Because the next President is likely to choose Justices that will determine the outcome of important cases for the next generation, the stakes for the Supreme Court could not be higher than they are in this election.
The Judicial Confirmation Network (www.judicialnetwork.com) helpfully released a chart comparing the positions of the Democratic and Republican parties on federal courts and judges.
The chart is based upon the positions outlined in the two parties' respective platforms from their conventions, as well as the statements made by the presidential candidates for each party.
To each of the following questions, the Republican Party answers YES and the Democrat Party answers NO.
Calls judicial activism a threat?
Opposes Kelo eminent domain decision?
Opposes Court granting legal rights to enemy combatants?
Opposes Court's interference with death penalty?
Opposes courts setting abortion policies?
Opposes judges undermining traditional marriage laws?
Opposes judges injecting foreign law into American jurisprudence?
Opposes Senate inquiry into a judicial candidate's religious convictions?
The Judicial Confirmation Network is an organization of citizens joined together to support the confirmation of highly qualified individuals to the Supreme Court of the United States. It works to ensure that the confirmation process for all judicial nominees is fair and that every nominee sent to the full Senate receives an up or down vote.
The Judicial Confirmation Network understand that the proper role of a judge or justice is to interpret the law and the Constitution – not make up the law and deprive the people of the right to govern ourselves—and a judge or a justice should not use the power of the court to impose his or her personal or political agenda on the people.
Wendy E. Long, Judicial Confirmation Network general counsel:
“There is perhaps no clearer distinction between the Republican and Democratic parties than their positions on judges, and particularly the appointments that each candidate would make to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because the next President is likely to choose Justices that will determine the outcome of important cases for the next generation, the stakes for the Supreme Court could not be higher than they are in this election.
"John McCain and the Republican platform identify judicial activism as a threat to self-government and reject judges legislating from the bench. Barack Obama and the Democratic platform do not, which is not surprising given that Obama has said he prefers liberal activist judges and would not appoint those who practice judicial restraint.
"The Republican platform condemns the Court's erosion of private property rights, its granting legal rights to enemy combatants, its interference with the death penalty, its intrusion into the realm of abortion policy, its undermining of traditional marriage laws, and its injection of foreign law into American jurisprudence. The platform is clear and specific about the problems of the courts and what the model of the judiciary should be.
"The Democrats are silent about all of this. Instead, their platform recites self-evident propositions that fail to illuminate the differences between the parties, including statements such as: 'Our Constitution is not a nuisance.' It's odd that anyone would even evaluate the Constitution in such terms, but the reason the Democrats don't consider the Constitution a 'nuisance' is that they have no qualms about running around it in order to impose liberal policies on the American people."
I’ll simplify this: if you want a President who will appoint Justices who will strike “under God” from “The Pledge of Allegiance,” Obama is the one to bring about that change. If you want “good” change, but not “bad” change, don't be insane and make it McCain.
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.