[votelife]

I refuse to be a cynic. Too depressing. In 2002 Bush campaigned against judicial obstruction. This helped the GOP win the senate by electing Saxby, Coleman, Talent...We almost won SD but those Indian reservations...

In his SOTU speech Bush talked about activist judges and even alluded to a constitutional amendment re: gay marriage. Talk like this suggests that Bush is getting ready to take the fight to the liberals. That being said, we need to back him up.

[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?

[looscnnn]

"In 2002 Bush campaigned against judicial obstruction. ....In his SOTU speech Bush talked about activist judges and even alluded to a constitutional amendment re: gay marriage. Talk like this suggests that Bush is getting ready to take the fight to the liberals."

Ever think that this is just talk and starting his campaigning early? What has he done about the judicial obstructions? Nothing. Did he stand up/push for Miguel Estrada? No. He did not do anything until Miguel withdrew his name, this should not have happened.

[gcruse]

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.