McCain highlights judicial appointments

Judges cannot make law they can only interpret the law and decide if a decision or legislative law is constitutional. This article is a buch of BS.

David, the article is pointing out that judges are, in fact, making law. That is what's B.S. What you are saying is you agree with McCain

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Wasn't McCain, himself, one of the founding fathers?
Seriously, I saw this speech and I agree that the candidates do need to have a real debate on the constitution and the limitations of powers. Sen. McCain is the nominee of a party that has distorted, bent and broken the limitations on the Excecutive branch for nearly eight years now.
Senator Obama is the only candidate in the field who has taught constitutional law ...so, as an Obama supporter, this is a debate I welcome.

What did you expect from McLame? The GOP needs to draft that Ron Paul guy. He was the only one of them that didn't sound like a liar.

The constitution is a living document which must be managed as such in the courts. All you ignorant republicans who watch FOX, CNN, and all other dummytubes should go to college and learn this. It is very sad, so much ignorance.

I was watching McCain's speech at Wake Forest on CNN, but it was cut off and the station went to other "news". I checked the other all day news channels; they were also rehashing Clinton-Obama poll numbers and similar mind numbing stories. I went to the web hoping to be able to hear or read the remainder of the speech, but could only find the written opinions of the speech from other news organizations. So much for allowing the public access to first hand information to form its' own opinions.

Bingo. For too long the Republican party has tried to cover thier inability to pass the legislation they want as the fault of the judiciary. Part of the result of thier campaign has been the steady erosion of trust in our judiciary.

But its simple. If they don't like the rulings of the judges the constitution clearly gives the congress and senat the ability to draft new laws or amend the constitution.

I wish the news media would call them on this simple fact more often.

Republican lingo:

"Activist judge": A judge whose decisions I disagree with, even if I know nothing about law.
"Cult": A religion other than my own.
"Media bias": An news coverage or commentary contrary to my values.
"Terrorist": A person who defends his country when invaded by the U.S.

BS you say! Since I am reading a copy of the constitution I cannot find any portion that says that it is a constitutional right to kill unborn children. Oh that's right the courts ruled that it was - they legislated from the bench. Which law did they decide was constitutional or unconstitutional in this case? There are many other examples that could be obviously brought out. If the court operated in a correct manner it would not even have ruled on this subject. I believe John McCain is right and we need judges and justices who will apply the rule of constitutional law instead of personal preferences.

Contrary to Mr Salinger's assertion, judges do make law. Case decision is precedent which becomes more important than you might think during subsequent litigation. Because the U.S. Supreme Court decided many many years ago that it gets the final word on what the Constitution means, whatever pronouncement it makes in a case opinion, stating what the Constitution means, becomes de facto what the Constitution means. Similarly for its pronouncements about what a piece of legislation means. The Court created the concept of a general Constitutional right to privacy, as well as other rights, and created de facto laws such as "Miranda rights" - these may or may not be considered desirable, depending on your point of view, but they are undeniably "making law".

Activist judges have allowed the authority to regulate interstate commerce (a power granted by the constitution) to be abused and extend the federal governments reach too far.

Judges that behave this way are traitors who trample our great country's constitution.

The article is not BS, consider the broad activities of the Warren court. That being said I see no reason not to have an aggressive judiciary. We need not be limited by the intentions of the founders. On their reasoning, we could keep slaves and prevent women from voting.

That's what he is saying!!

Obviously this commentator is neither a lawyer and knows nothing about the law. It is the greatest problem concerning jurisprudence in the modern world, for unnaccountable judges arrogantly presume to legislate all the time. Just look at Massachusetts. In Canada, they are the biggest problem of all in a politically correct experiment in national socio-engineering. Go back to school Salinger, for the BS is in thinking that the law is not built up by the precedent of irresponsible judges' opinions. When you are then properly educated and experienced in the Law, then come back and make an opinion. McCain has prescience and courage
in so saying and has isolated exactly the problem in electing politically correct liberals who want to "engineer" how society runs from on high.

Mr. Salinger's first sentence is certainly factually correct. His second sentence is opinion based on personal political bias.
Can anyone deny that Federal judges, mostly liberal judges, have in numerous cases exhibited blatantly their personal political bias in overturning the will of the people at the ballot box? Several CA and MA cases are a examples of this.

David - Where have you been? Roe v. Wade is about as stark a reminder of Judges "making up the law" as anything. Regardless of anyones view of the issue, in this case, Judges set the "rules" up for abortion. This is something that should have been left to Congress...or better yet, to the States. There are many examples of Judges legislating from the bench. Many of the great injustices, such as the internment of Japaneses-Americans during WWII came from the bench, not from Congress. Chief Justice Roger Tawney, declared that Blacks could never be granted equal protection under the law or civil rights in the Dred Scott case. There are thousands of examples. Maybe you should read a book?

But they have been making law; that's the whole point. It needs to stop.

Wow... will John McCain ever run out of ways to pander to the extremists on the Right?

Well, this notion is novel - judges not preempting legislators by making law - but not how the system works. Judges rule on cases and set legal precedent that is used as "case law" from there on out. They can go so far as to overturn laws or overrule lesser courts. Citing a court's ruling from the past in support of your case is as common (more common?) as new laws being created.

