marjorie says...
Ruth Marcus has an interesting WaPo column today discussing the implications of an Obama or McCain presidency on the future make-up of the Supreme Court. She laments the fact that this critical function of the presidency--picking Supreme Court justices--is paid scant attention during campaigns and looks at the recent decision by the Supremes that Guantanamo Bay military prisoners are due Habeas Corpus rights as a way to highlight what direction the two might go.
Well, in particular, she savages McCain's inconsistencies as a candidate in light of his stated positions. For instance, at first, Marcus says, he had a somewhat mild reaction to the news that the Court affirmed the rights of Guantanamo prisoners. Then, apparently, he got riled, calling it "One of the worst decisions in the history of this country."
Marcus says this shows the direction he'd most likely take in appointing a Supreme or two.
She points out that it contradicts his position that he would "shut down Guantanamo -- on his first day in office, no less -- and ship its remaining prisoners to Fort Leavenworth.
"After all, the whole point of stashing the detainees at Guantanamo was to avoid giving them the rights that everyone acknowledged they would have on U.S. soil. So the McCain solution -- sending them to Leavenworth -- would create the very situation he now decries."
So, which is it John?Marcus continues:
"As his evolving reactions to the Guantanamo case may indicate, legal issues are not at the center of McCain's policy interests. But they are a top priority for conservative activists, which makes me all the more nervous about what a McCain presidency would mean for the court. "
(FYI-You can see how McCain stacks up to Bush, position-wise, by following the link into the NYT. Trip over at the NMI turned me onto that story).
|