Posted on 11/13/2004 7:42:41 PM PST by Cedar
Supreme Court Strategy President Bush should give voters what they want: conservative Justices.
The first post-election political skirmish is taking place over the Supreme Court, with President Bush getting lectures that his re-election victory means nothing when it comes to judges. Funny, that isn't what his opponents told us before the election.
Then they warned that the "future of the Supreme Court" for a generation was at stake, that if Mr. Bush won he'd have license to name more Antonin Scalias and Clarence Thomases to the federal bench... So now that they've won, why is Mr. Bush the one who is supposed to appoint different nominees than he named in the first term?
We'd say the President has an obligation, all right, but it's to the voters who elected him. His supporters sent a clear signal about the kind of judges they want nominated and confirmed. The Democrats who filibustered appellate court nominees for the first time in history are the folks who need to rethink their strategy.
To set the proper tone, Mr. Bush could begin his new term by re-nominating every candidate who was filibustered and is willing to go through the process again. All 10 nominees were highly qualified and had enough Democratic support to be confirmed if they hadn't been blocked by a liberal minority from receiving a full Senate vote..
In thinking about possible nominees, it helps first to understand the nature of the current court. Far from being conservative in the judicial sense of that word, today's court is controlled by the swing votes of two justices--Mrs. O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy--who lean left on such crucial issues as racial preferences, church-state relations, property rights, abortion and gay marriage. Especially if the Chief leaves, the court will need another conservative.. to maintain its current balance...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Works for me...
Given the range of "conservative" beliefs on FR there is no answer to that...although many will claim it's what they believe it to be.
Anybody have verifiable knowledge of any Planned Parenthood - type organizations contributing to Specter?
AMEN!
LOL He should, but will he? After his appointing Gonzales, I've got my doubts.
A conservative justice is one who is a strict constructionist when interpreting the constitution. It's really kind of simple... you just do what the document says, not what you see between the lines.
Just be glad he appointed Gonzales to the Att'y Generals position, instead of nominating him to the SCOTUS.
LOL! I've yet to see a consensus on that on FR yet...which leads back to the very same situation I first described. What's a Conservative Justice?
Very much agree on the new bigotry--they just can't stand Christians getting in places of authority.
I heard a clip from Judge Bork mentioning that this present Supreme Court is not a conservative one. I noticed this mentioned in the Opinion article:
"Far from being conservative in the judicial sense of that word..."
Also the article stated that just to maintain its current balance, a conservative judge must be chosen. Important words for all to hear.
It is extremely important that the Chairman of the Judiciary be ACTIVELY working to get through President Bush's conservative nominees--thus, Arlen Specter is "unfit to command" that high position. As others have noted, Specter's comments don't imply he would give the strong pushing that's needed.
Hear, HEAR!!
Conservative Constitutionist Justices THAT LOVE AMERICA, NOT AMERIKA!!
(...you know: grown-ups which know the fundamental differences between right and wrong - intellectually honest people that don't make up crap, that can read and interpret the Consitution as is...)
I took the time to proofread this - and you just went and said it! :D
It's been verified that George Soros donated to the group supporting Specter.
I'll have to check about the PP/others donations.
It is extremely important that the Chairman of the Judiciary be ACTIVELY working to get through President Bush's conservative nominees--thus, Arlen Specter is "unfit to command" that high position. As others have noted, Specter's comments don't imply he would give the strong pushing that's needed.
>>>
I wouldn't leave King Arlen alone in a room with my daughter for a split second to see if it was raining outside - 'just because' King Arlen said it was raining.
If Bush is going to send up the type of Justice nominees I described in my post above, they deserve the opportunity - which we still have - to have a 'shepard' guide them through and usher them in.
Not a devout anti-Christ RINO Scottish Pied-pissing Globalist Baby-butchering Constitutionally Bankrupt Elite Weasel...not the Chair, not after all we've been through together.
If there need be a fight, let it be right here right now. I think some dead white man said that a few years back and I see nothing wrong with it today.
How can someone who subverts the law becalled a judge. in my opinion liberal judge is an oxymoron.
I agree with your take Cedar. And I didn't mention the word "conservative" in describing what I wanted for a Supreme Court nominee -- I think I implied it -- so I'll take this opportunity to add that qualification.
..."not the Chair, not after all we've been through together."
You're saying exactly what so many others are saying...after all the hard work and effort by conservatives that went into this election (at all levels)--the Republicans better not give away this opportunity to RINOs and the Democrats.
There will be a backlash if they do.
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.