The Theme Of The 2008 Prez Race: Ugh

I haven't made it much of a secret that I don't like the idea of voting for John McCain this November. But this is a fantastic post written by Captain Ed Morrissey on the subject; here's an excerpt:

The election will present American voters with real choices on policy, especially on taxation, foreign policy, expansion of government, and national security issues, despite the complaints of the disappointed. It also provides a stark choice on the direction of the judiciary.

At least two Supreme Court justices will likely leave in the next four years, both of them from the Left, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The election will determine whether the court continues to turn in a more constructionist direction, forcing policy back to Congress where it belongs, or whether activists can outlast the constructionists. Jurists nominated by Obama or Hillary will have a much different idea of the Supreme Court's role than those nominated by McCain.

Captain Ed generalizes all anti-McCainiacs into the Coulter camp who believes that Hillary is to the right of McCain or that McCain and the Dems have no real policy differences, and that's unfortunate, since it leaves no room for those who oppose McCain for tactical reasons, like me. However, the post highlights one reason to vote for McCain that's hard to ignore: the positive direction in recent years of the Supreme Court.

The fact that Stevens and Ginsburg could leave soon makes a vote for John McCain very tempting. The Supreme Court was originally designed to be the guardian of the Constitution, and has instead tried to rewrite that document, much for the worse. Two new young originalist judges would solidify the constructionist majority for years; even a second FDR would have trouble packing the court, since there's no way for him to hold office for thirteen years. A wholesale shift in the way the Supreme Court treats legislation--using the Constitution less as a "living document" and more as a foundation for freedom and limited government--could potentially dampen or counteract whatever negative effects McCain could have on American conservatism.

However, that assumes that McCain's appointments to the bench would be constructionists. As I've written before, I think there has to be some skepticism about McCain's willingness to fight Senate Demcrats intent on interpreting the "advise and consent" clause as carte blanche to pick Supreme Court justices instead of the president. Still, the "Gang of Fourteen" issue may have been a bit overblown, and it certainly is a plus that we still have the power to filibuster now that Republicans are in the minority. The "nuclear option" would be a terrible irony right now for Senate Republicans.

I think I shall still wait and see whom John McCain picks as his running mate. Whatever happens this election season, we need to make sure that there's a good conservative leader to run in 2012 or 2016.