McCain: “Elections Have Consequences”
Email ABC News’ David Chalian Reports: Sen. John McCain reacted to President Obama’s pick of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court by reminding his audience that "elections have consequences."
Sen. McCain said he most likely would not have nominated Judge Sotomayor had he won the presidential election last November. "I committed to nominating people to the US Supreme Court and other courts if I had been elected, and they were what they call strict constitutionalists, who strictly adhere to the Constitution. Justice Sotomayor may be qualified and we will examine that, but I think I would not have nominated her," McCain said during an interview this morning on KQTH FM in Tucson, Arizona. And perhaps undermining a key Republican line of attack on Judge Sotomayor, Sen. McCain said it will be the examination of her legal opinions as a sitting judge — not her words before public audiences — to which he will give the most weight when considering her nomination. Many Republicans and conservative critics of Ms. Sotomayor have pointed to a YouTube video that has been making the rounds of remarks she gave at Duke University Law School in 2005. Judge Sotomayor said at the time, "the Court of Appeals is where policy is made.” She went on to catch herself and added, "I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know.” When asked if quotes like that one from Judge Sotomayor’s past will impact her confirmation vote, Sen. McCain said her rulings will have a greater impact. "I don’t know, a lot of things are said to audiences. I think most of the examination and determination will be made by the actual decisions she has rendered as a member of the court. I think that far outweighs most other considerations, and I think very appropriately so." ABC News’ Jake Tapper reports that an Obama administration official described Sotomayor’s language as "a poor choice of words," but insists her overall record is one as an advocate of judicial restraint. ABC News’ Elizabeth Gorman contributed to this report.
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Mccain we are well aware Of what your Pick would have Been, I mean you Picked Palin for VP Thats why you Lost my friend thank god you did!
Posted by: Angie in Pa | May 26, 2009, 2:09 pm 2:09 pm
“Elections have consequences.” Mr. McCain – you got that right! That’s why you are NOT the President today!
Posted by: Jiva Soul | May 26, 2009, 2:32 pm 2:32 pm
That John McCain WOULDN’T have chosen her lets me know that Obama picked the right person..Your disapproval is not a deterrant, John..it’s an endorsement…you’re over John…nobody cares what you say. Tell Sarah Palin.
Posted by: Stephen | May 26, 2009, 3:05 pm 3:05 pm
You all had better watch. Your President lied when he promised to uphold the Constitution and this is his first of many steps he will be taking to close the Constitution down. I truly hope that you are not so enamored of your pick that you are blinded by the faults of this man.
Posted by: Rita Martin | May 26, 2009, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm
This from the same man who wanted Palin as his VP
Please…..
I think we all know the only bad pick in this century was Palin as VP
Yes, McCain, elections do have consequences and we saw yours, that is why you are not president.
Posted by: lm | May 26, 2009, 3:27 pm 3:27 pm
The writer earlier hit the nail on the head. On the most important possible decision candidate McCain could make, he selected a woefully unqualified, morally questionable Sarah Palin.
Posted by: Gus | May 26, 2009, 3:28 pm 3:28 pm
At least Sarah Palin has morals, questionable or not, unlike Obama.
Posted by: notanobamafan | May 26, 2009, 3:38 pm 3:38 pm
Dave, I would love to hear what you have to say in 2 years. Oh wait, you probably won’t be able to post the truth on blogs like this in two years if Obama has his way. Wake up people! He’ll either take our rights away or we’ll all be to poor to pay for the internet
Posted by: notanobamafan | May 26, 2009, 3:40 pm 3:40 pm
Dave, you need to do some research. Obama is on the record as saying he believes the Constitution is flawed. Obama is on the record as saying that we need to spread the wealth out evenly. He does not say that every man, woman and child must work for those things in life that they desire as I have had to all my life. Quite frankly, Obama and his administration scares me because of people like you who refuse to see the man for what he is.
Posted by: Rita Martin | May 26, 2009, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
Rita, if you’re referring to the “Joe The Plumber” quote about “spread the wealth” – the word “evenly” was not used, and I believe that is a significant word in your sentence. And to pick that particular answer in that context is putting too much weight on it, I believe. There’s a large, large chasm with saying “spread the wealth” or “the Constitution is flawed” and being able to execute the kind of sweeping assault on the Constitution as posts like your original one imply.
Notice I haven’t yet voiced my support for ANYTHING Obama has said or done. What I’ve reacted to is the fear tactics and conspiracy lunacy that I see time and time again on these blogs. Less than 4 hours after seeing his nomination for the new Justice, you researched it enough to call it part of a plan to tear down the Constitution?
I agree there are fierce Obama supporters who seem to back him no matter what. I am not one of those – I watched every debate, read his book, and read quite a bit of rebuttal to him. I don’t agree with everything he’s done.
But I think posts like yours are just too spectacular to be plausible. You are saying that every other aspect of our checks-and-balances government (including every citizen’s right to challenge every law up to the Supreme Court), are just going to break down because of this man. I think you take advantage of the anonymous nature of the internet to post things that you know you’ll never have to substantiate. I think if you truly feel this nominee is dangerous to the Constitution, you’d have to explain how that slipped by G Bush, who nominated her as a federal justice in the first place, Clinton who advanced her to Appeals, etc., and how that fits into some big plot to undermine the Constitution (and slip it by Congress).
It’s just so much more effective, in my view, to say, I disagree with this budget or legislation or whatever because of x, y and z. Taking on any piece of news to broadcast a “Sky is falling” warning is the opposite of that.
