WHAT CONSERVATIVE COURT? (MUST READ from GOPUSA -- Includes Poll on Amendment for Marriage!)

GOPUSA ^ | June 30, 2003 | Bobby Eberle

[PhiKapMom]

What Conservative Court?

By Bobby Eberle
June 30, 2003

There has been a longstanding charge by liberals, both in government and the media, that the United States Supreme Court is too conservative. This belief has led to scare tactics by Democrat legislators and pundits that President Bush's mission is to stack the entire court system with even more of the dreaded conservative judges. There are many who believe that efforts by Democrats to filibuster judicial nominees such as Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen are done merely to set the stage for when a vacancy opens up on the Supreme Court. But, do the charges from the left hold water? Is the Supreme Court really as conservative as they claim?

The recent rulings by the Supreme Court on a host of social issues proves that the cries by liberals are completely unfounded. Just ask leading social conservative leaders about the so-called "conservative court," and you'll get shaking heads, faces of disappointment, and sighs of defeat. In a week of rulings that could have set a new tone for America, the Supreme Court proved that social traditions take a back seat to mandated social change, states rights has little meaning, and discrimination for the sake of diversity is permissible.
Please Click Here for Full Article!

[TLBSHOW]

Conservative Activists Rebel Against Drug Plan
"It’s upsetting to find a Republican President calling for the biggest increase in entitlements since the days of Lyndon Johnson," said Don Devine, the former Reagan Administration official who now serves as second vice-chairman of the American Conservative Union. "It would appear that Republicans mouth platitudes, but aren’t serious about the issue of limited government anymore. "

In almost every case, leading conservative activists who spoke to Human Events criticized the administration for working to expand the welfare state.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=1102

A vote for Bush is a vote for socialism.

He must be held to the fire but Good!!!!

[MissAmericanPie]

One certainly wouldn't know it by this article. I'm a registered independent who has always found it odd that I only receive Republican duns for donations. I thought my vote was private.

It's amazing what they know isn't it. Like, how do they know that Christians stayed away from the polls in 2000?
How do they garner the information to know that yet can't seem to find a realistic figgure on the amount of illegals in the nation? For instance they claim there are only 4 to 8 million when in reality, there are at least 4 million in Cali, and close to 4 million in Texas alone.

I'm busy pondering the answer to these questions, so I'm far too busy to ponder why Novak is a registered Democrat yet publishes like a conservative.

[deport]

How about reelecting President Bush and other republicans... you didn't answer....

[Reagan Man]

If the court wanted to make a true statement for the need to end racism, they should not have legally sanctioned the continuation of race as a factor in college admissions. Instead, the court should have stuck to the Constitution! It does not get much clearer than the 14th Amendment which states that citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Discriminating to end discrimination is not equal protection.

Well said Bobby Eberle.

PresBush said to Tim Russert during the "2000 Campaign", that his idea of a Supreme Court Justice, would be to appoint someone in the mold of Anton Scalia or Clarence Thomas. I agree and would add the name of William Reinquest to that very short list. Kennedy and O'Conner aren't ardent conservatives and haven't lived up to their original billing.

OTOH, its hard for any president, or anyone else for that matter to predict how a SC nominee will turn out after 25-35 years on the nations highest court. The appointments of Warren Burger, Earl Warren and David Souter are recent examples of some judges, who over a period of time have drastically changed their judicial perspective and have come to be influenced by outside sources.

Judges need to stick to the original intent of the Constitution and follow the Founding Fathers prescription for our constitutional Republic. Judicial activism isn't the sign of a conservative court.

[backhoe]

this is going to be one nasty campaign

You will see the nastiness that was the signature of "the Golden Age of Clinton" raised to the nth degree.

I hope the 'net and talk radio will be able to counter-spin and get the truth out... but it will be so nasty!

[MeekOneGOP]

FReeped and bumped !!

Here are the current survey results.

GOPUSA Poll

Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) said that he supported an amendment to the Constitution that would ban any marriage in the United States except a union of a man and a woman. Would you support such an amendment?

Yes
-- 86%

No
-- 13%

Total Votes: 181

GOPUSA Poll

[Spiff]

I guess this particular article was not the poster child for unnecessary excerpting. Excerpting is running rampant on FR and it is annoying. You'll know how really annoying it is 6 months to a year from now when you want to go back and look at a particular article and find that it was only excerpted and the original article at the publication's website has been removed.

I support GOPUSA and will probably be signing my local Republican Party to use one of their offered services. But I think that GOPUSA should support Free Republic and welcome more than just two paragraphs to be excerpted here. If GOPUSA can ask for special treatment, why can't any other publication? And then, before you know it, FR loses one of its primary features - the permanent archival of articles from various publications along with the comments made about those articles at the time of publication.

So, while I agree that GOPUSA should be supported and that this particular thread was not the best thread to get upset about unnecessary excerpting, I still think the excerpting was unnecessary here and that the entire article should have been posted and that Eberle should have welcomed the entire article to be posted.

[Common Tator]

It does not get much clearer than the 14th Amendment which states that citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Discriminating to end discrimination is not equal protection.

