Supreme Court Strategy President Bush should give voters what they want: conservative Justices.

Opinion Journal ^

[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...

[SuziQ]

I'd suggest Mary Anne Glendon,

I agree!!

[TEXOKIE]

"Frist's speech indicated his willingness to do whatever it took to break the Dem. stranglehold."

Which speech is that? Do you have a link?

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

I posted the whole speech and the original URL at this other FR thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1279549/posts?page=37#37

[narses]

Title: GOP Sen. Specter Vows to Block Bush's Nominees
Source: newsmax
URL Source:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/29/165559.shtml
Published: Oct 29, 2004
Author: newsmax
Post Date: 2004-10-29 20:42:24 by TLBSHOW
3 Comments

Recall that alleged Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, upon winning the primary, immediately backstabbed President Bush, who had campaigned for him instead of actual Republican Pat Toomey. Turns out Specter was just getting started.

We now see that the usually pro-Democrat Pittsburgh Post-Gazette endorsed the sharp-horned RINO in Tuesday's general election for this reason: "Before the Post-Gazette editorial board, he promised that no extremists would be approved for the bench."

What the pro-abortion Specter and pro-abortion Post-Gazette mean by "extremist" is anyone who isn't pro-abortion or who otherwise follows the U.S. Constitution instead of making up legislation from the bench.

"Even if he votes nine out of 10 times for the administration, we trust his word that the 10 percent of difference will be a brake on the worst excesses of a second Bush term, if it comes to that," the pee-yoo P-G snarled.

And there are these facts:

Arlen Specter:

Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)

Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)

Success is near because of all the hard work we have done, but it is not yet over. The Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Times, and United Press International all covered how the offices have been flooded with calls, but we need to keep it up as the fight does not end here! Make the calls all over again on Monday.

Also note the changes to the site, all the recent press mentions will be on the Why? page, but this blog should keep you fairly up to date on the goings ons.

Mark Harris .:. 11/6/2004 Keep Up The Work

Things are going fantastic over here, as we have gotten press through the Laura Ingram Show, several state pro-life alerts, and countless conservative e-mail lists, but the fight has just begun.

The rumor on the Hill is that things are about ready to break. We just need to keep up pressure on them to make sure it happens. So keep your eyes and ears open. NotSpecter.com also has some great resources that have gone up so make sure to check it out.

Also GrassrootsPA.com has a letter written by Specter to raise money that slams the conservative wing of the party, which puts to rest any argument over how he would run the Judiciary Committee.

http://stopspecter.savethegop.com/

Lest you think this is fiction - these signs started to appear in the Philadelphia area just before the election, paid for by Arlen’s former campaign manager. This particular picture originially appeared in the Philly Daily News.

[Clintonfatigued]

"Clarence Thomas would be a marvellous chief justice."

You're right about Thomas's abilities, but it won't happen. He remains stained by the evil lies of Anita Hill and her supporters and nominating Thomas would dredge all that filth up again. Bush is combat-averse and doesn't want a fight that fierce. In all likelyhood, Thomas would turn down the offer.

[Clintonfatigued]

"The fact is, the Democrats are going to dig their heels in and try to fight to the death over ANY and EVERY nominee they think might pose a threat to Roe v. Wade -- a liberal candidate campaign cash cow."

Very true, but not every single one of them. First of all, every Republican Senator (including the most liberal RINO's) have been Bush loyalists on judicial nominations. So, barring something highly unexpected, they will do the same on a Supreme Court nominee. So that's 55 votes to begin with.

So now the Senate 'Rats. There are a few who will do business with Republicans.

Ben Nelson (D-NE)-Nelson is a moderate (ACU-54) from a heavily G.O.P. state, probably facing a very tough race with Governor Mike Johanns. He would welcome the opportunity to show his independence from his party.

Blanche Lambert (D-AR)-a cagey, risk-averse moderate-liberal, she occasionally breaks with her party. She was reelected by less-than-expected against a weak opponent.

Joe Biden (D-DE)-it's easy to dislike Biden, but he has been willing to cut deals with Republicans on occasion. He is also good friends with Arlen Specter. As for Specter, he is now eager to prove himself trustworthy to conservatives in the wake of grass-roots opposition to his chairmanship. The campaign to deny Specter the chairmanship has shaken the RINO deeply.