Since my previous explanations have been removed, hopefully this one sticks around long enough for you to understand my point, and for the editors to deem somehow non-offensive or whatever.
Posted by: Dave | May 26, 2009, 4:43 pm 4:43 pm
I like the way Dave phrased his response, I do not mind criticizing anyone Democrat or Republican, but the debate gets lost when people make far out accusations that can in no way be substantiated, and what ends up happening is that the original argument they were trying to make (however noble) is lost in dribble.
Posted by: Truotsuko | May 26, 2009, 5:00 pm 5:00 pm
The only way to decide if she’s unbiased, fair, and correctly interprets law is to review her case history.
Posted by: LongT | May 26, 2009, 5:04 pm 5:04 pm
McCain demonstrates, once again, why he ain’t president………..such profound insights…………
Palin has morals? Any morals Palin has are clearly observed in their breach…..
Posted by: Sammy | May 26, 2009, 5:05 pm 5:05 pm
Dave, you are absolutely right! I think most people are really like you, trying to understand all the issues and points rather than being either absolutely pro- or anti-. It is those, again on the two extremes of the political spectrum, who make outrageous, sometimes ludicrous charges
that lower the debate. What we need are more facts and reasonable thinking, and far less unsupported opinions and name calling.
Posted by: BachisBest | May 26, 2009, 5:48 pm 5:48 pm
Since Obama had no real qualifications for being president except that he was black.It stands to reason his choice would be the first of her heritage. It doesn’t matter if she is a few bricks short of a load. She is a failure as a judge and is just a puppet of the leftists. She will make the constitution a roll of toilet paper. since she is suppose to follow it. how will the left destroy it for their fun to watch real Americans cringe. When will the leftists break the camels back? When that happens we should show absolutely no compromise in our response to their acts.
Posted by: John3 | May 26, 2009, 11:41 pm 11:41 pm
If confirmed, Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit, said “Sonia is an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind. She brings a wealth of knowledge and hard work to all her endeavors on our court. It is both a pleasure and an honor to serve with her.” (NY Times)
Take a look at the Republican posts here – One-by-one with their trunks, elephants grab the tail of the elephant in front of them and march – LOCK-STEP…sad when your whole world view looks like elephant butt.
Posted by: sandy | May 27, 2009, 12:14 am 12:14 am
Let’s see – McCain wants the judge to stick to the constituion. He wouldn’t have nominated her. So, would he have nominated according to his conservative standards? How does liberal or conservative fit in with sticking to the constitution? When is our history have we seen a Supreme Court Justice stick to the contstition – what does that mean? Remember, McCain believes the economy is fundamentally sound.
Posted by: Don | May 27, 2009, 9:10 am 9:10 am
And once again the nation will see why the Party of No got spanked in the last 2 elections, and will continue to lose support and power. It seems everyone but them gets it…..
Posted by: SearamblerOne | May 27, 2009, 9:25 am 9:25 am
I quit listenting to McCain after he picked Sarah, i can see Alaska, Palin as his VP pick.
His first important choice as a candidate and he picks her over a Tom Ridge or even Joe Liberman. Caving into Dobson over their stances on reprocution rights.
Wrinkly old dude–peace out!
Posted by: scott jeffries | May 27, 2009, 11:21 am 11:21 am
I love that people still criticize McCain for picking Palin, especially now, in light of the huge disappointment Biden has become.
Posted by: try to be logical | May 27, 2009, 12:22 pm 12:22 pm
sandy – experience isn’t the only criteria that counts in selecting a supreme court justice — the number of cases that have been overturned is equally important, as is the opinions of other legal scholars.
Posted by: someone new | May 27, 2009, 12:26 pm 12:26 pm
Hey Dave,
I consider myself a staunch Obama supporter, I also have read atleast one of his books, I get his weekly address, I watch and read everything the guy says.
I think he is a good man and I approve of everything he has done so far…Even when I think he’s off message on something I may have thought to have done differently, when I understand his reasoning, I can see his point.
I just wanted to say that the comments you have made have been very intelligent and very elegantly written. I thought you made some really good points…
And I think many feel as you do…
Thank you for your thoughtfulness…
Posted by: theafalcon200 | May 27, 2009, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm
Palin has more morals in her little finger than Osorry—-Every one should have known what a joke he was by picking Biden as his VP— What a joke!!!!!!!! Both of them are a complete embarrasment to the United States !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: countrygirl_74 | May 27, 2009, 2:01 pm 2:01 pm
“sandy – experience isn’t the only criteria that counts in selecting a supreme court justice — the number of cases that have been overturned is equally important, as is the opinions of other legal scholars.
”
the cases overturned only reflect the other side is in power.
Scalia, the most activist judge on the bench, often votes to overturn cases that stymie his desire to have an all powerful chief executive.
He’s despises the the constitution and seeks to have a singular head of the govt, not 3 equal parties
Posted by: Doggone | May 27, 2009, 3:11 pm 3:11 pm
I laugh at all the comments being posted here. It’s all ludicrous.
Posted by: tvgirl | May 27, 2009, 6:17 pm 6:17 pm
i think it is a good nomination and i think we should put party politics away and move forward
Posted by: kenroy | May 27, 2009, 9:13 pm 9:13 pm
At Least McCain / Palin would have people working by now, not just a bunch of hope on a dope rope!
Posted by: OhioModerate | May 27, 2009, 9:48 pm 9:48 pm
We need a Justice who can administer the Law, not feel bad for every excuse that comes accrossed the bench!
Excuses are like noses, everybodys got one!
Posted by: USAveggies | May 27, 2009, 10:58 pm 10:58 pm