Try comparing apples to apples here a little bit. The big problem witht he left is they don't really care if they get a comparison right.
Hagee endorsed McCain. Hagee is not McCain pastor, political advisor, business associate or even friend.
Wright, and the New evenly controversail Pastor Moss are Obama's Pastors and spiritual advisors. Ayers is Obama's friend.
If you want to go with all the people that endorse Obama look no further than the racist New Black Panther Party, Hamas and Farahkan! I would rather have Hagee's endorsement than any one of them!
Where does it address McCain's understanding of Marbury v Madison? Any the suntimes weak leftist attack is a poor understanding of conservative judges! As a lawyer you should know that a Judge takes a job to uphold the constitution of the United States. Produce a better article where Scalia or any of the other conservative judges want to over-turn M v. M. That is such a ridiculous attack.
Maybe you need to do more research on conservative judges!
Selling out. LOL, he accepted an endorsement. McCain never called an anti-american terrorist a friend or sat in a church for 20+ years where the pastor states that the US government put AIDS in the American community and repeatedly says "God Damn America!"
No. What you're not getting (see, I'll individualize it instead of defining you by stereotype) is that the way I see it, I have a choice. None of these guys are perfect. They BOTH have associates that I find offensive. I find them EQUALLY offensive... I think Rev Hagee is a sick SOB who shoiuldn't be embraced by ANY politician.
Where did I say that ANY judge wants to overthrow Marbury v Madison? That WAS, however, pretty much what McCain said, which is why he could walk on hot coals and I wouldn't vote for him.
However, anyone who knows Constitutional Law knows that the constitution is not intended to be read literally like a fundie reads a bible or koran. From day 1 Marbury v Madison, BY IT'S INTERPRETATION of the Constitution said there was a right of judicial review in order to effectuate the RIGHTS guaranteed by the Constitution. Yet NOWHERE DOES THE CONSTItUTION PROVIDE FOR JUdICIAL REVIEW. Yet, it exists. And it exists because people did not pretend that there is something called "strict constructionism" in terms of the words. When originally used, (by a LIBERAL JUDGE) it was used to say rights couldn't be abridged and you don't allow limitation of them.
I think YOU need to look into the "conservative judges" because I know all about them. And I will never vote for anyone who talks about how judges shouldn't engage in judicial review of legislation. That is the whole point of the bench, IMO... limiting the power of the other two branches. And if you think for a second that I think Antonin Scalia is upholding the Constitution, I'd reconsider that if I were you. You don't uphold the Constitution when you violate precedent by inserting the USSC's opinion in an election law matter over the highest court of a state and then stating within the decision that it has NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.
So, with every candidate it's about what the dealbreakers are for you. Obama's associates, while I don't appreciate some of them, aren't because ultimately they won't affect public policy. McCain's BECAUSE HE INTENDS TO ADVANCE THEIR AGENDA... are relevant to me... and ARE dealbreakers, especially when we're one, maybe two judges away from overturning RvW and the next president is going to get to appoint at least one justice, probably two.
Really that simple.... and talking about one's "associates" without talking about the others is silly... because each of us gets to decide on the dealbreakers.
McCain's are dealbreakers... for me. Obama's might be... for you.
