Vote Bush in '04: The Supreme Court is too imporant!

vanity | 1/29/04 | vanity

[votelife]

On thread after thread I see people talk about abandoning Bush over immigration or spending or gun control or some other issue. I feel many conservatives are missing the big picture. Look at the ages of these justices:

William H. Rehnquist, 80 John Paul Stevens, 84 Sandra Day O'Connor, Ariz., 74 Antonin Scalia, 68 DC Anthony M. Kennedy, 68 David H. Souter, 65 Clarence Thomas, 56 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 71 Stephen G. Breyer, Mass. 66

Rehnquist wants to retire. O'Connor did LAST time (but I think she felt bad about telegraphing it). Stevens is 84. Eighty-four. At 71 Ginsburg is no spring chicken either.

Now add 4 more to the ages of all these justices. You think Stevens will stay until 88? Rehnquist till 84? With his bad back? O'Connor already wants to go.

Lots of important cases are decided 5-4. Need I remind you Bush Gore was 5-4. (I know part of it was 7-2)...

Freepers have been getting all over Bush for not being conservative enough. But remember, without a conservative court, almost any legislation or act by Bush can be overturned by an unelected robe.

Let's review some recent rulings by the 9th Circuit Court and the USSC: pledge unconstitutional constitutional right to sodomy in the interest of diversity, affirmative action constitutional right to partial birth abortion the CA recall is suspsended (later overturned)

Future courts will decide the following: 2nd amendment cases right to life cases affirmative action cases immigration cases war on terror cases

President Bush has done a great job on the war and judges in my opinion. He campaigned hard on judges in '02 and it helped Coleman, Chambliss, and Talent win. That made Daschle powerless (besides the filibuster). Without that, Estrada would have never gotten a vote. Of course when Hillary et all are bent on denying any minority conservative judge, it's still tough getting conservatives confirmed. But let's see how the American public reacts when the Dems want to filibuster a qualified SC nominee. I'm giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. He talked about activist judges in his SOTU speech. All indications are to a more conservative Senate in 2004, which means if Bush is elected, we'll get a better Supreme Court.

Rehnquist wants to retire, let's give him President Bush and a conservative Senate to confirm his replacement.

O'Connor wants to retire. Stevens needs to retire soon. Any other justice may want or need to retire. 4 more years is a long time.

Freepers, do we stand for we the people, or we the judges? Get active in '04. Call Congress about your significant issues. But when you vote in 2004, think about who you want to nominate Justices and who you want as the Commander in Chief.

President Bush has to be the front man on these judicial fights and he will get slaughtered in the mainstream press for these decisions. We need to let him now in clear terms that we strongly support his decision to put conservatives like Miguel Estrada and Charles Pickering on the court...

White House COMMENTS: 202-456-1111 SWITCHBOARD: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461

Email the President: President George W. Bush: president@whitehouse.gov

Email the Vice President: Vice President Richard Cheney: vice.president@whitehouse.gov

Freepers, do we stand for we the people, or we the judges? Get active in '04. Call Congress about your significant issues. But when you vote in 2004, think about who you want to nominate Justices and who you want as the Commander in Chief.

"We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail." President Bush, September 20, 2001 speech to Congress

[k2blader]

Great post. Sums up what a lot of us are thinking.

[wadeintothem]

Well if you insist you are irrelevent.. who am I to disagree? I dont know you.

Good republicans will vote for bush.. there are MANY issues where he is dead on.. important issues... war, abortion, marriage - you think a dem is going to protect 2nd amendment or any of these?

So he gave a few mil to the disgusting arts foundation.. so what .. it means nothing. It would be like if you handed a bum crack addict a penny... even if you dissapproved of his crack addiction.. how much harm does it do.

Bush in 04.. and as for your irrelevent vote.. its a free country.. vote for whomever you wish... and gl.. and seek counseling.. you have very low self esteem it seems.

[k2blader]

I might not vote for President Bush in 2004.

