Skip to comments.
Vote Bush in '04: The Supreme Court is too imporant!
vanity
| 1/29/04
| vanity
Posted on 01/29/2004 11:36:08 AM PST by 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
TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 2004; bush; dean; election; gwb2004; kerry; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 241-243 next last
To: k2blader
A lot of people around here hate his guts too, and have for a long time.
181
posted on
01/29/2004 1:41:35 PM PST
by
DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
(BUSH/CHENEY 2004...the alternative is too frightening to contemplate.)
To: CMAC51
"Give me Frist's job..."
First of all, I wrote that. He was responding to my post saying that.
"I thought you were Mr. Super Conservative and now you want people giving you things."
Second, isn't that what all candidates are saying (literally and figuratively)? Not that I am running for any office.
182
posted on
01/29/2004 1:43:16 PM PST
by
looscnnn
("Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils" Gen. John Stark 1809)
To: hocndoc
my big issues are
that the President is a Christian, pro-life, supports national security ie anti-UN.
also, to a lesser extent, I like tax cuts/ SS privitization.
183
posted on
01/29/2004 1:43:57 PM PST
by
votelife
(Elect a Filibuster Proof Majority)
To: k2blader
The sad part is that the people he's appeasing hate his guts. This is sad...because I think he could win easily if he stuck to conservative principles.
Moderates and centrists respond favorably to principled leadership. Unfortunately, the Rove Republicans have demonstrated that the only principle they believe is "getting more votes."
To: RiflemanSharpe
You made some very good points. I'm as upset with him as any one of you, but my contention is that it doesn't take voting for Tancredo to do it. I think it can be done by removing those in Congress who are there just to rubber- stamp anything he wants. That, IMO, will get him back on the straight and narrow, and will finally get what we want done done.
185
posted on
01/29/2004 1:45:18 PM PST
by
WinOne4TheGipper
(Appease "my-way-or-the-highway" conservatives. Build new roads.)
To: KantianBurke
"If you are a real conservative, what are the issues that matter?"
I just want to see what issues matter to someone that makes a statement like that. That way I can see if illegals, increasing gov. spending (non-military) and scope, CFR, etc. are listed.
186
posted on
01/29/2004 1:50:00 PM PST
by
looscnnn
("Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils" Gen. John Stark 1809)
To: KantianBurke
"...conservatives wouldn't feel as threatened.""
And how, exactly, will that benefit President Bush?
187
posted on
01/29/2004 1:54:17 PM PST
by
hocndoc
(Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
To: k2blader
I was listening to CBS radio at the top of the hour (not very closely, mind you). They were interviewing primary voters in South Carolina(?). One old lady came said that Bush "pretended" to give seniors prescription drug benefits. Same with the amnesty. Do you actually think this would make significant inroads with Hispanics?
188
posted on
01/29/2004 1:54:53 PM PST
by
WinOne4TheGipper
(Appease "my-way-or-the-highway" conservatives. Build new roads.)
To: fritzz
The "all-or-nothing" conservatives will always be a problem. welcome to the real world where people vote thier concience instead of blindly supporting a party. I saw what george bush was during the campaign in 2000 and i switched from republican to libertarian before the election and i voted libertarian. If handling conservatives is such a problem for the republican party maybe they should just write them off and allow people who'll sacrafice principal for a particular partys' election to have free reign in the republican party. Of course nothing will change in the republician party because too many buy into "only a few more years and then we'll be conservative."
To: votelife
" I think I can speak for the majority of this site hoping he'll get more conservative next term."
I hope so, if he does not there will be a lot less people voting. They will say "Why bother, no matter how I vote I get the same crap."
"btw, I do see Estrada getting reappointed in a 2nd Bush term, if not at the end of this term."
I don't know, Estrada may not want Bush to put him up again. He may feel seriously betrayed.
190
posted on
01/29/2004 2:03:31 PM PST
by
looscnnn
("Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils" Gen. John Stark 1809)
To: hocndoc
I phrased that poorly. The only way conservatives can be kept on the reservation is if they continually see Rat obstruction. If the judges were confirmed, Bush would lose a valuable talking point when it came to conservative displeasure. Hence Bush's inaction. Its a pretty cynical political move by Bush towards his supporters but hey, it appears to be working.
191
posted on
01/29/2004 2:11:27 PM PST
by
KantianBurke
(Principles, not blind loyalty)
To: 13foxtrot
because I think he could win easily if he stuck to conservative principles. Yep. On domestic issues especially. He's doing fine abroad.
192
posted on
01/29/2004 2:12:48 PM PST
by
k2blader
(Folks who deny the President's proposal is an amnesty are being intellectually dishonest.)
