Vote Bush in '04: The Supreme Court is too imporant!

vanity | 1/29/04 | vanity

[votelife]

On thread after thread I see people talk about abandoning Bush over immigration or spending or gun control or some other issue. I feel many conservatives are missing the big picture. Look at the ages of these justices:

William H. Rehnquist, 80 John Paul Stevens, 84 Sandra Day O'Connor, Ariz., 74 Antonin Scalia, 68 DC Anthony M. Kennedy, 68 David H. Souter, 65 Clarence Thomas, 56 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 71 Stephen G. Breyer, Mass. 66

Rehnquist wants to retire. O'Connor did LAST time (but I think she felt bad about telegraphing it). Stevens is 84. Eighty-four. At 71 Ginsburg is no spring chicken either.

Now add 4 more to the ages of all these justices. You think Stevens will stay until 88? Rehnquist till 84? With his bad back? O'Connor already wants to go.

Lots of important cases are decided 5-4. Need I remind you Bush Gore was 5-4. (I know part of it was 7-2)...

Freepers have been getting all over Bush for not being conservative enough. But remember, without a conservative court, almost any legislation or act by Bush can be overturned by an unelected robe.

Let's review some recent rulings by the 9th Circuit Court and the USSC: pledge unconstitutional constitutional right to sodomy in the interest of diversity, affirmative action constitutional right to partial birth abortion the CA recall is suspsended (later overturned)

Future courts will decide the following: 2nd amendment cases right to life cases affirmative action cases immigration cases war on terror cases

President Bush has done a great job on the war and judges in my opinion. He campaigned hard on judges in '02 and it helped Coleman, Chambliss, and Talent win. That made Daschle powerless (besides the filibuster). Without that, Estrada would have never gotten a vote. Of course when Hillary et all are bent on denying any minority conservative judge, it's still tough getting conservatives confirmed. But let's see how the American public reacts when the Dems want to filibuster a qualified SC nominee. I'm giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. He talked about activist judges in his SOTU speech. All indications are to a more conservative Senate in 2004, which means if Bush is elected, we'll get a better Supreme Court.

Rehnquist wants to retire, let's give him President Bush and a conservative Senate to confirm his replacement.

O'Connor wants to retire. Stevens needs to retire soon. Any other justice may want or need to retire. 4 more years is a long time.

Freepers, do we stand for we the people, or we the judges? Get active in '04. Call Congress about your significant issues. But when you vote in 2004, think about who you want to nominate Justices and who you want as the Commander in Chief.

President Bush has to be the front man on these judicial fights and he will get slaughtered in the mainstream press for these decisions. We need to let him now in clear terms that we strongly support his decision to put conservatives like Miguel Estrada and Charles Pickering on the court...

White House COMMENTS: 202-456-1111 SWITCHBOARD: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461

Email the President: President George W. Bush: president@whitehouse.gov

Email the Vice President: Vice President Richard Cheney: vice.president@whitehouse.gov

Freepers, do we stand for we the people, or we the judges? Get active in '04. Call Congress about your significant issues. But when you vote in 2004, think about who you want to nominate Justices and who you want as the Commander in Chief.

"We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail." President Bush, September 20, 2001 speech to Congress

[votelife]

I'm getting sick of the 100% freepers too. Remember, a lot of them are probably libs/disrupters. Still, if they actually are conservatives, they should be calling their Congressman and trying to influence things. I fail to see how electing a big time lib who will raise taxes, raise spending, run to the UN, nominate libs to the courts, etc, etc, will help right this country.

[Spiff]

This is my vote. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

...and you can have it when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Don't tell me how to vote. Don't guilt me into voting for someone. Don't browbeat me, or try to make me afraid to vote my conscience.

I may vote for George Bush. I may not. This kind of crap is certainly not going to sway me. Bush's behavior is what I will look at in determining if he is worthy of my vote - MY vote.

If you want Bush to win and you want to do something constructive I suggest you work to get Bush to stop his amnesty insanity, stop his spending spree, and stop acting like a liberal ($ for AIDS in Africa, $ for NEA, etc). Telling us to pay no attention to certain things isn't going to work.

[KantianBurke]

Umm, not to be rude but what Bush is doing is usually termed "taking advantage of you." You shouldn't be pleased about that. He and his advisors know how much those judges mean to you. Therefore he's maximizing the mileage that he can get out of that request.

The moral thing to do would be to see these judges get their appointments. The immoral but politically wise thing - strategery if you will - is to have your base up in arms as you know they will be i.e. bloody shirt, and make sure the issue quiets any dissention.

[NeoCaveman]

They knew that they were giving the White House, the House, and the Senate to the Democrats.

In the 1992 election Republican candidates has a net GAIN in House seats. Republicans would have picked up even more (had to wait until 1994) because of the drag at the top of the ticket.

[rottweiller_inc]

No what you are proposing is to keep the status quo. It's terribly niave to think that republicans will go conservative down the road if people such as yourself are willing to allow the status quo to continue. I was suckered into voting republican in '94 and i was strung along by the promise that things would change once the republicans controlled all branches of government. To quote the Who "We won't get fooled again."

[looscnnn]

"If we can get a filibuster proof majority,"

To heck with that, how about forcing the j@ck@ss' hand? Make them filibuster and let them see what happens at election time. To heck with this, PC p@ssy footing around. Time to put their t*ts in a vise, if the GOP is serious about the nominees. This should have been done from the start, before Miguel even thought about withdrawing his name.

[votelife]

Al Quaida wants us to vote out Bush! All Freepers should remember that!

[COEXERJ145]

Republican Red, very good post. Too bad there are too many pig headed people here who won't hear what you're saying. (I still think some of the Bush bashers are really closet DU trolls.)

[CMAC51]

Give me Frist's job...

I thought you were Mr. Super Conservative and now you want people giving you things. It's a pity, now you couldn't even vote for yourself if you ran.

[Texas Federalist]

O'Connor was a big dissappointment to Reagan from what I've read.

I don't doubt that he was dissappointed with O'Connor. The point is that there have been a lot of dissappointments of the sort. Brennan Warren Blackmun Stevens Souter We can't count on the fact that a Republican president will nominate a conservative justice. Like Ann Coulter says "Why do ours always go bad but their's never do."

[looscnnn]

"he will be much better than any Democrat on all the issues that matter for REAL CONSERVATIVES."

If you are a real conservative, what are the issues that matter?

[rottweiller_inc]

Just remember a vote is earned and should be for whoever fit's your vision of things. To vote by party is really silly because you are'nt looking at the person himself but rather you want to advance the party line like any good comrade.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Why didn't he recess appoint Priscilla Owens and that guy for Alabama, too?

Personally, I would have recess appointed Judge Roy Moore and about 2 dozen others at the very first opportunity when it became clear that the Rats were going to block anyone they thought would be a threat to their socialistic/government worshipping plans.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Yeah, like they'd have made up the deficit in the House in one election. They knew who Clinton was. They knew his character. They chose to give the White House to him. They wanted it all (yeah, from PEROT). What they got was nothing. They deserve the blame for Clintoon. Clintoon is their president, their responsibilty, their fault.

[fritzz]

Amen to that.

A vote for Kerry or whomever is a vote for Al Quaida.

[votelife]

If you want to vote for someone more conservative than Bush, than I encourage you to do so. I'm not going to tell you a vote for Buchanan is a vote for Hillary. It's a vote for Buchanan. And if Hillary gets more votes than Bush, she got more votes than Bush and deserved to win. Some advance a theory that electing a lib may help push the GOP to the right. With a war now and an old Supreme Court, I don't buy it, but it's a legitamate belief. I mean the GOP did get more conservative in '94 (Contract with America) when they were opposed to Clinton. Electing Hillary would undoubtedly unite the right...So vote your conscience. If you think electing Hillary or whoever is better long term for America (and you may be right) than go ahead and vote against Bush.

I don't like a lot of Bush's domestic spending. I have my reasons as to why I think he does it. If we weren't in war against terrorism and the Supreme Court weren't so old, I would give Bush less slack. That said, I'll happily vote for Bush.

[Muleteam1]

Believe that there will be an influx of liberals-in-conservative-clothing who will infiltrate the FR boards in this election year to try and dissuade real conservatives to throw away their vote. Also, expect that some real conservatives feel they have a patent on frustration and anger and will throw their vote away simply because they are comfortable being frustrated. In short, the first group is desperate but will continue to troll these boards for the frustrated, but as for most of us conservatives who will vote for GWB, we plan to avoid that dragnet for masochists.

Muleteam1

[COEXERJ145]

Actually Bush offered recess appointments to the other nominees and only Pickering accepted since it runs out in Jan. 2005.

[Texas Federalist]

George HW Bush gave us nothing. Every last one of the Perot voters knew the consequences of voting for Perot. They knew that they were giving the White House, the House, and the Senate to the Democrats. They had the choice between a moderate and a liberal. They chose they liberal. They gave us Whitewater and Monica. Clinton is nothing but their fault.

Never thought I'd long for the days of Clinton. Eight glorious years of gridlock.

[CMAC51]

And Ford, who nominated Stevens, was never elected President, and never had to appeal to the conservative groups to get elected...but he too had a lib Congres to deal with I think.

I lived in Ford's district back in those days. He wasn't a conservative. He was a norther country club republican, very similar to today's RINO.