Posted on 10/11/2004 6:45:47 PM PDT by Aetius
When Bush was asked about what type of Supreme Court picks he would make I thought he missed an opportunity to vividly paint a picture of the difference between himself and Kerry, plus that whole bit about the Dred Scott decision was just damn bizarre.
If he gets another chance, I hope he points out that he would do his best to pick judges who;
1. Would not impose gay marriage/civil unions on the entire nation agains the will of the people and their elected representatives. Bush should also point out that this is the crux of the matter, because Kerry knows he can claim to oppose gay marriage and support states rights because he knows the Courts -- especially if staffed with his judges -- will eventually do for the Left what they can't do in a fair democratic fight in Congress and most state legislatures.
2. Would not make impossible even the most reasonable restrictions on abortion, as some federal courts have overtuned bans on partial birth abortion even when it contains language allowing for exceptions for the life of the mother. (Bush let Kerry go w/o pointing out he voted against a ban that had such an exception)
3. Would recognize that the Second Amendment protects and individual right of Americans, not a collective right as liberals like Kerry claim.
I thought his response of someone that upholds the constitution instead of trying to make laws was the perfect response.
That was imho the most powerful moment of the whole evening, but one needed to read between the lines. Here's a hint: Can you think of another case in American judicial history involving the relegation of an entire group of people to the status of "property". It was brilliantly veiled, but few people saw it. It will become clearer over time; it must.
But he needed to provide concrete examples of what he is talking about. Most people would agree that judges shouldn't be making laws, but Bush needs to point out how on these contentious social/cultural issues Kerry judges would do just that.
Bush should have said he that as in 2000 he likes judges like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, and then dare Kerry to say what exactly is wrong with Thomas or Scalia.
But most people listening probably didn't even know what that case was about. It would be better to bring to light exactly what the consequences of judicial activism would be on today's hot-button issues, and that Kerry picks would not doubt indulge in such activism because it is the only realm of govt in which the Left can win on these issues because they know they have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people.
I agree. Kerry would have no doubt said something about their lack of respect for civil rights. This would be a perfect opportunity for Bush to excoriate Kerry and his ilk for expanding the definition of 'civil rights' to the point it has become code for left-wing politics; and cite as an example how they now equate support for civil rights with support for racial preferences in college admissions.
He tiptoed around it. He figured anyone who agreed with him would vote for him anyway, and that there was no point in stirring up the opposition by adverstising his position on it. Unfortunately, like so many other things, the question of whether we should appoint conservatives or radical nutcases to the Supreme Court is one on which the nation is divided 50-50. At this late point in the campaign, both candidates are simply trying to push the right buttons to tip the scales on the issues where the nation is not divided 50-50.
Yes, but I think the rhetorical battle over Sup Court appointments is one that can be won by Conservatives.
I have yet to hear Bush, or any of his talking heads for that matter, point out the hypocrisy and disingenuousness of Kerry's position on gay marriage. Bush should point out how its easy for him to say the things he says because Kerry knows that the Courts will do for him what he can't do in the political realm.
At the very least, Bush could rhetorically ask, "Since Sen Kerry claims to support letting the states decide, then it begs the question of what the Senator would do IF the Courts in fact do impose gay marriage or civil unions on the states.
The GOP should try harder to point out that Conservative, strict-contructionist judges would leave the resolution of these hot-button issues to the people, they wouldn't impose anything on anyone, whereas Kerry's judges would act like kings and remove the people from the process altogether.
Plus, Bush didn't even point out how Kerry voted against the federal DOMA which stated that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from another state. Over 80 senators voted for that, but not Kerry.
The president gave a solid conceptual response. To me, he missed out on a big opportunity to contrast his approach to that of the Democrats. The perfect examples can be drawn by the Democrat filibusters of Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owens, Bill Pryor, etc., to federal appeals court posts.
The democrats are fanatics that have an pro-abortion litmus test. Just using Estrada as an example, Kerry and the Dems filibustered a wonderful guy who is a real American dream story.
Kerry's phony, greasy claim to respect the beliefs of the lady who asked about partial birth abortion was a perfect 2nd opportunity to nail the point home. The president is right that reasonable people can disagree, but Kerry and the donkeys are fanatics. This litmus test of theirs means that Catholics or other conservatives need not apply. That is not right and the voters should be reminded that Kerry is in lockstep with that fanaticism.
Bush did a great job by letting Kerry show his contempt for the Constitution.
Kerry said that he would appoint justices who would interpret the Constitution according to the law.
They are supposed to interpret the law according to the Constitution.
Yes, so Bush should have pointed out that Kerry judges are the type who would use their ideology to interpret the Constitution. Kerry judges would read the Constitution and come away declaring that it requires gay marriage, bars the most reasonable restrictions on abortion, etc.
He needed to include some concrete, specific examples to go along with the sound conceptual response he gave. He needs to put a face on the concept.
He said what he said with clarity and was concise. You can't do better than that. He didn't scare off my daughters who fear the recriminalization of abortion. That means a lot because they will vote for Bush based on what he said.
Yes, an unflattering testimony to our public school system.
I've been frustrated for years, though, that the pro-life movement has not shed more light of the obvious parallels between Jim Crow and pro-choice. It's a wonder that more blacks do not support conservatives, since on social issues they are far more closely aligned to conservatives (pro-life, pro-compassion, anti-gay) than the contrary. That's why I was so blown away by that comment, from the POTUS no less.
Kerry's already made his position clear on gay marriage, though. He's opposed to it, but won't stop it. He's repeatedly said that "We have a Constitution" when asked about it. That means he thinks there is a constitutional right to gay marriage, and he's not going to change his view. I think that this issue is already factored into the polls and will be reflected in the vote. No one is going to change their minds by Bush making an issue of it, at least no one will change their minds and vote for Bush. It's quite possible that no one will change their minds and vote against him because of the issue, as well, but he doesn't want to chance it.
I'm not saying that a more detailed response would win the election for Bush, but the fact is that it couldn't hurt. Most Americans oppose gay marriage, therefore they probably also oppose having it imposed on them by the Courts. At the very least it could help energize the base.
You are right about Kerry's position -- claim to oppose gay marriage yet do nothing while his ideological allies in the Judiciary impose what he claims to oppose -- but I think you are wrong in suggesting that that is clear to Americans.
Its not clear because Bush and the GOP have failed to point it out. They must say that Kerry's position is disingenuous because he knows full well that the Courts -- especially if he gets to make appointments -- will impose gay marriage.
Bush should at least rhetorically ask; "What then would the most liberal Senator do IF the Courts in fact do impose gay marriage?"
The Left/Dems have done a good job of hiding behind the fact that the Federal Courts haven't YET done this, and behind the fact that the federal DOMA hasn't been overturned YET. But no one on our side has bothered asking what then would they do if and when these things happen.
And finally, Bush should also point out that Kerry was one of a tiny handful of Senators to vote against the federal DOMA.
The Dred Scott allusion pleased pro-lifers b/c it's a comparison pro-lifers make to demonstrate that in Dred Scott, as in Roe v Wade, the USSC deemed some Americans were not considered "persons" under the law......Blacks b/c of their color, and unborn babies b/c of where they reside (in the womb).
Let us conclude Dred Scott had an overt appeal, as you mentioned, and a more profound though and veiled meaning, as Liz and others have seen. That's how I took it, and I rather suspect that's the way Bush intended it.
BTW, the fact he made this statement in St. Louis - where Taney handed down that same Dred Scott decision some 146 years ago - added something to the poignancy.
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.