You tell me who would put better judges on our courts.
I'm not really sure we disagree. Bush would obviously put better people on the court than 98% of the Democrats who ran for President last time, and probably better than most electable Republican candidates. That IS what we're talking here, isn't - electable? If it isn't, then it is a wasted protest vote.
The first constituency it takes very seriously.
The second constituency is little more than a necessary inconvenience. Without it, of course, Republicans couldn't get elected; so they have to PRETEND to take these people [us] seriously.
But they do little more than throw crumbs from the table to Prolifers-- for instance, We are appeased by symbolic actions and by a minor victory here and there. But even though they control the House and the White House and nearly control the Senate, they can't make any headway on defunding Planned Parenthood. That really ticks me off.
Unless the war keeps going until November 2002 when patriotic fervor cools down, voters will notice that the GOP has spent the last two years doing little domestically, And then, with the liberals and Dems in control of Congress, the diet of crumbs that the prolife people have been subsisting on will be transformed into a diet of absolute starvation.
I am tired of inaction on pro-life issues and I'm tired of ceding ground.
The Republicans, despite all their prolife talk, are, playing prolifers for suckers.
Your post implies that Bush appointed all the members of that court. He has only appointed a small minority of that court's members. But I guess somebody still in grade school (your screen name, you know), does not realize that sort of thing.