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

[KantianBurke]

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

A better way to determine whether one is a conservative or not is to simply ask whether the GOP is beter off with these folks:

[StoneColdGOP]

?

Address that comment to the dude who made it...

[COEXERJ145]

Souter was appointed basically because he was a political neutral. He hadn't written any opinions on controversial issues nor had he made his personal opinions known. Since the Senate was Rat controlled, they were not going to let another Thomas through. Souter was a gamble that didn't pay off.

[CMAC51]

It will be my exquisite pleasure to vote against Bush in the 2004 election. He has spit in our faces for the last time. I'm tired of hearing 'whatcha gonna do, throw your vote away and elect a DemoRAT?' Well, it appears that I did throw my vote away last time by voting for Bush. Record deficits ('deficits don't matter'?!? ha!), campaign finance reform, the immigration fiasco, medicare, NEA funding, etc. The list goes on and on. He has got to go.

Oh thank you for finally enlightening us. I just realized non of that would have happened under Al Gore.

[NeoCaveman]

They deserve the blame for Clintoon. Clintoon is their president, their responsibilty, their fault.

Last I checked this was a republic. No party, no candidate, owns anyones vote.

I voted for Dole (last minute decision) I'll vote for GWB again but I WILL NOT pretend everything is fine. Besides, I'd look silly with pom poms

[KEVLAR]

My dem candidate? That would be the day.

Not supporting Mr. Bush does not mean you are from DU, supporting a dem candidate or any other such nonsense.
I've already been told in no uncertain terms that my vote does not count, so your BS, and my vote really are irrelevant aren't they?

[votelife]

"If you think electing Hillary or whoever is better long term for America (and you may be right)"

just so any FReeper doesn't think I've gone crazy, what I mean by this is that Hillary could be a one term President, and usher in new vast conservative majorities, which could help usher in a new conservative era.

[StoneColdGOP]

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

That is a stupid thing to say. When all else fails, threaten the end of the world when your boy doesn't win.

[COEXERJ145]

Yes, that's true but I also know I will never agree with any candidate 100% of the time unless I run myself. While there are things I do not agree with Bush on, there are plenty of things I do. The things that I feel are more important that he has done right on far out weigh the things I don't agree on.

(And as for his immigration proposal, it was and still is DOA in Congress. The only thing deader is the Rat's proposal.)

[Huck]

I'm not blaming Reagan. Just saying, whatever the reason, the result was what it was. The real mystery is how the hell Scalia ever got confirmed! And I think he got like 98 votes. Incredible. I think the odds are always that a GOP pick will be better than a Dem pick. But if you look at the record, the question is how much better on average. Just stuff to chew on. The sad fact is either you vote for the GOP or you toss your vote out, one way or the other. I could pay zero attention to politics, vote GOP, and I would be doing as well as if I paid close attention.

[k2blader]

A reasonable argument.

I still see the judiciary as 1/3 of the solution. The Executive branch and Congress also need to be in working order.

[Texas Federalist]

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

Vote Bush b/c Emmanuel Goldstein wants you to vote for a Democrat or third party candidate!

[COEXERJ145]

just so any FReeper doesn't think I've gone crazy, what I mean by this is that Hillary could be a one term President, and usher in new vast conservative majorities, which could help usher in a new conservative era.

The price of taking such a risk is something we cannot afford.

[k2blader]

Alas, I've seen increasing stupidity like this on FR within the last month or so...

[CMAC51]

Better to make it a campaign issue, as long as a Supreme Court Justice doesn't retire.

Actually a retirement this sping probably wouldn't be that bad. It would force the issue into the campaign.

[KEVLAR]

Very well said.

[Texas Federalist]

I'm getting sick of the 100% freepers too.

100%??? I'd settle for 10% instead of what Bush is giving us.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

Judicial appointments - the No. ONE reason we need a Republican President! Absolutely! We have the mess in the Federal Judiciary now because of past appointments from the Left.

Every time we see someone claiming to be "conservative" say they won't or might not vote for Bush in '04 we should reply regarding the importance of Federal Judicial Appointments! And we need a Senate with enough votes and backbone to stand up to the attacks from the left on the judicial appointments.

[rottweiller_inc]

Yes we've already seen the folly of depending on someone to handle your political hot potatos in CFR.

[13foxtrot]

Dont let the DU trolls get ur feathers ruffled.. real conservatives...

I used to read this board alot back in the Clinton days...It amazing to see how fast things have changed.

I have recently been accused of being a DUTroll (more than once...)

I thought knee-jerk reactions where something that the American Left was known for, not thoughtful American Conservatives.