To: will1776; 13foxtrot
Do you actually think this would make significant inroads with Hispanics? I think the proposal will lose more votes than any gained.
13foxtrot's #184 is spot on.
193
posted on
01/29/2004 2:22:06 PM PST
by
k2blader
(Folks who deny the President's proposal is an amnesty are being intellectually dishonest.)
To: 13foxtrot; Spiff
RE: " I thought knee-jerk reactions where something that the American Left was known for, not thoughtful American Conservatives."
Good point! The left patented knee-jerk reactions.
Spiff's post #102 is perhaps the most thoughtful American Conservative post of all our posts.
I am leaning toward None of the Above for president. I will vote for my Republican Congressman, Wally Herger. There's a very slim chance an American who supports our borders, language, and culture will oppose Barbara "check bouncer" Boxer. Otherwise, it's None of the Above for senate.
If one of dem Rats become president he/she cannot do all his/her evil without the Congress. The Congress is likely to remain in the hands of the Republicans. Which reminds me of the Tennessee Fainting Goats. When confronted their muscles stiffen up and they fall over. Hmm. Oh well, never mind.
I heard Congressman Tancredo say the White House (Rove) is trying to get someone to beat him in the primaries. It would not surprise me to see them support his Democrat opponent in the general elections. I loathe both parties. We need at least one party that puts country ahead of politics.
Yes, the President has done great standing tall for America and our military. I do worry that election year politics may play too important of a role between now and the election, however. It may affect our military. I'll wait and see then maybe I'll vote for him knowing that much of his amnesty mischief maybe can be defeated in Congress.
To: looscnnn
We just want him to keep his word of what was said during campaigning and be more conservative. We may gripe about his taking the side of the libs on a couple of issues, but we would still vote for him. When he goes as far as he has on so many liberal issues and not keeping his word, it is time to seriously wonder about him.
Didn't he say he would push for prescription coverage, testing in the schools with no child left behind, reduced Eco regulations, increased energy support, revitalizing the military, conservative judges and tax cuts during the campaign?
195
posted on
01/29/2004 2:59:44 PM PST
by
CMAC51
To: 13foxtrot
If Al Gore was Prez the Congress would not allow him to have his way.
That makes sense. On the one hand the Senate has no balls and can't get Bush's judges confirmed. On the other hand they would have been a stone wall that all of Al Gore's plans would have crashed against. Yep, makes perfect sense to me. Oh wait a minute, in 2001, the Repub's had about a 0.9% majority in the house. That's where the great defensive stand would have taken place.
196
posted on
01/29/2004 3:05:00 PM PST
by
CMAC51
To: votelife
I refuse to be a cynic. Too depressing.
I see a problem here. Are you choosing to overlook problems simply because they depress you? Read Candide sometime.
As to 'seeing the big picture,' I think that by focusing so tightly on the Supreme Court, it is you who is ignoring the larger issue.
What we have is a fiscally liberal adminstration that embraces deficit spending. Funding the NEA adds to a cacophony of alarms sounding from agriwelfare, drug benefits, open borders, and much more. Taking off the Bot-blinders doesn't make you a cynic. It is the first step towards becoming an informed voter.
197
posted on
01/29/2004 3:24:10 PM PST
by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
To: looscnnn
Estrada has met with a lot of the Senators. The Dems wanted the White House to disclose all of these important memos which was unprecedented. I think Estrada understands he was the victim of a viscious political attack and that the numbers just weren't there in the Senate. If Bush had been really aggressive, Estrada MIGHT have been confirmed. I wish Bush/Frist had done more, but they didn't.
I do think we haven't heard the last of Estrada.
198
posted on
01/29/2004 3:26:35 PM PST
by
votelife
(Elect a Filibuster Proof Majority)
To: KantianBurke
I agree. This is why Bush signed a Partial-Birth Abortion Act that is exactly like one that was ALREADY stuck down by SCOTUS on technical grounds. So it's been stayed.
We could have a REAL law protecting children from PBA, but Bush would rather be able to run on this issue again in the future after the SCOTUS inevitably strikes it down. It depresses me.
To: KantianBurke
interesting point about the obstruction, but you talk as if Bush operates in a vaccuum where Daschle/Hillary/Kennedy have no power. Even if Bush takes to national TV and bemoans the obstruction, it's tough to say that Bush can get Scalia like judges through the Senate. To say nothing if RINO's like Spectre, Collins, etc even will vote yes on them.
200
posted on
01/29/2004 3:29:12 PM PST
by
votelife
(Elect a Filibuster Proof Majority)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 241-243 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson