Time to Fix Court

US News ^ | 6/6/05 | John Leo

[penowa]

As soon as the filibuster deal was announced, we began to hear the argument that President Bush should sustain the spirit of compromise by naming a moderate as his first selection to the Supreme Court. This suggestion floated mostly by Democrats and faithfully carried in headlines and news reports as a neutral idea, boils down to this: It would be needlessly provocative for Bush to name a Supreme Court justice who reflects his party's basic conviction that something is very wrong with the courts.

[penowa]

I hope this was not previously posted. Leo nails exactly what is going on. For all of you who think that it will be no problem to replace Rehnquist with another conservative, the Democrats are telegraphing their intention to fight tooth and nail for a nice ACLU-approved "moderate" like Ginsburg! If the Republicans can't deliver on what Bush campaigned on three times in regard to the courts, the Republicans have reached their high point and will lose the Senate in '06 and the House and Presidency in '08. No party is that inept and keeps on getting elected. They have fooled a lot of people until now into voting for them, but if they don't deliver, they will "wander the wilderness" for another 40 yrs. or disappear.

[ModelBreaker]

If they blow this chance out of timidity or bipartisan niceness, many of us will conclude that the GOP is not really a serious party entitled to our support.

Bump!

[bitt]

ping worthy

[Jeff Chandler]

Bush will name whomever McCain approves of, or else the candidate will not be approved by the senate.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

He is absolutely right.

[sabian976]

I concluded that last Monday night; we'll see if I was premature, but I doubt it.

[JLS]

Excellent article.

However remember it took 60is years of incrementalism, about 1932 to about 1992, with Dim majorities of both houses of Congress most of the time to get us to where we are today. It will not be reversed in a single presidency but rather over years and decades.

[jocon307]

Excellent article. Great post!

[MamaTexan]

It will not be reversed in a single presidency but rather over years and decades.

True enough.

But if the Pubs don't stop trying to be 'Dem Lite' and turn around and AT LEAST take a few steps in the right direction..............

Well, it will be a cold day in HE-double-L before we give ANOTHER Pub majority the opportunity to screw us over!

[Waywardson]

I said in and since 1999: Bush is no Reagan. Bush is not a conservative. Bush will not do anything to stop spending, rasing taxes (deficit is a tax) or end abortion or prevent homosexuality from becoming normally accepted. Nothing. Not even a half hearted effort that his most mind wiped loyalists will be able to spin. The gig is about up with this latest betrayal. Sadly, we need to wake up our weak minded bush bot types who seem to keep trusting these RINOs. Yes, Bush IS a RINO. And his betrayal on the court will be the final proof. Anyone who says otherwise is still drinking the cool-aid.

[JLS]

I am not taking a position on those fed up with the GOP right now. That is a matter for when you a couple or three people running against each other in an election. It is just a reminder for now of what we face.

[penowa]

"It will not be reversed in a single presidency but rather over years and decades."

It will NEVER be reversed if every Republican president loses ground as the last two have done. The hole we are in gets deeper with every Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor. Now that a lot of us have awakened to see what is happening and why, and Bush has campaigned on putting judges on the courts to try to balance what has previously been done by Democrats AND Republicans, we have every right to demand that the Republicans AT THE VERY LEAST not lose more ground to left-wing loonies who call themselves moderates and have taken over the function of the legislative branch. If we do not AT LEAST hold our ground by replacing Rehnquist with a conservative, then voting means NOTHING except for deciding who is called "Mr. Chairman."

[JLS]

True enough, but:

A. G.H.W. Bush was a centerist GOP president so it was harly surprising he would make centerist appointments.

B. G.W. Bush is NOT a centerist GOP president.

C. Reagan was hardly trying to please the left with his appointment of O'Connor or Kennedy. He just got fooled somewhat and Kennedy was what we got after the Bork and Ginsburg fiascos. Souter too was shortly after Borking began and greatly changed this process. The GOP was then forced to pick people without a paper trail. Do you have any hints for G.W. Bush to avoid being fooled by his nominee, I don't. It is a tricky business.

[Tanniker Smith]

And this just in: The media still cannot believe that a Catholic was elected pope.

TS

[Oatka]

If they blow this chance out of timidity or bipartisan niceness, many of us will conclude that the GOP is not really a serious party entitled to our support.

I've already told my Congressman's local rep that and got a "deer in the headlights" response. They haven't a clue - the Country Club Set against Hitler's Brown Shirts. As far as I'm concerned, they already blew it when the Nevada Pubbies didn't back their candidate against Reid in this last election.

[djreece]

marking

[skyhawk9211]

I have Already come to That conclusion!