McCain has once again told us his judicial philosophy so far as it concerns appointments to the Supreme Court.  He wants justices who will not "legislate."  Has there ever been a candidate for any office, president or otherwise, who has said he or she wants a judge who will legislate?  Is Obama an aberration, the first ever candidate who will nominate judges who hope to legislate?

By the way, has there ever been a nominee for a judicial appointment who said he or she wanted the job, because he or she hoped to legislate?  Please let me know, because I've not seen any.  (Apparently, McCain thinks justices Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Souter legislate, while justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy and Alito do not.  McCain offeres no argument for this interesting thesis which I'm pretty sure every justice would emphatically reject.)

So, this response of McCain's knocks down the proverbial straw man and seems to say something when in fact it says nothing at all.  This is not to say that the jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas is not significantly different from that of John Paul Stevens, both Republicans by the way.  It is to say we need a more illuminating way to describe the difference and a better answer why one is preferable to the other.