, want to turn the court into election fodder....McCain was initially mild, saying only that the decision "obviously concerns me." By the next day, though, he was as over the top as Justice Antonin Scalia, who warned that the court's action "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Legal reasoning -- or ad copy for the Republican National Committee?
In any event, McCain got the point. "One of the worst decisions in the history of this country," he thundered last Friday.
Worse than Roe v. Wade, to take an example on which McCain and I differ but that illustrates the overheated nature of his reaction?...
McCain lamented that the court was giving rights to "enemy combatants ...ardently seeking to destroy the United States of America and all that we stand for and believe in." Strikes me that a big part of what we believe in is the rule of law and the notion that people can't be held indefinitely without a fair hearing.
As his evolving reactions to the Guantanamo case may indicate, legal issues are not at the center of McCain's policy interests. But they are a top priority for conservative activists, which makes me all the more nervous about what a McCain presidency would mean for the court. Yes, a Democratic Senate could temper the kind of nominee McCain would select, but a conservative legal movement whose rallying cry is "No More Souters" will be hard to satisfy with an unknown commodity. Remember Harriet Miers?
The next president is almost certain to have one appointment, and quite possibly two or more. In addition, the oldest justices are also the most liberal: John Paul Stevens is 88; Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75.
As a result, a President McCain could shift the court significantly to the right, while a President Obama would be lucky, even with a Democratic Senate, to nudge the court even a bit in a liberal direction. More likely, he would merely be able to maintain the shaky, conservative-leaning status quo.
And it is shaky indeed -- not just when it comes to abortion rights, the usual focus of Supreme Court debate in election years. Certainly, the addition of one or two conservative justices could mean, if not Roe's explicit demise, then a dramatic curtailing of the right to choose. Yet the court is at a tipping point on issues that range from the scope of presidential power to the separation of church and state to the future of affirmative action....
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"Politics of fear" alert!
June 22, 2008 - 15:40 ET by Indiana JoeMSM hypocrisy on display here. Get your fresh hypocrisy!
Is this the kind of thing Obama wants to "change?"
One could only hope
June 22, 2008 - 15:43 ET by DEVILDOCMOMthat the gist of her discussion would happen in the future. I, unfortunately, see a much bleaker future if bho wins.
"...he thundered last
June 22, 2008 - 15:57 ET by Chris Norman"...he thundered last Friday.”
John McCain does not "thunder" in public. He whistles, maybe. The fact she characterized his speaking this way, takes away her credibility right there.
Chris... That is also the
June 22, 2008 - 16:17 ET by bigtimerChris...
That is also the first thing that caught my eye when reading this from little Ruthie...what a bunch of bull...all the way around as far as I am concerned.
I can't stand her anyway..but she is really full of it.
I, for one, would wish he did thunder in public...instead of all the apologizing, soft voice, blinking eyes, and catering to the left side of the aisle...my friend.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
bt,When we talk about bias,
June 22, 2008 - 16:27 ET by Chris Normanbt,
When we talk about bias, this is exactly the kind of stuff we're talking about - not just the obvious stuff. To subtly mischaracterize a Republican's speaking style in a negative way is small, but indicative of a larger pattern. Now, we would like him to hear him "thunder", but I don't think she meant this as a complement to the strength of his style of speaking. She meant it in the "Republicans as crude, unsophisticated, and neanderathalic" way.
Chris... Of course she
June 22, 2008 - 16:35 ET by bigtimerChris...
Of course she did...I agree.
Ruth is a real piece of work...I have despised her leftist tripe for years now.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
bt, I suppose if NewsBusters
June 22, 2008 - 16:38 ET by Chris Normanbt,
I suppose if NewsBusters could catch, document, and post the dozens of examples of subtle bias we all see each and every day, their server would crash!
My hope is that she becomes more than nervous...
June 22, 2008 - 16:00 ET by ThalpyMy hope is that she becomes more than nervous about McCain's Supreme Court picks. That no other President gave captives of war due process is lost to her. That isn't who we are. If we continued with Ruth Marcus's nonsense, there would be discussions about who we were, not who we are.
