Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gary Bauer: CHANGE THE COURT!
cwfpac ^ | June 26, 2015 | Gary Bauer

Posted on 06/28/2015 6:52:36 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT

Friday, June 26, 2015

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer

I read through a lot of angry messages about the Supreme Court in my email this morning. I'm not surprised. Unfortunately, we're stuck with Obamacare for now.

Simply put, elections have consequences. And right now we're suffering through the negative consequences of elections that took place almost ten years ago when Democrats took control of Congress.

But here's the good news: A Republican president and a Republican Congress CAN REPEAL OBAMACARE IN 2017!

And we can also CHANGE THE COURT!

The men and women we elect to the White House and the Senate nominate and confirm the judges who serve on our courts, including the Supreme Court.

Four justices of the Supreme Court are 76 years-old or older.

The odds are overwhelming that the next president we elect will fundamentally change the ideological balance of the Supreme Court.

This issue alone would be worth every effort you can possibly make and every dime you could possibly invest between now and next November to ensure that we take back the White House and hold the Senate!


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; scotus; ssm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
To: campaignPete R-CT
And we can also CHANGE THE COURT!

The men and women we elect to the White House and the Senate nominate and confirm the judges who serve on our courts, including the Supreme Court.

Four justices of the Supreme Court are 76 years-old or older.

The odds are overwhelming that the next president we elect will fundamentally change the ideological balance of the Supreme Court.

This issue alone would be worth every effort you can possibly make and every dime you could possibly invest between now and next November to ensure that we take back the White House and hold the Senate!



That is SUCH comforting news

21 posted on 06/28/2015 7:28:13 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true .... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

I hope a real conservative gets elected to the Nevada Senate seat currently held by Dingy Dirty Harry.


That would be a start, because their other Senator, Heller - R, isn’t conservative, either.


22 posted on 06/28/2015 7:33:43 PM PDT by Lurkinanloomin (Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

If elections have consequences, why are conservative issues getting voted down since the ‘pubs got that US Senate majority? We were doing better holding the line before that happened.


23 posted on 06/28/2015 7:39:09 PM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: grania
Every one here is pickin' on past presidents and who did what when

Bauer's point is ...

WE CAN CHANGE THE COURT ... and I'm going to sleep tonight with THAT on my mind.

24 posted on 06/28/2015 7:41:32 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true .... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: grania

at least somebody in Massachoosie opposed Elena Kagan on her confirmation vote. I guess it wasn’t you.


25 posted on 06/28/2015 7:44:49 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (A Christian man who is content to be ruled by Elena Kagan is no Christian and not a man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: knarf

knarf, you are leading the revolution!!!


26 posted on 06/28/2015 7:46:04 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (A Christian man who is content to be ruled by Elena Kagan is no Christian and not a man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT
And we can also CHANGE THE COURT!...The efforts to curb the Court will succeed. Some day!

People are making this much too complicated, and are trying to pressure two of the least responsive branches of the government (Judicial and Executive), when the whole problem is completely and entirely under the control of Congress to begin with.

The Supreme Court can only hear cases on appeal from State courts, or from inferior Article III courts, to the extent that Congress permits.

Article III §2: "...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make".

27 posted on 06/28/2015 7:47:46 PM PDT by Jim Noble (If you can't discriminate, you are not free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
Democrats, on the other hand, simply appoint the most Liberal lawyers they can find and the Republicans rubber stamp them.

So true.

28 posted on 06/28/2015 7:48:22 PM PDT by Salvey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Buchanan on Our Judicial Dictatorship

“When Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, Bill Quirk urged it to utilize Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, and write in a provision stripping the Supreme Court of any right to review the act.

Congress declined, and the Court, predictably, dumped over DOMA.”

http://buchanan.org/blog/judicial-dictatorship-7010


29 posted on 06/28/2015 8:02:49 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (A Christian man who is content to be ruled by Elena Kagan is no Christian and not a man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

The Marriage Protection Act

“No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C or this section.”

The legislation passed the House by a vote of 233 to 194. The Senate referred the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 7, 2004, where it died in committee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Protection_Act


30 posted on 06/28/2015 8:07:37 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (A Christian man who is content to be ruled by Elena Kagan is no Christian and not a man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

It’s a nice thought, but it borders on a pipe dream.

Hillary is likely to be the next president. Beyond that, unending mass legal immigration (not to mention amnesty for illegals) is changing the demography ever more in favor of the left, and making a conservative victory in the electoral college less and less likely.

Also, the GOP is likely to lose the Senate in 2016. At a minimum they’ll lose 2 or 3 seats, leaving them unable to invoke the nuclear option and break a Dem filibuster if a Republican wins the Presidency and nominates a conservative judge. If the Dems retake the Senate in that scenario, they will vote in lockstep to defeat a conservative nomination. The left plays for keeps. They don’t have people like Lindsay Graham who votes for Sotomayir and Kagan, knowing full well that they’ll vote for irreversible decisions that are counter to things Graham claims to believe in.

This Sup Court is the best we are ever likely to have again, and that is a depressing thought.


31 posted on 06/28/2015 8:12:39 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aetius

go back to your dreams and your pipe.

I think it is good that you have decided to stay out of it.


32 posted on 06/28/2015 8:15:34 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (A Christian man who is content to be ruled by Elena Kagan is no Christian and not a man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town

I thought Thomas was the Bork replacement nominee...
Apparently I had misconstrued the timeline.
He succeeded judge Bork on the court of appeals.

However, the Bork incident didn’t change this ruling.
Judge Bork died in 2012.
Obama would have replaced him with another far left moonbat anyway. And the GOP Senate would have rolled over per usual.


33 posted on 06/28/2015 8:16:48 PM PDT by BlueNgold (May I suggest a very nice 1788 Article V with your supper...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool

And the symbolism of the first black president will be renewed in 2017 for the first female president. Nothing I see can stop it.


34 posted on 06/28/2015 8:16:49 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Liberals keep winning; so the American people must now be all-liberal all the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

Would it have mattered though? If Congress had passed jurisdiction stripping legislation what would have stopped legal challenges to that law? And then ultimately what would have stopped 5 Sup Court justices from saying that Congress’ action overstepped its Article III Section 2 powers?


35 posted on 06/28/2015 8:17:53 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Salvey

Orrin Grant Hatch is known for his cheerleading of liberal nominees, but people in UT don’t know that.


36 posted on 06/28/2015 8:18:00 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Liberals keep winning; so the American people must now be all-liberal all the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

Bauer probably means well, but he is a rosy optimist like his old boss Reagan. There is no room for optimism.


37 posted on 06/28/2015 8:20:47 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Liberals keep winning; so the American people must now be all-liberal all the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

What path do you see to right this? Congress declined to even try and exercise its Artcile III Section 2 power when Clinton would have been afraid to veto it had it been part of DOMA. The Senate shelved it when the GOP had all of Congress and a Bush in the White House in 2004. It’s almost as if the party leadership didn’t want to win this one and just played conservative Christians for fools...again.

As to future elections, what did I say that was wrong? It’s not going to get any easier with immigration importing hundreds of thousands of future democrats every year.


38 posted on 06/28/2015 8:25:44 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Aetius

Congress can take marriage out of the purview of the federal courts


39 posted on 06/28/2015 8:28:54 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BlueNgold

you don’t know that


40 posted on 06/28/2015 8:30:58 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (A Christian man who is content to be ruled by Elena Kagan is no Christian and not a man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson