Posted on 06/26/2015 3:15:15 AM PDT by cotton1706
David Souter and John Roberts, two of the four nominees of the presidents Bush. Enough is enough!
We need to use the Supreme Court to defeat Jeb! at all costs!
We know that a 3rd party will not work for obvious reasons. Unless the Republican Party runs a conservative candidate, I refuse to participate in the ruse again. The "frogs" have to feel the pain (like they are beginning to now).
But alas..... we will again end up with a long list of ego-driven candidates all vying to be the conservative choice. Our vote will be so watered down that Jeb will win the primary. Is there any possible way that the "tea party" can get behind ONE candidate to run against Jeb?
Why is it that Democrat SC appointments are never 50-50 but always 100% pure leftwing? Obama: Sotomayor & Kagan. Clinton: Ginsburg & Breyer.
Obviously Democrat dig deeper into the the background and attitudes of their appointments than the halfhearted Bushes cared to dig - and deeper than non-POTUS Mark Levin or Ted Cruz could possibly dig!
It's a question of commitment and resources. The Bushes had the resource but (unlike the Democrats) not the commitment to make 50-50 appointments. Levin & Cruz lacked the basic opportunity and resources to expose leftwing moles like Souter & Roberts.
Jeb should be rejected not because he’s a Bush, but because he’s Jeb.
make 50-50 appointments = make better than 50-50 appointments
It’s not been proven that he’s being blackmailed nor what it is they have on him.
Well you don’t have a Reagan running, do you can’t ask what they think of their father’s out brother’s appointments, but you have a squishy Bush.
So its a great question to ask Bush the younger would his picks be like his families. Put on the defensive
Where’s Harriet Myers when you need her? Souter/Roberts? We don’t need another Bush? We need a tree with a branch parallel to the ground. All branches of government are out-of-control.
For heaven's sake..... the signs were all there, in big bold letters even! How hard is it to understand that George Bush, a member of Skull and Bones, an attendee of Bilderberg, obviously following in his father's footsteps, the father who touted the "New World Order" would be a fake conservative?
How many of you still think that the above references are only conspiracy theory? How much proof do you need?
The problems with our nation stems from the accelerating concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands. This problem cannot be cured by sending "good" men and women to DC.
Recent events also show that the exec, congress, courts no longer serve their constitutional purposes. So the question that addresses the nub of the problem is, "How do we change the institutions such that men's personal interests coincide with the public good?"
This problem isn't new; it was known in 1787. It is why the Framers designed such a complex system of powers divided among the people, states, and the government they created.
Our fate is sealed unless and until power is diffused once again across the states.
That means returning the senate to the states. When senators guard the interests of their states, when they are responsible to a few hundred attentive legislators instead of millions of low info voters and MSNBC, it will be in the interest of senators to stop and reverse the accumulation of power in DC.
There is no alternative.
Article V before we can't.
When we had 12 straight years of Republican presidents... I heard nothing all day long besides (no litmus tests for judges!)
Of course that ONLY applies to Republicans!
Do you think for even ONE SECOND a Democrat would nominate a pro life judge? never in a BILLION years.
That would make a great postcard, or flyer, to send or post for low info types.
Between Jeb and Hillary, Hillary would be the lesser evil.
You are very ill-informed.
I have heard Levin talk about this. The vetting is extremely thorough. Cruz worked with Roberts, side-by-side for years.
But you want to live in your little make-believe world that you can figure this out ahead of time. Enjoy.
As Jacquerie says in post 29, it seems as if they become corrupted when they get there.
I believe it was Eisenhower who, when asked “What were your biggest mistakes as president?”
His answer was that his biggest mistakes were all on the Supreme Court.
I'd like to offer some background. Mark had Hugh Hewitt on last night and Hugh worked with Roberts in the Reagan Admin for a year and noted he didn't see this coming. How do you really find out what is their hearts as a jurist? Or as Hugh noted the wise men calling him yesterday noted Roberts is taking the long approach to the court and realizes this and other issues will be revisited and this decision was in deference to Obama.
That wise-men opinion is a big stretch for me, to many presidents set yesterday that stand everything on their heads...
Unfortunately, plenty of blame to go around:
Antonin Scalia........ ... ...Reagan ........ OUTSTANDING
Anthony Kennedy.............Reagan ........ Eech/all over the place
Clarence Thomas....... ....GHWBush.. OUTSTANDING
Ruth Bader Ginsburg.........Clinton...... Complete Zero
Stephen Breyer..............Clinton ........ Complete Zero
Samuel Alito.... ... .. ....GWBush....... OUTSTANDING
John G. Roberts, Jr.........GWBush........ Complete Zero
Sonia Sotomayor...... ......Obama............ Complete Zero
Elena Kagan........... ......Obama . ........ Complete Zero
Explain the fact that Democrat appointments are 100% leftwing loyalists FOREVER and the Bush family appointments are 50-50!
You claim that the Bush appointment "become corrupted when they get there."
I say the Bushes are corrupted by liberalism before they get there. But listing Daddy Bush's and Bush the 2nd's liberal and globalist words, actions and associations would take more than one post or even an entire thread.
In any case, they have been more than sufficiently exposed on FR for many years. Any "FReeper" who ignores that exposure and writes in favor of the Bushes is willfully either ignorant or deceitful.
Thank God for Scalia.
When he goes, I doubt he will be replaced. We have been, and are in trouble.
This is not a complicated explanation.
Liberals play hardball, refuse to bring votes up on Federal judges, prepare the field so that conservatives (or RINO's) know that anyone less than a squishy-RINO at the absolute best will simply be scourged and denied.
Conservatives/RINO's just approve theirs. No questions asked. No factual analysis of an ideological agenda. No bringing up things like belonging to a Marxist/Feminist/Homosexual organization. Nothing.
They just get in with no questions asked. That's it.
Look at the absolute horror-show, knock-down, drag-out attacks by liberals on Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas!
I believe that if conservatives had fought the fights, we wouldn't even have had some pieces of crap submitted that we did. But they didn't. Conservatives and RINO's just rolled over.
And the other poster is correct in my opinion. Reagan didn't have a stellar record either, but I overlook it because Scalia is so good.
Just my opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.