Best comment I've seen so far about the debate:
Buford Gooch: CNN and ABC already had focus groups of “uncommitted” voters saying it was Biden by a landslide. I think too many of them mistook “uncommitted to candidate” for “uncommitted to an asylum”.
And am I the only one who had a problem with this answer to which long-held view Biden has changed?
BIDEN: Yes, I can. When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view and had been trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was -- had been a good student.
And it didn't take me long -- it was hard to change, but it didn't take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference.
That's why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don't like and the American people wouldn't like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties.
I think Biden got this exactly backwards. Judges are not supposed to rule based on ideology; they rule based on constitutionality. No one else seems to be talking about this one, so maybe I am overreacting. But it simply doesn't matter what changes Biden would or would not like to see. The only thing that matters is what the Constitution says. It just seems to me that this is a gross misunderstanding of the judicial system.
Of course, he didn't do so hot on the legislative branch either.
Posted by Sarah at October 3, 2008 05:37 AM | TrackBackMy husband noticed it and said for that reason alone, no one should vote for Biden.
Posted by: Amy at October 3, 2008 06:25 AMMy husband went ballistic on that one. He could not believe that a so called constitutionalist would or could admit he voted for a judge on ideology. I had to calm him down to get him to listen to the rest.
Posted by: Ruth H at October 3, 2008 10:05 AMYep - it turns the judiciary into yet another legislative branch, imposing law where there's not sufficient popular support for it...
Indeed, "the ideology of that judge" *does* make a big difference - whether they believe that we're governed by the Constitution or not.
And the arrogance of his projecting "and the American people wouldn't like" (does he meet many normal "American people" on Amtrak?) just astounds me.
Posted by: kannie at October 3, 2008 10:48 AMIt's something we've heard Obama spouting once in a while. People have forgotten (or just misunderstand) that judges are supposed to be impartial, and are supposed to do their best to uphold the Constitution.
But, when fairness means to you "what you perceive to be fair", you believe that impartiality equals ideology. The biggest issue I have with the left.
Posted by: Deltasierra at October 3, 2008 12:39 PMYour not overreacting Sarah, I’m on the same page. I sat there think, he’s got it all wrong. (But then again, I said that a lot when he spoke). And I think that’s why nobody has gotten around to this one yet, he made so many mistakes and stated falsehoods it’s hard to remember them all.
But good for you for bringing it up, it certainly needs to be talked about and highlighted as this type of view that is dangerous if elected to the WH. It’s one of the most fundamental differences of the two party’s and considering that the next president will most likely be appointing three SC Justices, it’s extremely important for the McCain to keep talking about this.
No, you're not overreacting. I heard it too and it set my brain on fire. I DO NOT WANT JUDGES LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH. Their job is to INTERPRET the law through the lens of the Constitution of the United States. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Ideology should NEVER enter into it. This is one slot where, as Sarah Palin put it, their opinions should be checked at the door.
He not only didn't do so hot on the Hezbollah situation either.