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

[Revolting cat!]

Dubya will get re-elected or not regardless of what the readers of this article will do. Nothing to get excited about. Judiciary at all levels and in most states is the only branch of the government that the CPUSA, in its various disguises, has a lock on, and CPUSA is not going to let go. There isn't a chance in hell that Bush II can succeed in appointing a conservative like Scalia or Thomas to SCOTUS.

[longtermmemmory]

I believe the Rove goal is beyond the mere winning in 2004. The goal is the permanent crippling of the Democrat Party.

It will lead to much howling and knashing of democrat teeth in the months to come. However the long term dividends are good to look towards ultimate conservative goals. Already fewer people are willing to publicly admit they are liberals. Women reject the feminist tag, even if they act feminst.

With at least numerical control, and a census that has given increased numbers, it is a golden opportunity now in 2004.

If hitlary wants to cripple the democrat candidate, why not use that to cripple the whole democrat party.

[looscnnn]

And I would respond "What do they matter? Some of them "want" and "need" to retire, but they may wait until Bush or they could decide to die on the bench.

[looscnnn]

I forgot to add; and people squack about being a one issue voter.

[looscnnn]

"That is life and the reality is there will never be another person on the face of the planet that any of us will agree with 100%."

No, but how about agreeing with us on 75%+ of the issues?

[Muleteam1]

>>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.<<

I used to feel the same way until the Parties platforms began running the show. You may call it comradeship or being a Bushbot, but wide-eyed individuals lost in a wilderness do not win wars. Although I like him, Zell Miller is simply a "doe in the headlights" of the Democratic Party's 4x4 Hummer. I did not start this game of Party line voting. I've learned it from the Democrats.

Muleteam1

[fritzz]

The "all-or-nothing" conservatives will always be a problem.
Very conservative or very liberal, just don't have much of a chance being elected President. Yea, I know Regan did it. But, it's still a tough road. It comes down to do you want a very conservative candidate or do you want someone who can win. I guess some people can sleep at night voting for the right person for them and totally losing the battle. Not me. Anybody rather than a Democrat.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Thanks. I hadn't heard that.

[Peach]

I easily find myself in agreement with the president on 75% of the issues, but understand that others disagree.

[k2blader]

I honestly think he'd have won if not for that gaffe.

Similarly, President Bush shouldn't be surprised if he loses votes due to his amnesty for illegals proposal, a mistake which far exceeds his father's.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

The sad part is that the people he's appeasing hate his guts. They would never vote for him even if they were drugged and someone was holding a gun to his head. But that's how the Dems get their votes...

[FrankR]

I just have one thing to say about all this falderol about Bush. I took my turn voicing my opposition to his immigration plan...got it off my chest, but, here is the bottom line.

We are having the same thing done to us now, as we had when Bush I ran against clinton. The same type forces are at work.

Now, we can keep watching these liberal fools in the press, and sooner or later all the crap they're dispensing will start to take hold in our brains...

A lot of people bought in to the "read my lips" B.S. that clinton and his people spewed back in the early 90's, and you know what, it worked.!!!! clinton got elected, and we had to endure 8, long years of a person of, not only the worst character in the nation, but also the worst president on record.

The media has stepped up the tempo. With that weiner what's his name putting out that report about WMD's, the press and the libs are in high gear...they think they have discovered the golden goose that will get a dem elected. And they have, if we start doubting ourselves again and buy into their garbage.

As much as I can't stand clinton, I think Kerry would be even worse...clinton was just a low-life draft dodger, whereas Kerry seems to be a traitor, right up there with his cronie, Hanoi Jane.

EVERYTHING you hear from now until election day is going to be "slam Bush". Oh, it will grow in intensity, frequency and volumn. Every liberal sitcom will be joining in with Bush jokes...the talk shows, maybe even the movies.

With the "Bush I/clinton" elections, it wasn't so much the messages and accusations, as it was the intensity in which they were presented...the "marketing of clinton", as it were.

