McCain discusses judges

July 2, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain spoke in Indianapolis Tuesday at the National Sheriff’s Association’s annual conference. Obviously, his speech was geared toward law enforcement and why he is the right candidate for them to elect, but he said some things the legal community would find interesting. He said nowhere is the influence of the president more critical than in the power of judicial nominations.

He brought up the point that the next president of the country will be nominating hundreds of people to the federal courts, and those choices will have far-reaching consequences on Americans, police departments, courts, and juries.

“Yet one badly reasoned opinion, by one overreaching judge, can undo it all. Just like that, evidence of guilt can be suppressed, or a dangerous predator released because of judge-made laws having little or nothing to do with the requirements of the Constitution. Even worse, when such opinions issue from the highest court, they set a precedent for many more injustices, and they add one more obstacle to the work of law enforcement.”

McCain used the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Patrick Kennedy v. Louisiana, in which the high court overturned the death penalty sentence for Kennedy, convicted of raping his stepdaughter. He implied if his Democratic opponent from Illinois, Sen. Barack Obama, is elected president, he would nominate more judges like the ones who overturned Kennedy’s sentence (See the June 26 First Impressions blog post  about that decision).

Even if you don’t agree with McCain’s views about the courts, he raises a good point. The next president of the United States will have to make many judicial nominations, possibly even one or more to the U.S. Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see if the candidates continue to mention the high-profile cases ruled upon by the SCOTUS this year as they campaign, or if judicial nominees will be left by the wayside for topics the general public has more interest in like the economy, gas prices, and health care.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT