Ah. I understand. Sit down. Shut up. And vote for us once every two and four years.
If we don't, you have the right to blame an election loss on us. If we do, you dismiss we were essential to victory. I understand perfectly. I understand there is real bigotry against Christians among some in the grassroots of the Republican Party without which Republicans would no more be in power than they would be without any of the other core constituencies.
Sounds to as though you are the one that cannot be depended on. So stop the hypocrisy by complaining about the 'religious right' possibly not being supportive when clearly you, yourself, cannot be depended on when you don't get your way.
The door hasn't slammed shut on the Nuke option, not that it matters. Reps or Dem the Judiciary is out of control. The real option isn't more judges but to have power restored to its proper balance, and that only can happen through the Congress.
But the religious right, just like the moderates can lobby him. He can refuse or accept depending on his convictions, and he can take the ensuing consequences. Nothing more, nothing less.
I will keep voting Republican because I have no other choice at the moment. But they are not able to deliver a judiciary that can extricate us from the current judicial circumstances. It's the judges, stupid was never a convincing argument. Nixon gave us Blackmun, Reagan gave us O'Connor, Bush I gave us Souter, it's a crap shoot, at best.
We need a few more men like the Founding Fathers, plain and simple. If a third party ever produces such, they won't be able to handle the 'influx.'
You're right about the Courts being out of control, but I don't see any relief. The Sup Court gave itself judicial review, and its supposedly co-equal Executive and Legislative branches have rarely challenged them.
Judicial supremacy has been going on long enough now that is has received a certain level of acceptance from both the other branches of govt and the people. This is unfortunate, but its true. Consider how people consistently tell pollsters how they support all sorts of restrictions on abortion -- partial birth, late-term, post-first trimester, outside of rape/incest/life of mother -- yet turn around and voice support for keeping the Roe decision that makes impossible all of those mainstream restrictions. Now part of that is due to simple ignorance on people's part that Roe (or at least the subsequent reading of it by judges) is so all-emcompassing, but I think part of it is an unfortunate tendency by many people to treat SCOTUS decisions as though they had been inscribed on stone tablets and carried down the mountain by Moses.
Another part of it is, to be frank, that some politicians simply like having the Courts usurp power from them because it lets them off the hook. It allows them to say "the courts have spoken, its now a matter of settled law, time to move on." So Republicans are free to give lip service to the conservatives who elect them, but then proclaim helplessness when the Courts hand one victory after another to the Left in the Culture War. As you say, I'll bet many Republicans enjoy this as they harbor an animosity towards Christian conservatives, and find it to be a source of shame that they must rely on such rubes to win elections. You are correct in that many in the party won't hesitate to chastise social conservatives if they fail to turn out, but also refuse to actually do any of the things they promised in seeking their votes.
I hate to be pessmistic, but I find optimism on this issue almost impossible to feel. Frist will fail to force a rules change. He'll either back down before an attempt is made, or come up short in trying to get McCain/Hagel/Specter/Collins/Snowe/Ohio Senator to join the battle. It will be portrayed as a humiliating defeat, and that will embolden the Left/Dems to be more brazen in not allowing up or down votes for good judges.
And really, there is no guarantee even if Bush is able to get up or down votes for all of his judges. I mean, just look at the combined record of Reagan and Bush I. Between them they picked two good Sup Court justices -- Scalia and Thomas -- two who are increasingly worthless on social/cultural issues in O'Connor and Kennedy, and one complete disaster in David Souter. That's 2/5, a poor 40% average. Granted, if Bork hadn't been borked, then it'd be better, but still not nearly as good as the perfect 100% record of Democrats in picking horrible judges. Whereas Republicans often screw up and pick bad judges, the Democrats never mistakenly pick good judges.
I don't know what it will take to make the public demand something be done about the judiciary. The inevitable imposition of gay marriage or civil unions nationwide by the Sup Court might do it, but even on that I have my doubts. If SCOTUS is smart about it, they will go the Vermont route and be so kind as to offer the state's a choice between gay marriage and civil unions, just so long as its one or the other. This would take advantage of the somewhat inexplicable, nonsensical, and contradictory position many hold of 'gay marriage-no, civil unions-yes'. Such a decision would be immediately deemed a moderate, mainstream compromise by the media, all Democrats, and many Republicans. It would find support with the people in many states, including the opinion-forming ones of NY and California. That it would be no different than an explict imposition of gay marriage, using the word 'marriage', to all of those states (probably a majority of the 50) whose people and legislators would reject any legal recognion of same-sex unions if given a choice -- like 10 states did last year including the close battleground states of Ohio, Missouri, and Michigan -- would be irrelevant. And once people are conditioned to support civil unions even in the Reddest states, then it won't take long for people to realize it makes little sense to preserve the word 'marriage' as between a man and a woman, but not the institution, then the Left will get the word too and their victory will be complete.
Then again, SCOTUS really has no reason to fear a public backlash for going too far, as we've sat back and taken abortion on demand, citizen status for illegal aliens, consulting foreign law; so they'll probably go the Mass route and impose gay marriage and leave no room for a euphemistic substitute.
I mean, it'd be great if we had a President and Congress bold enough to openly defy the order and render it void, but what chance is there of that? I'd love it personally, as it would force a long-overdue national discussion about the proper role of the Judiciary and how far they have strayed from the role envisioned by the Founders. I know some say this would be an invitation to chaos by undermining respect for the Courts and their authority. But the Courts have earned contempt, and very quickly the people would see that the Republic hasn't collapsed in the face of an ignored SCOTUS decision. And if we are left with a situation where the President and Congress only enforce decisions they accept as Constitutional, then they'd be reasserting their legitimate role as a protector of the Constitution.