McCain Vows Not To Cave On Judges

Read John Gizzi's interview with Big Mac in Human Events. The most important thing is probably this, given the number of pro-lifers and Catholics I've seen opining that what McCain will give us on judges is a crapshoot.
Q: On the Supreme Court, you have said you will make nominations of strict constructionists in the mold of Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. If such nominees are “borked,” defeated for confirmation in the Senate, will you promise to continue to send similar constructionist nominees to the Senate for confirmation?

A: Absolutely. I will send [judicial nominees] to the Senate with a record of strictly interpreting the Constitution of the United States. That’s what the founding fathers said they should do. It’s not an idea of mine. That’s what the founding fathers said when they called for the separation of branches [of government] -- executive, legislative, and judicial. I mean to somehow think this is a departure of what our fathers have clearly stated is really a continuing puzzlement to me. My point is that judges who legislate from the bench are not within their line of responsibility as clearly cited by the Founding Fathers.

Q: Now the four justices you cite as models for nomination -- Roberts, Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia -- have all at different times voted to overturn parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign legislation you co-authored. Would you appoint justices who would do that?

A: Well, obviously, I wouldn’t impose any litmus tests. No justice that I would nominate would I expect to agree with me on every single issue. The majority of justices just made a ruling on detainees I didn’t agree with. That was very disturbing to me. And so, I can’t say I would agree with every decision. But if I can count on every justice that I name to share my view of the judiciary, then in the long run, things should come out OK.
Anybody's a crapshoot simply because people who come to Washington tend to "grow in office." But that's pretty good.

He also promises to visit ANWR, and not to appoint Al Gore or Andrew Cuomo.

Changing gears utterly, this comment...
there are Democrats who have areas of expertise that all of us agree on. For example, Warren Buffett is a Democrat, pro-choice, a lot of things. But I think a lot of Americans would approve it if Warren Buffett were to come in and offer his expertise and help clean up this mess. Do you see what I mean? I wouldn’t appoint Warren Buffett, say, secretary of defense. But I would say, ‘Warren, hey come in and sit down with us. Help us clean up this financial mess. Help us on what to do. But I don’t know what the specific job would be, so it depends on the job you’re talking about.

...reminded me of the question in the second presidential debate when both candidates suggested Warren Buffett might make a good Sec. of the Treasury. Which I think is all the proof anyone needs that no one actually thinks "capitalism" or "Wall Street greed" is the cause of the credit market collapse.