Aside from one ill-conceived and incoherent speech delivered by McCain many moons ago (when I was still in Berkeley no less), I haven’t heard anything resembling a meaningful statement from either campaign on their judicial appointments.
I went on the Obama campaign website’s issue section, and there was nothing on judicial philosophy; the only thing the McCain campaign site had was that speech.
Look, judicial appointment is not exactly a sexy topic, and of course, the economy overshadows all right now. But for an institution whose members have life-time tenure, and who meaningfully and substantially impacts public policy, I think it’s pretty goddamn fucking important to find out whom the candidates will appoint and why.
I already know (well, sort of) McCain’s position, but from that one incoherent speech alone it is not enough to fully understand his thinking. As for Obama, aside from scattered remarks here and there on partial-birth and gun control Supreme Court cases, I know nothing, unless someone can point me the right way to look.
Not to mention the fact that thus far, no one has really talked about his administration’s Cabinet appointments. Again, it’s pretty fucking important to know these things since the cabinent-level people do most of the actual rule-making that government so much our day to day life. Weber is so right on the money.
And this is the problem with “rationally” voting in an American election: in what ways are we voting rationally? Is it purely formal? In other words, are we simply using all the information avaiable to us (which, by the way, is simultaneously incomplete, unspecific, and often times incoherent) and make the best decision possible? Or, is this rationality more substantive, meaning, that our decision actually meets a standard for rationality?