So tell me. Does that alone make me not conservative, as your post implies?

[Old fashioned]

Sirloin wrote: "It will be my exquisite pleasure to vote against Bush in the 2004 election. He has spit in our faces for the last time."

Hillary couldn't have said it better.

[patriciamary]

That's silly, vote for a democrat! OH,that will sure make your point,WRONG! If Bush gets a second term watch how bold he will become.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

A party owning a vote has nothing to do with it. Taking responsibilty for your vote does. Whoever pulled that lever for Perot in 1992 knew full well that theirs was a vote for Clinton. Further, they knew of Clinton's character flaws. Clinton would never have gotten into office with 43% of the vote if not for those who want all or nothing. He is their fault.

[KantianBurke]

Its funny. If Bush were to simply act like a Republican instead of a Rat, none of this would be occuring. No massive domestic funding boondoggles ='s no infighting. None of what we're rightly blasting him for. And these sorts of threads wouldn't even exist. The onus is on him.

[looscnnn]

Evidently those are not issues that matter to "REAL CONSERVATIVES", as far as one poster thinks.

[fritzz]

I personally believe most Presidents views change once there in office, they tend to move to the middle. Even Regan surprised the Dems. So, I'm not a doomsday person shouting, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". I think it is somewhat obvious the terrorist would like President Bush out of office.

Should have done a better job. Still think it would be a good slogan, though.

[NeoCaveman]

People read Bush's lips.

What was that, "No new taxes"

He lost it himself.

[k2blader]

President Bush lost in 1992 because of President Bush.

He'd have won had it not been for his "read my lips" bungle.

[CMAC51]

Two reasons to vote Bush - (1) the courts (2) the terrorists.

That's what it boils down to....

Too little attention is paid to Bush and Rumsfield's resurection of the Military. I would prefer not to face the future with the politically correct, social experimenting, low rent military that a Dem would provide us with. These are dangerous times and I love the Bush military.

[looscnnn]

We just want him to keep his word of what was said during campaigning and be more conservative. We may gripe about his taking the side of the libs on a couple of issues, but we would still vote for him. When he goes as far as he has on so many liberal issues and not keeping his word, it is time to seriously wonder about him.

[hope]

Consider the alternative...John (France) Kerry: international-elite appeaser, globalist, leftist.

[B4Ranch]

Can you tell us any more about what's in your glass ball or are you just continuing to hope? Well, I gave up hope on our President quite a while ago. He's confirming I made the correct decision with just about every move he makes.

[Kryptonite]

Too little attention is paid to Bush and Rumsfield's resurection of the Military. I would prefer not to face the future with the politically correct, social experimenting, low rent military that a Dem would provide us with. These are dangerous times and I love the Bush military.

Absolutely. I believe to my core that many of us will - poof - be off to the great beyond, if a Dem gets ahold of our military anytime within the next decade.

[CMAC51]

Why didn't he recess appoint Priscilla Owens and that guy for Alabama, too?

You have to look past the network news to know it, but he offered recess appointments to all of his stalled nominees. Pickering was the only one that chose to accept.

[looscnnn]

"Support Perot-like candidates. That got us 8 years of Clinton."

Some people just can't quit reliving the past. We tell the Dems to stop crying about FL and yet we still have some that whine about Perot, etc.

"George H.W. Bush gave us 4 years of Clinton."

Amen. I would have voted for Perot, but his in/out/in and his flipping out lost my vote.

"Bob Dole (worst campaign ever) gave us 4 more."

I wonder how much referring to himself in the third person had to do with the end result? We expect it from athletes, but not from a politician.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

You know that argument holds no water. If he lost because of a statement made four years before, and that statement alone, then voters were too petty. Looking at the one alternative, Perot voters knew that Clinton was far more dishonest and far worse. Bush lost because of the "all-or-nothing" conservatives.

[13foxtrot]

Oh thank you for finally enlightening us. I just realized non of that would have happened under Al Gore.

If Al Gore was Prez the Congress would not allow him to have his way.