Well…Bush is not a dictator and such things need to pass through Congress so not sure what you would expect him to do. That said he was definitely on about these things:
Flag Burning Amendment:
Prayer in Schools
Roe v. Wade
So yeah…I’d say Bush tried on these issues. Luckily we have checks and balances in government which got in his way.
Bush II hasn’t had the opportunity to replace any of the “liberal” judges. O’Connor was a swing and Rehnquist a conservative.
This idea that presidents don’t have any power in this area because they haven’t been able to get RvW overturned yet is foolishness. SC appointments are a matter of luck and timing, not presidential will.
To be sure. And would those checks and balances go away if McCain got elected (though I don’t see how he could be at this point)? Would the environment be more conducive to McCain getting such an agenda through (even assume he actually would want to, or that he’s more fervent about this stuff that GW is/was…which I highly doubt)? After all, when GW was first elected the Pub’s had a majority in both the house and senate…which they don’t enjoy today and are unlikely to enjoy again for the foreseeable future, no?
And what all this has to do with the DJIA I’m still failing to see. 
-XT
Ok, that’s a reasonable assertion…though, Congress has to approve any nomination, and in the current environment they are unlikely to approve anyone who is going to go out and crusade to overturn RvW (and this is even assuming the OTHER justices would go along in a majority). A president can’t just appoint someone by fiat after all.
I never said that presidents have no power on this at all…but that their powers are limited and that it is unlikely, IMHO, that McCain would be able to push through such an agenda, even assuming he is A) even elected at all and B) actually would want too. Even assuming both of those unlikely events I don’t see how he COULD push something like this through the current political environment.
So…to my mind this is the same kind of frantic handwaving as we heard when GW was running against Gore (and even when GW was running against Kerry). People seem bound and determined to worry about this issue even though it seems to me to be a non-issue…while we have REAL issues that need dealing with. Bread and circus and all that…this is simply more fodder for the masses on both sides, something they can get riled up about without anything ever getting done, and without the various political puppetmasters ever having to address REAL issues.
YMMV of course.
-XT
They can’t appoint someone by fiat, but Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are all on the Court–demonstrating that justices who would most likely overturn RvW are appointable.
Yes, the Senate can refuse when the nominee is a freak like Bork or a lightweight like Miers. But Alito and Roberts (whose views are hard to pin down) are now on the court. There was no argument to be made against them.
As you pointed out though, they weren’t critical (and this again assumes all those you mentioned would be in favor of overturning RvW in any case…which I doubt, especially in Roberts)…THIS time would be different though if one of the key ‘liberal’ justices decided to retire. I doubt McCain would get through anyone who wasn’t a total compromise candidate who would appeal to both the left and right…which will be a REALLY good trick, no? IOW a centrist of some kind.
I’m cool with that…because I don’t think that even if he could, by some black magic, bring in an anti-RvW fire-eater, if this would somehow overturn it. And of course, even if it DID overturn RvW it would simply put the question back on the states…not make abortion illegal. It would also, IMHO, finish off the Republican party…in the next election it would be the Dems vs <insert some new party> with the Republicans going the way of the Wigs and the Federalists.
-XT
My point is that the things we as voters worry about aren’t always the things we should be worried about.
Well then, on this point we are in complete agreement. I think that in general people worry about things that they shouldn’t…and don’t worry about the things they should.
-XT
So, you think the Senate can, politically, block all appointments to the court if they think RvW is in danger? I don’t think they can.
Yes, they can block a nutter like Bork, and yes they would have fought against Miers. But most SC nominees will no longer state a position on Roe (I think they used to), so what’s the evidence of “moderation” that the Senate can look for?
And I don’t think it’s reasonable to push the responsibility for the court off on the senate. It’s my responsibility as a voter to keep the opportunity out of the hands of a hostile president.
Actually they sort of can by appointing a new justice when the Senate is in recess. Eventually the Senate must still approve the appointment but a President could put anyone on the bench for some length of time if they really want to. Bit of a fudge, I know, but there FWIW.
Some people consider these REAL issues.
Apart from that just because a President cannot dictate new laws does not mean I want to see a President who works towards goals I disagree with. If I think he might I do not want to vote for him. As noted above Bush did push for these things. Just because we dodged some bullets on these does not mean I want to continue the game of Russian Roulette willingly.
It makes a great deal of sense to choose your candidate based on social policy positions, in fact. It’s very difficult for a President to have a measurable impact on domestic issues other than hot-button personal freedom stuff.
I have to admit that McCain threw me off with his talk about the “litmus test.” I went back to read the debate transcript because I was trying to sort out another point he made about the abortion issue. And then I realized I had misunderstood him the first time I heard him answer Schieffer’s question.
However, Schieffer wasn’t as easily fooled, because he asked McCain for clarification 2 more times.
Schieffer’s first approach was straightforward and simple enough…
Schieffer: Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue?
McCain first meandered around in a wild rambling smokescreen, but after Schieffer pressed on a 2nd and 3rd time, McCain finally offered this, which I had missed on the TV screen…
McCain: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications.
Oh well, I guess that cancels out what he said about not having a litmus test.
Ultimately I think McCain has very firm views on Roe v. Wade, and abortion. And I think he flip-flops because he doesn’t want some of us to pin him down on those views.
While I am pro-choice, I find Palin’s position far more defensible than making rape/incest exceptions. If it is about not killing babies, then why punish the baby for the father’s bad behaviour? If you make the exception, then you are obviously only interested in punishing the mother for her perceived immorality by forcing her to carry to term.
THIS!