Religious right feels left behind Some conservatives impatient with Bush

New Orleans Times Picayune ^ | August 08, 2003 | Bruce Alpert

[robowombat]

WASHINGTON -- If religious conservatives ever had reason to be optimistic about advancing their legislative agenda, it was this year.

With a conservative president, popular for his handling of the 2001 terrorist attacks, augmented by a bigger Republican majority in the House and a new, albeit slim, majority in the Senate, some conservatives were predicting unprecedented success.

[anniegetyourgun]

"I think it's the Democrats' fault," Shanks said.

I know it is.

[My2Cents]

The top priority -- a ban on a controversial late-term abortion procedure -- has passed both houses. But there's a minor difference between the two bills and, so far, a conference committee hasn't met to construct a compromise that President Bush can sign into law.

Can't blame this one on Bush. The obstructionists are the Senate Democrats who refuse to name members to the conference committee.

As a conservative Christian, let me weigh in -- My top priority is the appointment of strict constructionist judges who have respect for the law and the U.S. Constitution, who will interpret law, not make it. I've been pleased with Bush's judicial appointments, but we all know the tactics of the left in opposing those nominations. I believe that the biggest reason Bush needed to be elected was to reshape the composition of the courts. Bush's work toward this is far from over. This reason alone is justification to have him reelected.

[nyconse]

Well, no matter how unhappy we might be with President Bush (personally I blame Dems), what is the alternative? A Democrat would be much worse. The hard left was very unhappy with Clinton, but what could they do-vote Republican? Unless there is a third party candidate, I expect most religious conservatives will vote for President Bush. I don't think many of us would vote for even a pro-life third party candidate if the effect was to elect a Democrat.

[steve50]

My top priority is the appointment of strict constructionist judges who have respect for the law and the U.S. Constitution, who will interpret law, not make it.


Interpeting law is making it. We need to stop supporting liberal interpetations of such things as the welfare and commerce clauses when they suit our purposes. But I guess that's the difference between Constitutionalists and conservatives.

[george wythe]

My top priority is the appointment of strict constructionist judges who have respect for the law and the U.S. Constitution, who will interpret law, not make it.

That's my priority also.

Most federal cases do not reach the US Supreme Court, and even the ones who reach the SCOTUS are molded by the evidence allowed and the motions granted at the trial level.

Having strict constructionists from the ground level up is extremely important.

[dfrussell]

Hey, at least the "Religious right" is getting lip service... fiscal conservatives are getting substantially less :)

[RonF]

"The question is whether federal marshals will be called in to remove the monument," Phillips said. "If they are, it will have a major effect on Bush's standing with his core Christian conservative base."

Does the author propose that if this case is decided against the Alabama judge at the SCOTUS level, the Federal government should not enforce the decision?

[bayourod]

This article is pure liberal propaganda aimed at dividing the conservatives. Phillips and Waters are both in the business of soliciting money from conservatives. Their tools are fear, discontent, anger, and paranoia. There is far less disappointment today than there was in Reagan's first term.