I was 12 for McCain, one for Obama (the abortion question). Having said that, there were several instances where I didn't fully agree with either candidate, but had to pick one anyway. Kind of like voting, I suppose.

The question that most bothered me was Obama's comment about appointing judges. We don't need to appoint judges who, as he says, can understand what it's like to be poor, black, red, green, purple, etc. We need to appoint judges who will interpret the laws as they are written, not as they would like them to be.

That's how I read most magazines.

Al... THOSE kind of magazines aren't meant to be read!  Especially later, when the pages start sticking together.

You'd be surprised, Al.  It's been a punchline so long that it overshadows the truth - the articles are the only reason to read Playboy. 

The question that most bothered me was Obama's comment about appointing judges. We don't need to appoint judges who, as he says, can understand what it's like to be poor, black, red, green, purple, etc. We need to appoint judges who will interpret the laws as they are written, not as they would like them to be.

What you articulate Bruce is a substantive difference in the way people believe jurists should go about their business.  It is really an ideological acid test.  Your position is a valid and thoughtful one, with which I generally agree.  But (you knew there would be one of those right?) I think the other position is valid and thoughtful as well: that the constitution is a "living document" and law should be interpreted based on the language of the law and on the mores of the day.  I think this is an equally valid judicial ideology* though one I find less compelling in execution.  One of the beauties of being an advocate (rather than a jurist) is you don't have to subscribe to either ideology -- you use whichever works better for your client!  But for a judge I think its a difficult balance.

*I have little patience for those who cannot accept that both ideologies are valid.  Such views evidence the most closed of minds.  Its why every appointment hearing sort of annoys me.  During the confirmation process the Senate should not be testing the ideology of the judicial candidate but the qualifications.     

Oh, I certainly agree that the other side is valid, Geoff. I've always said that my opinion is no more important than anyone else's. It's just that - my opinion and nothing more.

Personally, I favor the idea of judicial restraint for the following reason: federal judges are appointed for life, therefore they are free from accountability to the people. Their role should be as legal experts who interpret existing law, not as lawmakers themselves.

Our legislators in Congress are the people who should be making laws. It's no coincidence that they are elected by the citizens - government of the people, by the people and for the people, etc. If the people don't like the decisions they make, then they have the opportunity to replace them. But we can't do that with activist judges.