There is an obvious gulf between the views of the Left and many of the rest of us. The President of the United States conducts war, not the Supreme Court. The enemy has the right to die. Moral equivalency and multiculturalism have no standing in war.
Not to worry, McCain hasn't a chance in hell of winning....
June 22, 2008 - 16:37 ET by Agent W.H.Y.So don't waste your time worying about the SCOTUS makeup after the
election viv-a-vis John McCain's insanity: The next couple of nominiees
will be made by President Obama and supported by a Democratic House and
Senate, returning to the SCOTUS the balance that will ensure fair
treatment for all in the coming decades.
Seven
of the nine justices were nominated by Republicans, so if there is a
so-called 'liberal' bent to the SCOTUS is surely isn't the fault of the
Democrats. It is that the Republican party has gone off the path and
into the ditch of irrationality. The Republican nation and world view
is so far off the radar to the right of what is mainstream that they
can no longer even see the center. All the king's horses and all the
king's men won't bring the Republicans back into favor again.
The damage done by
the Republicans during the last 8 years is not permanent, though it IS
long lived. The money has already been given away and can't be taken
back, the debt has already been spent and will have to be repaid, the
trust the American people had for THEIR government has been despoiled
and the moral advantage we had in the world has been sullied.
Richard
Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush the Lite did what they could to
fulfile the wet dreams of the right-wing and that is to reduce the
efficacy of our great national treasure: The Representative Republic
created over 200 years ago.
It has been beaten but not defeated,
and with the care and concern of real patriots [mostly Democrats] the
US will once again atain the position we had in the world as the
greatest nation on this green Earth.
It's not too late to change parties and get with the winners!! See you in November!
AWHY... leon..is that
June 22, 2008 - 16:42 ET by bigtimerAWHY...
leon..is that you?
Wow...you are going to be fun to have around...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
bt, Last time I'll dog your
June 22, 2008 - 16:48 ET by Chris Normanbt,
Last time I'll dog your comments today. Man, the woodwork wouldn't hold all thse new liberal mites anymore, huh? How many does that make in the last week? Is there some kind of new affirmative action for liberals program at NewsBusters?
Hey Chris.. Worry not a
June 22, 2008 - 16:53 ET by bigtimerHey Chris..
Worry not a bit about dogging my comments one ounce...I do yours too..
One thing about it...we are going to get plenty more of these critters before the election.
Fun, fun, fun...after-all, they can be entertaining at times.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Thanks, I appreciate it. I'm
June 22, 2008 - 16:56 ET by Chris NormanThanks, I appreciate it. I'm gonna shove off now and go get a hair cut. Then, I have to plant some Mexican Thread Grass - see, I am too green.
Her thundering idiocy
June 22, 2008 - 17:21 ET by the strugglerHer thundering idiocy towered before us as a tidal wave of verbal gymnastics was unleashed in a tsunamic torrent.
The liberal buffet
June 22, 2008 - 18:01 ET by KC MulvilleMarcus' first point is that conservatives want to turn the Supreme Court into an election issue. Like that was a bad thing. Apparently Marcus forgets that the Justices are not selected by Zeus from Mount Olympus. Nomination and confirmation by the political branches is by constitutional design.
Marcus writes: "Strikes me that a big part of what we believe in is the rule of law and the notion that people can't be held indefinitely without a fair hearing." But Marcus doesn't tell you that the military has already bent over backwards to provide the fairest possible hearing for each of the detainees. The issue isn't whether the detainees get a hearing. They already get one. The issue is whether that hearing is a military tribunal that understands the special nature of war or whether they get a hearing in federal court, in which the burden of evidence is heavily weighed in favor of the detainee.
What's most frustrating in dealing with these liberal commentators is how little they respect democracy. These legal harpies are worried that they might lose in the election. Therefore, they're trying to prevent the election from turning the court away from its liberal agenda. They're trying to suggest that even if McCain wins, he shouldn't be allowed to threaten their agenda -- on abortion most of all.
