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

[deport]

Hopefully the Republicrats will nominate someone worthy of the position.

---

The best way to keep America a sovereign free nation is to keep the Democrats out of power!

[Nanodik]

But look at the vote totals, and who voted for Perot. More would have voted for R than D.

This still points to the fact that the RP ran crappy candidates. Had they ran someone that people could have got excited about, they would have won. When was the last time you saw an ad campaign that instead of claiming the product was great, just said that all the other competitors stuff was crap? I see Republicrats do this all the time. "Vote for me because I am not a Dem!" and then they wonder why voters did not turn out for them. You don't succeed in any type of market by claiming to be the lesser of two evils.

[itsahoot]

Plain and simple, the GOP Senators have to have the law laid down to them:

Right now they are too busy trying to chop the legs from under all the conservative candidates for the senate.

[itsahoot]

3 Words

Ruth Bader Gisberg.

Rubberstamped

---

At the suggestion of Orin Hatch I might add.

[itsahoot]

These are dangerous times and I love the Bush military.

Any idea how many women have been killed in combat, in this Bush army?

[itsahoot]

Bush lost because of the "all-or-nothing" conservatives. he got fewer votes.

[B4Ranch]

"I'm curious what is your reaction to Libya giving up it's WMD's"P> I never truly believed that our own government could or would get as corrupt as it is and work against the Constitution as it has in the last two decades. Just the fact that "we" had our hands in Libya giving up it's WMD's makes me wonder what percentage they did "give up".

My understanding of this material isn't large but I do understand that a 55 gallon drum of certain chemicals is more than enough to contaminate and erradicate everyone in a city the size of LA within two days.

"elections in Jordan, Saudia Arabia and Afghanistan?"

Seeing the corruption in our own elections doesn't give me much faith that they will be less corrupt or more honorable. What were talking about is power. Power gives one money. Money buys authority. Authority is power and 'round she goes for the power hungry.

What's your opinion on these matters?

[B4Ranch]

"We need to work to bring GWB back to the right and keep his feet to the fire"

If three years of writing nice, polite letters and making polite phone calls didn't work, what do you propose to do now? He refused, flat refused to discuss the illegal alien situation until he had millions more of them on this side of the border. Every day we wait is three to five thousand more.

[itsahoot]

(that one's a hoot - an incumbent RAT Senator losing!)

Can't loose as long as they can change their candidate when they fall behind.

[aodell]

The next president will be a liberal either way. One will be an avowed liberal, and the other will be a liberal in conservative clothing.

[CMAC51]

What's your opinion on these matters?

I'm sorry, since you profess ignorance of topic and you feel that Democracy in itself is a corrupting agent, I see no point in wasting time with you. I mearly used the of topic question to get you to expose your world view. Thank you and goodnight

[aodell]

All the issues you mentioned are important to me too.

The tax cut was nothing compared to the spending increases. That was just a token to satisfy us conservatives.

But the 3 or 4 issued you brought up don't amount to a hill of beans compared to all of the liberal crap he has signed on to.

What do you think of his latest announcement on the NEA?
What do you think of his immigration proposal? What do you think of his prescription drug plan? Are they "conservative"? Will they scar this country for decades---if not forever?

[CMAC51]

Any idea how many women have been killed in combat, in this Bush army?

No, not specifically. My appreciation of the commitment and sacrifice of the personnel in the United State armed forces is not influenced by race, sex, religion or any other purely personal factor. I appreciate them-period. I grieve for those that are lost-period. I would never debase their commitment by any sexist debate other than about their fitness for duty.

[hocndoc]

Most of how I feel is colored by my run (goodness, 30 years ago!) for the president of my high school club. I lost by one vote. I believed that the honorable way for me to vote was to vote for the other candidate. She didn't.

I think, to use a cliche', that a lot of us don't like to think about how sausage is made.

President Bush has to be pragmatic. I don't. I can wonder about the NEA, the plan to phase in formerly illegal workers and employers without consequences of their former acts, by making new rules (and expecting everyone, including the employers, to suddenly become law abiding), and all the rest. Actually, I supported the drug plan in a way - I just want to see even more privitization and Health Savings accounts made easier.

I also hear Hillary crying about the President's efforts to kill the New Deal, and the women's movement claim that he wants to put us all into baby breeding, and got a front row seat when our Texas Democrat Senators became runnaways in New Mexico. That's not even mentioning the Moveon.org ads.

I believe that the problem in Washington is in the Senate and House of Representatives. The Republicans who have the Legislative power need to be called to account. The President and the rest of us need to forget that the election in 2000 was so close. And all of us need to act like the victors and right-minded people that we are.

[Kryptonite]

We can't count on the fact that a Republican president will nominate a conservative justice.

Ohhhhh, yes we can. The dims raised the stakes considerably by refusing to allow the Senate to VOTE on GWB's nominees, even though they are a substantial minority. In doing so, they tied GWB's hands, and it will be shown during his lame duck term.

Klintoon forever will search for his legacy - GWB's found most of his already - The War on Terror. His recess appointment of the (unfairly) polarizing Pickering portends that he understands fully where his legacy can gain further ground in the annals of history. Reagan's legacy includes O'Connor. GWHB's includes Souter. Greatness demands that GWB wield his power to make certain that the next Scalia, Rhenquist or Thomas takes the next open seat at this country's highest bench.

[aodell]

"President Bush has to be pragmatic."

If pragmatism requires compromising his supposedly conservative principles then the hell with pragmatism.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think you are more forgiving than me.

I don't care how close the 2000 election was. This man was elected and he owes his opponent, and those who supported his opponent, nothing.

The girl who ran against you in high school had no class. (LOL) Glad you did.

[capitan_refugio]

"The goal is the permanent crippling of the Democrat Party."

The goal is the destruction of the Democrat Party and the eradication of immoral liberalism.

Today, the Democrat Party is a coalition of special interests comprised of labor, radical environmentalists, feminists (aka abortionists), homosexuals, globalists, leftover hippies, leftist intellectuals, and champagne socialists. The various groups often work at cross-purposes.

This nation describes itself as roughly 40% conservative, 40% moderate, and 20% liberal. Bush is attempting to capture the middle (Nixon's "silent majority") while holding his base. If he is successful, he will win with 55% of the popular vote and will carry big gains in the Senate. Because of re-districting, modest Republican gains in the House are almost assured, but only modest. This is due to the "science" of redistricting, which makes most of the 435 House districts safe for the incumbent, regardless of party affiliation.

[Texas Federalist]

We can't count on the fact that a Republican president will nominate a conservative justice. Ohhhhh, yes we can.

Gonzales will be Bush's first nominee to the Supreme Court. He is not a conservative.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Hank, I respect your position to vote as you wish - and the frustration of politics.

However, no libertarian will ever win - ever. Did I emphasize "ever"?

I hasten to add that anytime a politician or group gets too far from the core values of it's base, the threat of that subdivision of voters within the party leaving is often the only compelling message they can hear. Sometimes, a move back within the views of the mainstream happens - at least to get the vote. Often, the elected official governs very differently.

I fear my party (R) has become more concerned with power and retaining it than moving the agenda they were elected to move. Your decision is perfectly logical and you have no flack from me. I will focus on what Bush has done to prosecute the war on terror and hold my nose about spending, etc. I believe the war is the top concern.

BTW, have you heard any (D) say they would vigorously prosecute the war on terror?

best, ampu

[StoneColdGOP]

Hopefully the Republicrats will nominate someone worthy of the position.

Don't count on it!