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

[WinOne4TheGipper]

You'll never get the mules to agree with you.

[Az Joe]

A Republican has not nominated a Supreme Court justice for 15 years this Oct. (Thomas)

WE MUST HOLD THE WHITE HOUSE.!!

[cinFLA]

Its the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine -- If I elect a liberal by default so be it - I hope the RNC/GOP is listening because I am not alone. We'll see who flinches first.

You seem very disenfranchised. Perhaps you need a hobby?

[votelife]

how did the GOP treat Clinton's nominees? Breyer and Ginsburg cruised through. I'm sure Kerry could get his nominees through. The GOP doesn't have the courage to filibuster nominees. So with a Dem pres, we will get liberal judges. If you think Bush will give us liberal judges, then don't vote for him. Or if you think Bush is too liberal for America, don't vote for him either.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

They'll act like Republicans again?!!! You must mean the ones that turned impeachment into a joke...

[mystery-ak]

Im with you...Kerry 04.

[aodell]

There's always something that is "too important". I won't be sold a bill of goods anymore. This president is NOT a conservative.

[Huck]

In the same SOTU he bragged about a handful of his unconstitional entitlement programs and unfunded mandates. I forget if he mentioned CFR, which he signed into law. I don't know. Maybe the SCOTUS is our only hope, but what's the point if in order to get more conservative justices we have to elect a man who wouldn't know an enumerated power if he tripped over one?

[votelife]

maybe not publically, but when they're in the voting booth, who knows what they'll do.

I convinced a Buchanan type friend in FL in 2000 to go for Bush on the issue of the SC. Now he says he won't vote for Bush. We'll see.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

It took two years to finally get him on the bench?!!! Sheesh...

[Poohbah]

If I elect a liberal by default so be it - I hope the RNC/GOP is listening because I am not alone.

Your case of MPD doesn't count.

We'll see who flinches first.

It's been tried, sonny. The unappeasables lost. 2000 ring a bell? How about 2002?

[longtermmemmory]

If we can get a filibuster proof majority, we could nominate Judge Bork and do right for man who was very much wronged.

[Moose4]

Oh, he'll nominate them, all right; his Federal judge picks (Estrada, Pickering, Rogers Brown, etc.) have been very impressive. But unless he can put the squeeze on Frist and Hatch to actually DO something about getting them confirmed, Leaky Leahy and Co. will make sure they never get confirmed.

It is time for Bush to get Frist, Hatch, and the GOP Senatorial leadership up to the White House and read them the riot act. The time for niceness and compromise in the Senate is over; look what's happening on the judicial obstruction memos, Frist and Hatch are rolling over like puppy dogs to Kennedy and the Dem pit bulls.

Plain and simple, the GOP Senators have to have the law laid down to them: Do whatever it takes to get those nominations confirmed, or don't count on any support in a Bush second term. It is a matter that is too important for the future of the country to be decided by the Democrats. It's war. Plain and simple. The Republicans in the Senate have to fight. And if they don't, they must be replaced.

Right now, Hillary Clinton's proving to have bigger balls than Bill Frist, Orrin Hatch, and Trent Lott *combined*.

}:-)4

[capitan_refugio]

Based on the nominations (and recess appointments) G W bush has made to the Federal courts so far, I am Court when vacancies occur. The nomination of Federal judges is a very important aspect of the Presidency, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Who would you rather have making those nominations ... a flaming lib like John Kerry or Howard Dean, or George Bush? I certainly respect your right to vote your conscience, but let's face facts, there is no chance a Libertarian will be elected President, so you vote is essentially wasted.

(P.S. Do you remember Ed Clark? He was the Libertarian candidate for President in 1980. I met him once, because he worked for the same corporation as my father. Good man, but what did he get, 1% of the popular vote?)

[CMAC51]

yeah a vote for Bush means he'll appoint a liberal like his daddy. Bush Jr. and Sr. are afraid of the liberal elite and will cower to the will of left. No thanks - Bush is worse than a liberal and just one step ahead of Clinton. It is like comparing bad to worse.

Okay, put facts where your big mouth is...Name one liberal judge that Bush has appointed. Even if you take moderate as meaning liberal, his ration is still probably 10 to 1 in favor of conservatives.

[votelife]

I can't wait to see what those who complain about Bush now say the next time a Democrat is elected.

[wadeintothem]

I believe the majority of conservatives PRETENDING they will have a hand in trying to get a dem in office by tossing their vote in the garbage from some useless 3rd party candidate is a DUTroll just stiring garbage.

It's illogical to respond to Bush's spending habits (i admit its a bit much) by vowing to put a dem into office. Does that make any sense?

Lame... Dont let the DU trolls get ur feathers ruffled.. real conservatives know Bush is doing good enough to get their vote; even if they disagree with him on certain issues... the rest.. piss on em.

[Sloth]

Souter -- appointed by a Republican
O'Connor -- appointed by a Republican
Stevens -- appointed by a Republican
Kennedy -- appointed by a Republican

Not a good track record.

[capitan_refugio]

Oops, over wrote and lost a couple of words. Second line should read "I am sure he will make good appointments to the Court ..."

[kaktuskid]

Clinton merely recess appointed them!