Theodore Olson, former solicitor general of the U.S., was shown on American and the Courts last night to help clarify John McCain's stance on judicial nominations. He is their point man on such things. I note his position in part to suggest that Olson should be someone we might disagree with, but still be able to respect. His past, the tragedy aspect notwithstanding, and current actions underlines this is a false path to take.
TO noted McCain will not appoint those who would make up (his words) the law (e.g., Bush v. Gore, in which he played a large part) as they went alone. Am I supposed to respect anyone who takes this tack? Disagree with the judicial philosophy, fine. Imply the other side just makes things up, you just crossed the line to "b.s." It made me just plain angry. BTW, when asked about McCain's constitutional philosophy, he jumped to appointments. Not the only, and often the most important, issue in that respect, Ted. This is true even if it is something many focus upon -- though the question was more open-ended.
Someone we would respect, someone with a job on his resume that supposedly was not just there to blindly protect the executive but the law and Constitution overall, would surely use the question to intelligently inform the public. McCain's people on the other hand repeatedly use vitriol and cheap talking points. How can anyone, perhaps other than their loyal base or those who just cannot stand Obama (and honestly, even some of them), really pick this guy for President?
There is an answer, it just isn't that pleasant.