Bill Nelson (D-FL)-a politically cautious politician from a marginal and unpredictable state. He spent most of his career hiding behind popular Senator Bob Graham, and can't do that anymore. He likely faces a tough race in a state which trended Republican in 2002 and 2004.

That's 59 votes. As for the rest, it's easy to imagine one of them surprising us. Jim Jeffords ticked off conservatives with his party switch. But remember, he voted to confirm Charles Pickering, and is close friends with Trent Lott. Dianne Feinstein is even more dislikable. Yet she has surprised once in a while, and has expressed qualms about the filibusters. Groups like The Alliance For Justice have described her as unreliable.

If Bush and conservatives play their cards right, this is very winnable.

[Tamzee]

I believe strongly that your activities are counterproductive to advancing pro-life measures. Please take me off your ping list.

[hosepipe]

[ Supreme Court Strategy President Bush should give voters what they want: conservative Justices. ]

Sooo, I take it..
You don't believe the FIX is already in for Specter..

[mrsmith]

Luttig is a great choice (too bad Wilinkson is not ten years younger though).

But I don't and won't buy the idea that a justice of a like philosophy should replace retirees. Neither will the media be able to make that view stick for the Dems, the freewheeling interpretation of the Constitution is no longer supported by most people (thanks in part to the Mass. Sup . Ct.). Heck, four of the present justice's judicial philosophies are just plain nuts.

Of course there's no need to ask for trouble.
Replace the liberal O'Connor and Kennedy and the nutcases with moderates, replace the moderate Rehnquist with a conservative. A woman should probably replace Sandy.

[mrsmith]

Nelson of Fl. has a 100% NARAL rating, forget him.

Also we have three Republican Senators with 83% or better NARAL ratings.

Unless we change the filibuster rule NARAL and the dems' still control enough votes to stop any conservative judge.

[Siobhan]

Your observations about a Hispanic Catholic woman are correct, but do you have a name to suggest? I would like to know.

We should always insert and insist on the name of

Edith Hollan Jones

into any discussion of potential Supreme Court Justices.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

NARAL = Kiss Of Death to the unborn. Any politician doing well in their rankings is no friend of the Constitution's original intent or Conservatives.

[Smartass]

Appointing conservative Justices to the Supreme Court is just one crucial step.   In my opinion, a more pressing issue should be a simplified method of purging U.S. District, and Appellate Courts of activist judges.   Once appointed, they are self monitoring and unaccountable to the other two branches of government.   Politically appointed U.S. judges should not have more rights than elected officials of the other two branches of government.   Liberal activist judges, that have teamed up with the ACLU have slowly destroyed our Constitution.

Further, federal judges should not be able to hide behind the term "judicial independence." Nor should they be entitled to life time employment.

[CWOJackson]

"Potential 20,000+ post thread alert! LMAO!"

I think we could do that easily. Just ask everyone how a "Conservative" Justice would rule on the War on Drugs; if we threw in a few topics such as ownership of certain types of weapons and police powers we could double that.

[Cedar]

"Especially since their ringleader lost his seat in the Senate to someone who advocated dumping the filibuster and nominating strict constructionists. The lesson, however, will be lost on the Dims."

Yes, both Democrats AND Republicans better take heed to this lesson...people are tired of the game-playing in Washington. Congressional seats are no longer secure for anyone.

[Cedar]

Maybe your own thread would be better for that, CWO.

[CWOJackson]

Actually if the topic is nominating Conservative Justices it would be important to determine just what is Conservative. Considering the extremely wide range of opinions regarding Conservatism on FR that's pretty germane to your topic.

For instance, how would a "Conservative" Justice rule regarding the War on Drugs? I've seen many diverse Constitutional opinions on FR that range from anti to pro.

It's hard to determine who's an acceptable "Conservative" nominee when there is no consensus on what is Conservative.

[Cedar]

Again, I think your topic is deserving of a brand new thread. I'll come read it after you get it going.

[CWOJackson]

I guess we have a difference of opinion then. I consider it vastly important to actually have a reasonable understanding of a consensus on what actually constitutes a "Conservative" Justice before trying to identify a person who fills that category.

[Cedar]

"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..."

It's been already established.