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

[hattend]

You'll also need a Republican Senate majority with balls to get any nominee to the USSC. The current crop of Pubbies are Lott holdovers...cavers if you will.

On a side note, I hope Boxer gets her head handed to her by angry Californians.

[Sloth]

Why that liberal Reagan! I can't believe any conservative ever voted for him!/sarcasm

All the more reason to expect that a President less conservative than Reagan may make even worse SCOTUS appointments.

[Finalapproach29er]

Its all we have left.Were left to beg for the scraps.

He'll pick David Souter types-like his blue blood pa. He's broken my heart, and lost my trust. I won't be manipulated by these Republican liberals as the election nears.

My wallet is closed,they can forget about ol' Jeb in 08 also. I'll never vote for a Bush again. The NEA was the last straw.

[StoneColdGOP]

Thanks to:

Trent "Spineless" Lott.

[KantianBurke]

lol! Ur kids are going to be slaves anyway to pay for Dubya's free pills bs and S.S. payments!

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Pickering, Owen, Pryor, Estrada. Which of those are libs?

[Huck]

Come on at least be honest... Souter -- appointed by Bush
O'Connor -- appointed by Reagan
Stevens -- appointed by Ford
Kennedy -- appointed by Reagan

LOL. Isn't it early in the year for these threads. Oy vey. It's going to be the same thing over and over again. I will say this, though. The above record does somewhat diminish the value of the judges argument. Reagan did better than most, but even there Roe v Wade lives today, and is stronger today, because of Reagan appointments. Given that, how critical is it to vote for GWB, who is far to the left of Reagan? Or is that too fatalistic?

[votelife]

O'Connor was a big dissappointment to Reagan from what I've read. He wanted a woman, but thought she was conservative. This is a man who nominated Scalia, elevated Rehnquist, and nominated Bork. If he thought O'Connor would have turned out like this, well...

I don't think Bush I had a Repub Congress (correct me if I'm wrong)

And Ford, who nominated Stevens, was never elected President, and never had to appeal to the conservative groups to get elected...but he too had a lib Congres to deal with I think.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Nicde knowledge of history. Pin it all on Lott when the Ginsberg appointment came in 1993! IIRC, Dole was the leader then.

[Sirloin]

It will be my exquisite pleasure to vote against Bush in the 2004 election. He has spit in our faces for the last time. I'm tired of hearing 'whatcha gonna do, throw your vote away and elect a DemoRAT?' Well, it appears that I did throw my vote away last time by voting for Bush. Record deficits ('deficits don't matter'?!? ha!), campaign finance reform, the immigration fiasco, medicare, NEA funding, etc. The list goes on and on. He has got to go.

[Texas Federalist]

Pickering, Owen, Pryor, Estrada. Which of those are libs?

You didn't name the one judge that Bush will appoint to fill the first Supreme Court vacancy - Gonzales - who does not look like a promising appointment for conservatives.

[capitan_refugio]

"If you are not liberal when you are 20, it is because you have no heart. If you are not conservative when you are 40, it is because you have no brain." (a psuedo-Churchillian quotation)

I like to vote with my head. I sympathize with your point of view; however, Congress allots the money. Congress can cut the spending. Congress can trim the budget. We need many, many more "Republitarians" (as Larry Elder calls them) in Congress. Candidates who respect the original intent of the Constitution. Candidates who respect individual liberties.

There is no perfect candidate (except maybe me for me or you for you!). The election of a President is necessarily a practical matter. The President "sets the tone." I'd like to see G W Bush get back on the straight and narrow. He has strayed, but if he can't "spend" a dime without willing accomplices in the Congress.

[NeoCaveman]

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

George H.W. Bush gave us 4 years of Clinton.
Bob Dole (worst campaign ever) gave us 4 more.

I hope Bush wins, but if he loses by chasing after voters he'll never get (liberals), it will be his fault alone.

[rottweiller_inc]

The Supreme Court is no longer a scare tactic to use to say "elect George Bush", since the Democrats have introduced the filibuster and republicans have'nt challenaged it. So if a dem is elected then pressure can be put on the senate to filibuster.

[sonofatpatcher2]

I have just set up my standard statement for those who bitch about W:

When any Republican or Conservative says they are thinking of not voting for Bush, just say this: "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"

[votelife]

If Bush went to the mat to get his appeals judges confirmed, the left would go crazy and the right might lose some motivation since he's getting the judges, the war is going, he's fine. The media would spin Bush's push for judges in the Dems favor. Better to make it a campaign issue, as long as a Supreme Court Justice doesn't retire.

[looscnnn]

"In 2002 Bush campaigned against judicial obstruction. ....In his SOTU speech Bush talked about activist judges and even alluded to a constitutional amendment re: gay marriage. Talk like this suggests that Bush is getting ready to take the fight to the liberals."

Ever think that this is just talk and starting his campaigning early? What has he done about the judicial obstructions? Nothing. Did he stand up/push for Miguel Estrada? No. He did not do anything until Miguel withdrew his name, this should not have happened.

[Sloth]

Pickering, Owen, Pryor, Estrada. Which of those are libs?

Which of them has been nominated for SCOTUS, thus making your question relevant?

[Diddle E. Squat]

Excellent post bump

[Peach]

There is not one presidential candidate in the nation who will tackle immigration and most in fact will give more in funding to those programs/people who have not earned it and do not deserve it.

Those voters who stay home had best not show up here to complain when/if a Rat is elected.

President Bush is not perfect and has proposed some programs I am not happy about. That is life and the reality is there will never be another person on the face of the planet that any of us will agree with 100%.

However, President Bush has earned my vote and trust by the way he conducted himself post 9/11, his earnest desire to do the right thing, his integrity, and his love for America. Contrast that with the Democrats who hate America, middle Americans, the military, etc., and if we are not broken glass Republicans, we will help elect a Rat and I couldn't live with myself if I did that.