I don't think I understand what McCain is trying to say. Federal judges are NOT beholden to the president or legislature. That independence is fundamental to what the founding fathers intended for our nation. Imagine if a judge was required to rule based on presidential whims instead of using his/her sound judgment. No, thanks! Judges set right the wrongs that the legislature and the executive create by striking down bad laws or reinterpreting them. That's how the balance works.

I totally agree that we need to appoint good judges, but the portrayal that judicial independence is a bad thing or not exactly what the founding fathers had in mind is dishonest and self-serving for a current legislator and potential future president. Lay off the judges, McCain, and please stop trying to reconstruct the balance of government in your favor before you even get in office.

The article isn't BS. McCain's points may or may not be, but the perception, as it has been put forth by the republican party, is that judges are legislating without being elected to the legislature. This article is about the continued propaganda concerning the WAY that judges are interpreting laws.

I live in Massachusetts. In this state, a group of judges interpreted the marriage law to say that any pair of consenting adults could marry, because it never said man and woman in the wording of the law. This seems like legislation, because tradition had kept men from marrying other men, but it was, as you said, only overruling tradition and reinterpreting law.

The Constitution does not grant judges any authority to "make law", it grants that power to the Congress, and grants to the Executive the responsibility to enforce the laws Congress makes. Unfortunately we have never had an Executive that is willing to assert it's Constitutional authority to enforce in spite of an illegal interpretation made by the Judiciary.

And contrary to liberal belief, the Constitution is only a "living document" to the extent that it provides within itself the means for revising it. Too bad liberals are unwilling to actually follow the process given to them to change the Constitution. You want to legalize abortion, pass a Constitutional Amendment making it legal.

Whether or not Sen. McCain gets to or will appoint "constructionist" judges remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that the country has been plagued with activist Supreme Court judges making law. For a some prominent examples, consider the myriad of regulations and laws passed under the guise of the "Interstate Commerce" clause. That clause was included solely to prevent one state from passing a fee or tax on the goods entering the state from another state and not all the nonsense that has been mandated by the Court. For some more examples, read the Constitution and see if you can find stated Rights to "Privacy", "Abortion", "Free medical Care", "Housing" and all the other rights that the Liberals are claiming. They are not there, but have been 'legislated' by activist courts.

What these right-wingers mean by "activist judges" is nothing more than judges who make decisions they don't like (usually decisions that please their opponents on the political left). Judicial activism is fine with them as long as it's *conservative* judicial activism.

I wouldn't vote for McCain for dogcatcher. Why? Judicial appointments is one of the many reasons why not. Because I don't feel that the country needs more justices like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito--and the last two would never have gotten on the court if Bush's friends had not helped him steal two presidential elections in a row (for Jesus).

You've got to be kidding me! These past eight year have proven, if nothing else, that the Republicans including McCain, Bush, Cheney have no respect for the U.S. Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. They have made laws, acting with executive privilege, used signing doctrines and invented a form of abusive centralized executive power that has our founding father rolling in their graves.

In their zealotry they have invaded the privacy rights of individuals. conducted government in secrecy, abrogated the laws of due process, arrested, detained and tortured prisoners with recourse or access to representation -- in effect they have acted like tin horn dictators and if that is not unconstitutional than this country has no standards of right and wrong.

The Republicans have appointed very activist judges on the district and even Supreme Court level who are legislating their repressive policies. There is much concern, even among Republicans themselves that new appointees have been using the activist conservative majority were flouting stare decisis and overturning a record number of precedents long established in the Courts. Activist Right Wing Republican want activist judges that will overturn certainly Roe vs. Wade but also desegregation, separation of church and state and egalitarian schools giving teachers the right to teach not brainwash students.

Come on people, wake up, it is the extreme right wing that is using court appointments to make laws that democratically elected representatives will not go against the will of their voters. It is the extreme right wing, George Bush and John McCain who want the court to change the laws to restrict voting rights. It is John McCain and Bush that want the courts to authorize secret surveilance of U.S. citizens. Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito are two of the most radical activist judges we've seen in centuries.

Extremists who want control are blowing smoke all over by screaming "liberal activist" when in fact they are radically changing our basic human and constitutional rights. The Republicans don't own the constitution. The Republicans don't even know it or respect it anymore with the possible exception of Arlen Spector. Let's have a debate about freedom, liberty and justice because these are things the Republicans don't want in this country anymore.

The Republicans want an extremely powerful executive with unchecked powers to detain citizens, to carry-out government in secret, and to surveil private citizens. I can't think of anything more un-American and un-Constitutional than these things.

An all-embracing centralized government that is in your bedroom, inside your computer CPU, monitoring your cell phone, controlling your schools, mandating the role of churches and prayer, conducting government business in secret, and spending money with wild abandon acting as policemen around the world is ANTI-CONSERVATIVE as well. It is abusive centralized government and by firing and replacing judges and stacking the Supreme Court with justices to who they have applied a litmus test is their method to contravene basic American values of equality, liberty, freedom from government intrusion and fundamental justice.