Okay, we’ll try this yet again for the totally and completely inept who can’t seem to disabuse themselves from an “anyone but Hillary or Obama” frame of mind.
The argument for McCain, which quite frankly is nothing more than an argument against Hillary or Obama is predicated on a number of issues. But, as I’m beginning to witness, of those issues, there are two that seem to keep coming to the forefront. Allow me to take a logical approach in responding to them both.
Argument #1: Hillary or Obama would push through a Universal Healthcare plan and we simply can’t have that.
Logical Response #1: Let us first remember that Obama says he’s not going to mandate that everyone buy insurance. Secondly, in 1993 Democrat Bill Clinton was President of the United States. Additionally, Congress was too controlled by Democrats. It was at this time that Hillary tried to put through her first Universal Health Care plan and it didn’t pass. Not only did it not pass, it caused such a revolt that it led in large part to the 1994 Republican uprising whereby they gained control of congress.
Argument #2: The next president will likely make 1 (maybe two) appointments to the United State’s Supreme Court.
Logical Response #2: Before proceeding forward with the, not only obvious but, logical response to the aforementioned argument, I feel it necessary to point out the irony in this situation. On the one hand, McCain apologists argue that we must set aside our want for the implementation of conservative principle in favor of the moderation of Senator McCain so that we can “win” the White House. Lack of Conservative principle and ideology being the primary source of our opposition to McCain, his apologists then invoke this very Conservative principle and ideology and apply it towards the quest for desirable Supreme Court appointees. Is this not a gross contradiction on their part? Are they not operating on two complete and totally separate premises?
However, moving forward, let us first not get caught up in rhetoric. Be they Democrat or Republican, they are first and foremost politicians. As such, they will say virtually anything in an effort to court potential voters. In this regard, we will then not place emphasis on what John McCain has recently said with respect to Judicial appointments. Instead, we will look at his record which does not suggest he is favorable towards conservative judges (Gang of 14). Secondly, looking at the 9 member bench, the “conservative” side of the coin comprises judges Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito. The oldest of these four members is Scalia at 72. But, although Scalia is the oldest of the four conservatives at 72, it is worth noting that the average age of justices is 68.
Although most commonly referred to as the swing vote on the bench 71 year old Anthony Kennedy will more often than not lean conservative in his opinions. That leaves us with essentially 5 conservatives to 4 liberals on the bench. These 5 aren’t likely going anywhere soon.
Of the more “liberal” side of the bench, you’ve got John Stevens, Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and David Souter (mind you both Stevens and Souter were appointed by liberal or moderate Republicans. Ford and Bush 41 respectively), the eldest of all 9 members is John Stevens at 88. Ruth Ginsburg is second at 75.
It is not entirely likely that Scalia would step down at 72 years of age or that Kennedy would step down at 71. So, for all practical means that leaves the 88 year old Stevens as the most likely to be replaced in the next president’s term. And, though she’s only three years older than Scalia, perhaps Ruth Ginsburg.
So, as I previously mentioned, that leaves one or two potential Supreme Court appointments for the next president and both of which are on the liberal side of the bench.
Indeed it would be preferable from a conservative standpoint to get another more conservative minded justice appointed to the bench. And, let us suppose John McCain is genuine in his quest to appoint a judge like John Roberts or Samuel Alito. Republicans have neither control of the House or the Senate. And, in fact they have recently lost seats and may very well lose more. As such, while a president McCain may wish to put up judges of that stature, the likely political scenario is that someone like Patrick Lehy, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, would march up to the White House and essentially tell John McCain that he ought not put up an appointee like Roberts or Alito. John McCain, in his “maverick” style tries to then come to a compromise on what sort of justices they might consider.
The worst case scenario is you end up replacing a liberal justice with another liberal.
Though I don’t expect either of these truisms to “take” with McCain’s apologists, those of you teetering on whether to vote McCain or not might want to consider what I’ve just laid out. As this election cycle progresses, we’ll indeed likely see more invocation of the “politics of fear” which are aimed at trumping reason and logic as voters assess their political options. And mind you, while I’ve never been an FDR sort of guy suffice it to say I would caution them by suggesting they heed his resounding words that “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
No comments:
Post a Comment