Editor's note. Please pass this edition along to friends, family, and colleagues. If you would, also send me your thoughts at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

So read the headline that accompanies a story in today's Los Angeles Times. The subtitle summarizes the guts of the story and provides (a necessarily simplified) summary of the judicial orientations of the two leading presidential candidates: "McCain wants to end 'judicial activism.' Obama favors justices with 'empathy' for ordinary people."

The article is useful, not only because it is written in the same vein as so many recent pieces--it's supposedly curtains for pro-abortion Sen. Hillary Clinton--but also for how it likely foreshadows the way reporters will handle the abortion issue as seen through the prism of the Supreme Court nominations.

Reporter David Savage's spin is so blatant as to be almost amusing. If pro-life McCain becomes president, we're told, change galore is in the offing. If militantly pro-abortion Obama wins in November, hey, you'll hardly notice the difference.

Sen. McCain has spoken favorably of the two newest justices, Roberts and Alito, and offers them as prototypes of the kind of nominees he would send to the Senate. Since the two oldest justices are pro-abortion, a "President" McCain "could establish a large conservative majority on the court for years," Savage writes.

Egads! "With conservatives in full control, the court would probably overturn Roe vs. Wade and the national right to have an abortion," Savage opines. Warming to the task, he adds, "The justices also could give religion a greater role in government and the schools, and block the move toward same-sex marriage."

But "If elected, Obama would be hard-pressed to create a truly liberal court," since he'd only be "replacing the aging liberal justices [Stevens and Ginsburg] with liberals." Obama "could preserve abortion rights and maintain a strict separation of church and state" but that's it. This analysis misses an obvious consideration borne out repeatedly by the history of anticipated retirements.

There have been stories forever about Justices Stevens and Ginsburg retiring. If one is speculating about retirements, why not Justice Scalia? He is 72 years old.

But the article does provide some of the quotes that critics cite as evidence Obama's approach to jurisprudence is gauzy, bereft of substance, untethered to the Constitution, and is a blank check to those who believe the federal courts should be busy "correcting" the "errors" of the legislative branch, a.k.a. the branch of government closest to the people.

Obama has said that "most of the time" conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices will arrive at "the same place." Savage then quotes him saying,

"What matters at the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction will only get you through 25 miles of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

"In those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."

Savage then quotes from a speech McCain delivered this month at Wake Forest University in which (according to Savage) "McCain derisively quoted Obama's reference to a judge's 'deepest values' and 'empathy.'" Read the speech and decide for yourself if he was being derisive. (www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/May08/nv050608part2.html)

The far more important point than McCain's tone or what's supposedly is in Obama's heart is what happens to the constitutional balance established by our Founding Fathers when justices run amuck. As McCain put it in his speech at Wake Forest,

"For decades now, some federal judges have taken it upon themselves to pronounce and rule on matters that were never intended to be heard in courts or decided by judges. With a presumption that would have amazed the framers of our Constitution, and legal reasoning that would have mystified them, federal judges today issue rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. Assured of lifetime tenures, these judges show little regard for the authority of the president, the Congress, and the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people. And the only remedy available to any of us is to find, nominate, and confirm better judges."

Notice carefully that last sentence, because it is crucially important. When the High Court starts turning the Constitution inside out by finding (as it did in Roe) "penumbras, formed by emanations," the only remedy is to "find, nominate, and confirm better judges." Obama would remove that last check.

To read the Times article in its entirety, go to www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-scotus19-2008may19,0,6551508.story.