If you care about civil liberties, you don't want Sen. John McCain in the White House. When they pull the lever in the voting booth, many people don't think about the fact that the president chooses the judges who control their lives. This is true not just for the U.S. Supreme Court, but for all of the federal courts.
"Senator McCain's views on abortion and the kind of judges he would choose for the courts are almost the same as the president's," The New York Times, June 17, 2008, said, "How Close McCain Is to Bush Depends on the Issue."
President Bush's choices for the Supreme Court are so far to the right that they only need one more vote to get a majority. If either President Bush or Mr. McCain were to make one more appointment as president, it would be a huge step back for human rights.
On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that terror suspects held at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay could not be denied the right to file a habeas corpus petition to challenge why they were being held.
The news stories of the day said that democracy had won a big victory. The piece you linked to is just one of many TV, radio, and newspaper stories that completely missed the point.
That's a scary conclusion for anyone who said this was a "great victory" or something like that.
This choice was almost a bad one.
A 9-0 vote should be used to protect the right to habeas corpus.
This 5-4 decision is like the U.S. justice system, which has the most people in jail than any other country. Almost as much as in China. That is a shocking indictment of a "sink or swim" society, and it makes me wonder how well your courts are upholding the law and how barbaric we have let the United States become. Law and order are good, but we don't have much order despite all the laws.
John McCain wrote the law that takes away the historical protection of habeas corpus in order to stop the courts from being able to keep an eye on things. And the judges he liked the most, the ones he would choose, voted against this important constitutional check on illegal government actions.
The people who didn't agree with the decision were Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas, who Bush senior lied about when he said Thomas was the most qualified person he could pick.
Our future TSARs, Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts, would love to have one more reactionary vote to chip away at the foundations of our Constitution and end individual rights.
How it works for the TSARs is as follows: Everything is about business and government. People always have rights.
In March, a court that was split 4-4 in Warner-Lambert v. Kent didn't have the five votes needed to decide if a manufacturer of an FDA-approved drug could be sued for product liability.
You were one vote away from losing your right to sue for injuries caused by dangerous drugs like Trasylol, which causes kidney failure, Ortho Evra, which causes strokes and heart attacks, MRI contrast solutions with gadolinium, which are deadly for kidney patients, Zyprexa, which causes diabetes, and Vioxx, which kills. And those are just a few of the dangerous drugs that you can think of right now without digging into the past.
With one more vote, the United States Supreme Court could have given pharmaceutical companies legal immunity. This is because the law says that once a dangerous or unsafe drug has been approved by the FDA, no more questions can be asked in a court of law.
The TSARs want to give the FDA full control over how drugs are regulated, which has been shown to be bad for business. They also want to let drug companies make money by selling questionable and sometimes dangerous drugs without giving victims a chance to hold them accountable in front of a judge and jury.
Don't think for a second that won't happen.
We need a Democratic president because of this.
Voters should be proud of giving Obama and Clinton their votes. It was a very important race. Sen. Clinton ran a great campaign against a culture of sexism, and Sen. Obama showed that what mattered was the person, not the colour of their skin.
It can be more, though.
A ticket with Obama and Clinton means more than just getting the votes of 18 million Clinton supporters and trying to get women to vote for the Democratic ticket. It would show in two ways that Obama wants real change.
First, Obama could show on a very personal level that he is willing to change himself in order to change the country.
Second, that action as a leader would make him the most dedicated Democrat leader since Franklin Roosevelt.
Since Sandra Day O'Connor left the Supreme Court in January 2006, there have been changes to abortion, job discrimination, campaign finance, and racial policies. On June 10, 2008, USA Today wrote on page one about these changes.
In short, Justice O'Connor's legacy has become less important.
Imagine how bad it would be if McCain chose the next Supreme Court justice, giving the TSARs a strong majority on the court.
We are right on the edge.
There must be a Democrat in the White House.
A Democratic win is guaranteed if Obama and Clinton run together. We need a Democratic win to protect ourselves from right-wing abuse on the Supreme Court and to keep human rights safe.
Now is not the time to take chances. Way too much is at stake. So much needs to be kept safe.