The Constitution is not worth a warm pitcher of spit. The Supreme Court always rules as it wants to rule no matter what the words on the parchment say.

If leftists control the court they will say the constitution means whatever they want it to mean... no matter what the words in that document mean.

If Conservatives rule the court, they will mostly rule correctly according to the meaning of the document. But if their were No Written Constitution Conservative Justices would still make the same rulings.

Anyone who thinks the words in the Constitution have any bearing on court rulings, has not studied the last 198 years of court decisions.

[justshe]

---

A vote for Bush is a vote for socialism.
TLBSHOW
June 30th, 2003

---

So you are actively now campaigning against President Bush?

Guess there was never any real question, but glad you are at least now being honest.

[deport]

Where did 'no action jackson' make that post? That's a keeper.

he's really into supporting the President's reelection campaign it seems.

[justshe]

TLBSHOW: A vote for Bush is a vote for socialism

[Spiff]

While a like Bush very much and I admit that he is a far better President than Al Gore would have been or that ANY of the current Democrat candidates would be - TLBSHOW's statement is accurate. Disagree? Then name one socialist program that Bush has worked to eliminate. Then, tell me what his prescription drug proposal amounts to (ummm...could it be, SOCIALISM!).

Don't get me wrong. There are few if any Republicans that I know who would not qualify under TLBSHOW's description of Bush. They all vote for and promote socialism. But so do the Democrats and just about everyone else. It's almost a lost cause anymore.

[MissAmericanPie]

I fully intend to vote for "other Republicans", I intend to write in Tom Tancredo for President however. I have no faith that Bush will appoint real conservatives to the courts and I think it is a mistake to reward the Republican Party for not only it's betrayal of it's conservative base by putting someone like Bush up as a candidate, but the statement made about "leaving the new big tent" if we don't like the leftward direction of the party.

The problem with government, and political parties is that there is no punishment. There is no punishment for ignoring the Constitution, there is no punishment for pandering to special interest groups, there is no punishment for entangling unconstitutional treaties. Voters hold the carrot and the stick in their hands, we should use it when betrayed.

I have no idea of just how conservative Pickering or Estrada really are. Their rulings have been kept close to the vest. For all I know they are just more RINO's, and as a lifelong Republican voter, I don't want RINO's anywhere near the Republican Party. I believe the fight for the soul of the Republican Party is far more important than rewarding them for bad liberal behaviour, or fear of a democrat in office for four years.

[Reagan Man]

Many of us know your position on this issue. It so happens, we're in agreement on this one. Yes, the Constitution is whatever a sitting SC says it is, at a certain time. Fine. Thanks for pointing out the obvious, once again.

In the here and now, however, I still want PresBush to nominate the best qualified conservative jurists around. The more conservatives on the high court, the better chance the Constitution will be followed, as originally intented by the Founding Fathers.

>>>Anyone who thinks the words in the Constitution have any bearing on court rulings, has not studied the last 198 years of court decisions.

One problem. I find this remark, somewhat of a contradiction when viewed in the context of your entire statement.

[justshe]

My criteria might be a bit different. I see MANY excellent things GWB has done. He has also failed to do some things I want him to do.

The point is...name ONE man...or ONE President...that could do EVERYTHING all want him to do? Even Reagan grew the budget, praised and increased the EITC....etc.

It is impossible to elect a person who will meet EVERY criteria, imo. But without the support of ALL of us, we will end up with another Clinton, or worse. And we know that will be an total disaster. It will take decades to rid ourselves of the damage done by Clinton. I don't want to see that damage compounded exponentially.

There is no viable choice at this point but to support the GOP. The Democrats MUST be defeated at all political levels.

[Spiff]

I agree that the Democrats must be defeated at all levels. But I'm not sure what they will get us. The Republicans are proving more and more that they will support the same programs the Democrats supported just to get the vote. And when they do get elected and they do control Congress it is the same old thing - Socialism creeps on and more and more of my paycheck is confiscated to pay for it.

TLBSHOW is correct - George W. Bush, along with other Republicans, should have their feet held to the fire every time they vote for more socialist programs. I'm not saying we should support a 3rd party candidate or anything, or that there's any other Republican Party candidate that we should nominate instead of Bush, I'm just saying that socialism is socialism, it should be rejected in all of its forms, and that ANYONE - Republican or Democrat or whatever - who supports it should be spanked for doing it.

[justshe]

Bush did have presription drugs as a campaign promise. I must admit that after listening to Frist yesterday, I was better informed than what I had seen reported on this forum.

This plan, if Frist has anything to say about it in committee, will have means testing (a fact sure to be exploited by the Dems as a campaign issue). The House version already has this option and Frist wants it included in the Senate version.

[justshe]

Apologies because the socialism issue is off topic to this thread.

[TLBSHOW]

Rush is a roll........

[PhiKapMom]

I am with you 100% -- want the best conservative jurist that President Bush can find and have the Senate go to the mat for that person. I believe in my heart that Pres Bush would NEVER appoint a moderate as even his Dad says that the Souter choice was the worst choice he could have made for SCOTUS!