Replies

Basically we've had almost entirely liberal judges appointed to the courts for the past 60 years. Even when Republican presidents were in office they usually had to deal with Democrat-dominated senates. So Republican presidents compromised--meaning they appointed half RINOs and half Democrats--while Democrat presidents appointed more and more machine politicians and leftist activists to the bench.

Not even Ronald Reagan succeeded in reversing this unhappy trend, in which our courts have gotten more and more radical, unaccountable to the voters or the Constitution, and out of control.

Bush is the first Republican president to actually hold out for decent appointments. Rather than compromise in his first term, as Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan finally did, he has stuck with his nominees. As a result there has been deadlock for four and a half years. That's better than giving in and appointing an Earl Warren or a David Souter to the Supreme Court. Hopefully we are reaching the breaking point, and hopefully it will break our way.

This reminds me of the fight over reapportionment in Texas. It's OK when the Democrats stack the deck and gerrymander, but when the voters endorse a change of parties, the Democrats have to be dragged along kicking and screaming about how unfair their opponents are.

It's OK when the Democrats stack the deck....but when the voters endorse a change of parties, the Democrats have to be dragged along kicking and screaming

The problem I have with the RAT position is that they are trying to paint the picture that the EVIL REPUBLICANS are doing what they are doing by force, not by the ballot box results, and the RATS are fighting for ALL of the people.

I want it repeated by every Republican Senator that they do have the mandate of the PEOPLE! They should post the graphic of the Map of the US last election's results by county every time they speak.

So Republican presidents compromised--meaning they appointed half RINOs and half Democrat

Yes, just because they where picked by a Republican does not mean they are conservative.

Not then and not necessarily now either.

Like you said they had the Democrats to deal with. They also had Rino chairmen of the Judiciary Committee to deal with who have as much to say as anyone about who your judges are.

Then you have the trend of Republican senators and presidents being more interested in the business or money side of politics than the social side.

They failed to realize that just because some issue might not have a monetary impact on the country that moral and social issues could have a dramatic impact on Domestic tranquility.

In other words they would let the Democrats trade them out of some good nominees for Democratic support of some bill big business wanted passed.

As usual when they deal with the Democrats they are not very good at it.