Deserting Bush II now, is just what the libs want, they're trying to plant the seed of doubt, just so a lot of us will just stay home on election day. Well, you can bet you last nickle that the dems will be out in droves...they'll be picking them up in buses, taxies and SUV's. It will be a feeding frenzy of the liberal sharks smelling conservative blood in the water. They will mount the largest "get-out-the-vote" campaign you've ever seen.

Chads will be punched, and the recounts will probably make the last election look like a dress rehearsal.

Don't fall for it again...we (America) can't stand another 8 years of liberal leadership...

[looscnnn]

"1. what do you think Bush could have done to get Estrada confirmed?"

How about selling him to the people, like the tax cut package. Go around the country and call out the Dems to vote on him or explain to the people, especially the hispanics, why they won't. Do this from the first sign of problems with the Dems.

"2. assuming your strategy worked, how do you think it would have played in the media, ie would the trouble have been worth it for an appeals court nominee?"

Who cares how the media will spin it, if he did it right it would look like/show the Dems as being racist, etc. Would it be worth the trouble, sure. It would set a tone with the Dems that the nominees will be vigorously defended and that it is in the best interest of the nation to get the positions filled ASAP.

[Salvation]

I think you will all enjoy this thread:

2004: Supreme Issue

Guess I should have posted it on the News/Activism Forum.

[Salvation]

I think you will all enjoy this thread:

2004: Supreme Issue

Guess I should have posted it on the News/Activism Forum.

[RiflemanSharpe]

Please just read this and hear me out, it may be a bit rambling so my apologize. You know what is the sad part about this whole tragedy. We all want what is best for the country. We all hold GWB at least in some ways in high regards. And some of us, those who have been very critical of GWB on parts of his domestic agenda are just the tip of the iceberg. The have been numerous articles as of late warning that gwb is angering the base. And those of us, myself among them, who have publicly said that we cannot or will not support GWB know that he is the best one running that can win. We need to start finding ways to move GWB back to the right quickly so that those here who no longer support him will be given real and substantial reasons to reevaluate their choose. Both for them and for all the others out there who are not on this board, but are fed up with the leftist slant as of late. Because if GWB does not at least try to appease the base he very well could go the way of his father. We need to work to bring GWB back to the right and keep his feet to the fire so those of us who are cut loose from the reps now will support him in the fall. We do not need a leftist in the Whitehouse whether he be a rep or a dem.

[hocndoc]

How many important issues does it take for you to vote one way or the other?

What is your key issue?

What do you hope to achieve? Is it to "show those Republicans" or is it to accomplish some specific goal.


For the record, mine are:
Human rights Partial birth abortion ban signed after being vetoed 2 times by that last guy.
Defense Tell me who you wanted in place of W on 9-11?
Taxes The President pushed for a tax cut, less of a marriage penalty and to phase out the death penalty, but the Congress refuses to make it permanent, Congress adds in pork on top of the budget, and this President has been conservative with his own discretionary spending.

President Bush has done well on all these, especially considering how poorly some of our supposedly Republican Congress-men and -women have acted.

I want more protection of human rights, stronger defense, and a permanent cut in taxes that increases each year. A vote for President Bush will do more to ensure my interests are supported than a vote for any other candidate. A strong showing at the polls this year will vindicate the election of 2000 and hopefully ensure more of a small-government, conservative push in the next 4 years.

[k2blader]

The sad part is that the people he's appeasing hate his guts.

Agreed. I just don't understand it...

[votelife]

I wish Bush had done what you said. I wrote/called Bush on Estrada often. Fact is, for whatever reason, Bush didn't do that. More than likely, Bush will get reelected. I think I can speak for the majority of this site hoping he'll get more conservative next term. btw, I do see Estrada getting reappointed in a 2nd Bush term, if not at the end of this term.

[KEVLAR]

Ok, so if one chooses not to vote in the presidential race they are a ....BAD REPUBLICAN.
I guess that is better than calling it a vote for Al Quaida. Do I really need to type sarcasm after my post? I don't consider my vote irrelevant, I was only repeating the comments of others that think as you do. Piss off with your condescending remarks.