Marcus' first point is
June 22, 2008 - 19:29 ET by motherbeltMarcus' first point is that conservatives want to turn the Supreme Court into an election issue. Like that was a bad thing.
How about "as if they don't care about the Supreme Court and don't consider that in an election!"
What a joke! It's like the old "litmus test." Conservatives looking at a judge's stnace on abortion is a litmus test. Liberals doing the same, isn't.
Got it?
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
A Postie's flawed writing
June 22, 2008 - 20:43 ET by Alfred J. LemireChris Norman beat me to it: "thundered" does not describe McCain. Norman reports. Marcus imagines and errs.
She also failed to take into account any prudent person's initially reserved reaction. McCain likely had no chance to read the majority judgment on the Boumediene case or the minority dissent. And keep in mind that he wants to close Guantanamo. But it seemed to him, based on what he had heard, to be a bad decision and he said so.
Marcus saw "conservative activists" behind his changing rhetoric. I don't think so; hers is not a common-sense conclusion. McCain is a busy man and no lawyer. It's likely he heard from lawyers--think Ted Olson--who filled him in on what the judgment called for. More information, likely both written and verbal, led to his more complete and stronger statement.
Much in Marcus's column struck this reader as badly reasoned, bizarre, or on the edge of name-calling: "the McScalias of the world." But I should reference Justice Scalia's expectation of U.S. deaths as a result of the decision. The decision likely endangers free-lance combatants. Perhaps I should explain, but perhaps that would be explaining the obvious.
McCain is no threat to liberals, as he is one himself.
June 22, 2008 - 20:58 ET by R D HelmAnd given recent rulings that have come down, the idea that we have a "conservative" SCOTUS in this country is utterly laughable.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
RD... Yep..it and it is
June 22, 2008 - 21:03 ET by bigtimerRD...
Yep..it and it is going to be a long time down the road before we do...if ever in my lifetime anyway.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
McCain had the chance to support conservative judges
June 22, 2008 - 21:07 ET by jefflebowskibut instead created the gang of 14. Does anyone seriously think that a President McCain would nominate conservative judges and fight for them against the near communist Judiciary committee? Nah, me neither!
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Evenin' jeff... Even if
June 22, 2008 - 21:21 ET by bigtimerEvenin' jeff...
Even if he did pick real conservatives, they'd have a snow-balls chance in hell of getting out of the Judiciary Committee.
Unless another snow-balls chance in hell happened and we retained the majority again...
Not likely....lol.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
bt, jeff, et al-McCain must be defeated in November. Shoud he...
June 22, 2008 - 21:32 ET by R D Helm...win, the country we all grew up in and came to love will, in the near to long-term, cease to exist in any meaningful form.
It is time the government-schooled dumbMasses received a for-real education in the evils of socialism they were cheated out of by their teachers, oops, I mean indoctrinators.
Nothing other than four years of a Marxist Obama presidency will provide that education, as just warning the American sheeple isn't enough.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
I disagree here RD - Obama will be in for 8
June 22, 2008 - 21:33 ET by Dee Bunk4 years of McCain followed by 4 years of Hillary would be much much better and have the same effect (making people realize that a true conservative is needed). Eight years of Obama will be hard to come back from. No one thought we'd have eight years of Clinton and we did. Obama will be treated 100 times better by the press than Clinton and 1,000 times better than Bush.
Obama could end up with very little to do because he may inherit an economy on the upswing and a more stable Iraq. Like Clinton, he may have no real problems to deal with so increased taxes and social programs might not hurt people enough right away for them to realize it. The media will be giving him a pass and blaming anything they can on Bush.
No matter what happens we are pretty screwed but Obama is the worst thing that can happen. I think he will win regardless of how I vote, but I will never vote for or wish for Obama to win.
Dee, I am not thinking tactically here...
June 22, 2008 - 22:12 ET by R D Helm...but strategically.
