Even though, during the second presidential debate, Kerry said this:
A few years ago, when he came to office, the president said, these are his words: What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts. And he said also that his two favorite justices are Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. So you get a pretty good sense of where he's heading if he were to appoint somebody.
The fact of the matter is that Kerry voted for Scalia's appointment to the Supreme Court.
According to this article by Terrence P Jeffrey
Kerry is for government by un-elected liberal judges.
His record is uncharacteristically consistent here. He has flip-flopped only once on Supreme Court justices.As a freshman senator representing a state with a large Italian-American population, Kerry joined a unanimous vote to confirm Antonin Scalia, the first Italian-American ever nominated to the Supreme Court. But on May 19 of this year, Kerry told the Associated Press he regrets supporting Scalia. "If you're looking for me to admit that I made a mistake in my years in the Senate, there you go--there's one," he said.
Meanwhile, Kerry voted against confirming Rehnquist as chief justice, and against confirming Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas as associate justices. More recently, he even voted to block up-or-down votes on Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada, constitutionalists whom President Bush nominated as federal appeals judge.
Steven B Presser at Legal Affairs admits to changing his vote from Kerry to Bush because Bush understands that justices should interpret laws and protect our liberties the way the founders intended.
Presser commits himself further by saying: I WILL VOTE FOR GEORGE W. BUSH INSTEAD OF JOHN KERRY because I still believe in the rule of law, and I want to do whatever I can to preserve it.
This is one of the more critical and serious considerations - after national security - that voters will have to take with themselves into the voting booth on November 2nd.
Presser finishes with some very compelling food for thought:
But if modern social science has taught us anything, it is that we take our values not from within ourselves, but from the culture into which we are born and from our fellows, and, for those of us who believe in a higher power, from our God. The radical individualism—or more properly, the naïve lunacy—of the mystery passage is a prescription for anarchy and chaos, not the rule of law. The mystery passage and decisions based on it give license to judges to make law or change the meaning of the Constitution at will, and thus to reduce American liberty. Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas understand this, and so does George W. Bush.
