Fun with framing

There’s a story in the Washington Post today declaring that John McCain has promised more of the same with respect to judicial nominations.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee said that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “would serve as the model for my own nominees, if that responsibility falls to me,” highlighting the gap between Republicans and Democrats on the question of who should sit on the Supreme Court. Both justices have established strong conservative records since Bush appointed them, and the appointment of one more conservative to the nation’s highest court could tip the balance on issues such as abortion, discrimination, civil liberties and private property.

None of this is a surprise from the man who is becoming Bush lite. However, the article quotes ” a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia who heads the Ethics and Public Policy Center” and gives a fascinating look into the effectiveness of framing.

Edward Whelan, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia who heads the Ethics and Public Policy Center, called the speech “very encouraging” and added: “McCain has drawn a clear line between his support for judicial restraint and Obama’s promise to appoint liberal judicial activists.”

Do you see what he did? There are two choices: liberal judicial activists and  justices who favor judicial restraint. No such thing as a “conservative judicial activist” who might make politically-inspired decisions about the issues. Even the wording is misleading-”support for judicial restraint.” What does that mean?
What that implies to me is that McCain is going to take all the powers Bush has appointed himself with and, as opposed to giving even a token nod to the balance of powers, will clothe himself in the robes of an imperial presidency.

I guess McCain is counting on the 28 percent of Americans who still manage to be willfully blind and/or stupid enough to support Bush.