An Obama presidency (assuming he actually is the eventual nominee) will be an immediate disaster for this country, as was Jihad Jimmy's. He is one-termer, for sure.
As the dems, who have been in control of the congress since the '06 mid-terms, will probably gain even more congressional seats. As such, I believe the economy is going to tank early in Obama's first term, as gas prices, along with taxes, will be sent soaring by the actions of these brain-dead idiots.
I see gas at $6.00/gal by next summer. Maybe even higher.
Even if McCain is elected, he will be essentially ham-strung by a hostile dem congress, who will thwart his every move. As most of the stupid American sheeple really believe him to be a conservative, his incompetence will essentially destroy the conservative movement as we know it.
An Obama presidency would pobably bring it back from the dead.
If not, then we are screwed anyway.
As I see it, the republicans have <2 years to get their s**t together and be armed and ready in 2012.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
It all depends on what the circumstances are in a few months
June 22, 2008 - 22:16 ET by Dee BunkIf the economy is in the beginning of a recovery then he could benefit from that like Clinton did.
Also, if Iraq is doing good enough to be able to withdraw troops then he will get credit for that also. Not long term, Bush will get credit for that, but the media will make it seem like Obama knew all along that it would be the right time instead of hammering him about how he would have pulled them out while things were still volatile.
I'm just not willing to take chances on long term strategic planning that may never materialize. I think Obama is the worst candidate and will do the most harm to this country so I'll be voting against him.
You are definitely right that Republicans need to get their acts together because either way we need to gain house and Senate seats in 2010. I think McCain could make that more likely because he'll be fighting more with the Republicans than the Democrats. The media will be against McCain and so Republicans speaking out against him will get covered.
It's still pointless to talk about because I don't think McCain stands a chance really.
Evenin' Dee... Funny how
June 22, 2008 - 22:25 ET by bigtimerEvenin' Dee...
Funny how we all see thing isn't it?
I can't see Obama ever winning either...no matter what...so you may very well be right, as I never thought Clinton would be re-elected.
For me the whole danged thing is spooky...with McCain flip-flopping on drilling here now and over 75% of the people in this country agreeing, this may be what turns the tide..but I feel Obama will flip on this too.
I just want the repubs/conservatives to regain and take back the House and Senate eventually...it's the only prayer we have for now.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Hi BT - Seems peaceful here tonight
June 22, 2008 - 22:38 ET by Dee Bunkfor once. I was ready to call it quits for good here with Trach's obnoxiousness because I know it will never end. Between him and all the liberals here it's not a lot of fun here anymore except on a few occasions. I decided to stick it out though because I'm still hoping this place can get back to the days where we all had such great camaraderie and no trouble makers could pit us against each other.
I can totally understand peoples position of not wanting to vote for McCain. If people really believe that Obama will only be in for 4yrs then it could make sense. I just don't believe it. He has a likeable personality and the media will propel him into a second term in my opinion.
I do think that the media will turn nasty on McCain (if he got in which I don't think he will) and the sweet revenge would be how Republicans would get more air time because they'd be talking against a Republican President. They love that.
Exactly right RD
June 22, 2008 - 21:22 ET by Dee BunkThe Roberts Court is not conservative. It's just not as liberal as the Rehnquist court. There are currently 4 committed leftists (Ginsberg, Souter, Bryer & Stevens), Three moderates (Kennedy, Roberts, Alito) and 2 commited conservatives (Scalia and Thomas).
For the court to be balanced, two of the committed leftists would have to be replaced by a moderates or one leftist replaced by a conservative. For the court to be conservative, two of the committed leftists would have to be replaced by conservatives.
I wonder just how afraid she is?
June 22, 2008 - 21:32 ET by pbthinkerI can't imagine that she's any more afraid of McCain and the Supreme Court than I am of Obama and the Supreme Court. We're so close to have a court that won't be "making law". Just one more justice to make it 5-4 (as long as McCain doesn't get talked into a Souter).
God help us if Obama gets elected, it will be years before we can get in this position again and the theme of his court will be, "Let the legislation begin."
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.