that he once called some of these "hard-core 'Christian Right' conservatives "agents of intolerance, and now he's pandering to them.  Same goes with the permanent tax cuts he voted agaist time and again before he embraced them in his presidential run.  Or his thoughts that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was wrong even though he publicly supported it at the time.  It all goes to the question at the heart of your first line: has he ever truly been a moderate?  Is he truly now a conservative?

It's remarkable to me that for someone who has spent the better part of 10 years fashioning his persona as a straight-talker, no one is really sure what he actually thinks or believes about anything.

as not forbidden by the Eighth Amendment because it's "not punishment" I believe that he and his ilk have little regard for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and find no love of those documents in their work.  He calls himself a textualist and a conservative, but he's a hair-splitter with ulterior goals.  And didn't he sit on the Bush/Gore case notwithstanding that his son worked for the law firm representing Bush?  Mr. Ethics.  And how about the failure of this Supreme Court to curb all but the most egregious excesses of this unitary executive?

As for McCain's crack about activist judges, did anyone else feel like they'd just traveled back in time to 1984?  I mean, seriously, I've been hearing this "activist judge" crap for most of my legal career.  Then I look around and see a system which has been dominated by conservatives - a Republican Congress for 12 years - who blocked almost every attempt to get anyone with any sense onto the federal appeals courts.  Activist judges?  Here's one for you:  Judge Jay S. Bybee, now sitting on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, John Yoo's boss, who signed and sent out the notorious Torture Memo justifying the use of torture such as waterboarding on detainees.  He's so active he doesn't believe in habeas corpus or the rules against coercive interrogations.  

There is no doubt for the potential of any President to put its will upon the nomination process but yet again we fail to make the admission that if the Democratic Party is so confident in picking up seats down ticket of their candidate there should be no problem in this arena in terms of a over-conservative appointee.
Win the seats you are supposed to win and pickup seats as folks here have suggested for months like John Warners and McCain if President will be unable to get the votes in Congress for anything except at the very least a moderate.
Given this prospect this issue of judges is yet another version of "fear-mongering" being presented before interest groups no different than the arguement made by republicans we will be less safe with a Democrat in the White House.
Fact is we get the Supreme Court that the peoples champions vote for through representational government. You do not like a nominee that these politicians do not have to support them through the process.
And if I recall did not a few Democrats vote for Clarence Thomas?
I am not convince there will be as much at risk to anyone now that McCain is the nominee, rather had the Republicans nominated a Huckabee that would have been a different matter. Again McCain is simply the one Republican even on this issue that the Democrats did not want to be facing in November.
Its more interesting to look at State Supreme Courts in terms of the activism...code for legislating from the bench and not the Supreme Court.
We all know that intentions in the Primary process are meaningless and pandering ie gas tax relief, troops out in 90 days,winfall taxes,la la la la la....and this is no different. Fact is McCain will never have a chance to get an ultra-conservative confirmed in the next Congress anyway even if elected.
And by the way, I wonder if the Supreme Court will ever come into play to decide the MI/FL issue this summer...seems to be the disenfranchisement of Americans is certainly an important enough issue!

umm, yeah, I already get it.  That's not what I was talking about so I'm not sure what your point vis a vis what I wrote.

Regarding the "disenfranchisement" of voters, did someone declare that no one in Florida or Michigan can vote in the national election in November?  There was no disenfranchisement, but an unfortunate result of the game of chicken the state Democratic Committees decided to play with the DNC.  They were hoping the party would blink on their power play and it didn't, with the result that voters did not get to vote in a PARTY election to decide on a PARTY nominee.  How does that amount to disenfranchisement?  I'll agree, Florida and Michigan voters have a right to be upset, but they should be upset at their state apparatus, not at the national apparatus which informed the states quite clearly of what the consequences would be should they go through with their early primary plans.  Moreover, all the candidates signed off on the pledge to exclude those votes, INCLUDING Hillary Clinton, and now she's up there talking about disenfranchisement like the second coming of Susan B. Anthony.  For crying out loud, Obama wasn't even on the ballot for Michigan and the way she and her surrogates talk about it she administered a resounding defeat.  They spin the facts so hard my computer rotates every time I play one of those sound bites.  

Thank you for making my libertarian point. The "power" should reside with the people not the Party elite. The "power" lies with those elected to confirm or nominate from the Congress. These folks are elected by the people. I realize its a naive notion but it is one we as a people need to get back to. The fact that one Party can hammer out an agreement in some room somewhere to "exclude some votes". Exclusion is disenfranchisement. Clinton as a women given that progressive womens suffrage movement should know better and it tells you a little about the kind of leader she will make and Obama as well being an African-American both should know there history better of the ones that came before them. I think this whole DNC thing is shameful and while it will not sway me come November, Howard Dean has to go when this is all put to bed. At least my wife and I agree on that.
As for the commentary by the pundits about the fallout from things like this---well personally I can tell you they are wrong.
On Super Tuesday there was just an Obama sign in the yard and many yards on the block with one Huckabee. Now there are six McCain signs, one of which sits right next to the Obama sign in our yard.
Oh the joy of a split household. Well it is only May. The wife still has time to come to her senses but New Yorkers are tuff and stubborn you know.

during the general election. It should be repeated over and over and over. The GOP do this kind of thing with repeating things over and over. Well this is one we should hammer away on. Face it were trying to get those independent thinkers, and this is one way of doing it. Especially after McCain has stated his intentions for the Court.