Posted on 06/29/2003 11:26:04 AM PDT by Polycarp
BLAME THE GOP FOR PRO-SODOMY COURT DECISION By: Reed R. Heustis, Jr. June 27, AD 2003
With one stroke of the pen, [homosexuality] has triumphed at the Supreme Court.
And guess what?
Republican-appointed Justices are to blame.
With a convincing 6-3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the United States Supreme Court on June 26 overturned a 1986 case, Bowers v. Hardwick, which had upheld the legitimacy of an anti-sodomy law. Sodomites and perverts all across America are hailing the Lawrence decision as the biggest gay rights victory in our nation's history.
Mitchell Katine, the openly gay attorney representing John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, the men whose arrest in 1998 led to the decision, proclaimed, "this is a day of independence."
Whereas homosexual deviancy has long been celebrated in the media and on our university campuses over the last two decades, the Johnny-come-lately Supreme Court now joins the orgy. As dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia correctly stated, "The court has taken sides in the culture war...."
How could this have happened?
Weren't Republicans supposed to be the champions of traditional values?
Weren't Republicans supposed to be the stalwart defenders of our nation's Christian heritage?
Seriously, just think:
Every four years without fail, the Republican Party instructs Christians to elect Republicans to office so that we can thwart the left wing agenda of the Democratic Party.
Every four years without fail, the Republican Establishment warns its rank and file never to vote for a third party candidate, lest we elect a Democrat by default by "giving him the election".
Every four years without fail, Christians are told that third party candidates cannot win, and that a vote for a third party candidate is somehow a vote for the Democrat.
Every four years without fail, Christians are bamboozled into believing that their beloved Republican Party will restore this nation to its Christian heritage.
Every four years without fail, we are told that only a Republican can appoint a conservative Justice to the high bench so that liberalism can be stopped cold.
Without fail.
Christians, wake up!
It is the Republican Party that is responsible for moronic decisions such as Lawrence. Quit blaming the liberals and the Democrats. Blame the GOP!
Out of the six Justices that formed the horrifying 6-3 Lawrence majority, four were appointed by Republicans! Four!
Justice John Paul Stevens was nominated by President Gerald Ford - a Republican.
Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy were nominated by President Ronald Reagan - a Republican.
Justice David Souter was nominated by President George H.W. Bush - a Republican.
Two-thirds of the majority opinion were Republican-appointed!
"I believe this needs to be trumpeted," says Tim Farness, 1st District Representative of the Constitution Party of Wisconsin.
Indeed it does.
A 4-2 majority of the six Justices forming the Lawrence decision was Republican-appointed.
Republican President George W. Bush intends to run for a second term in 2004. Don't be too surprised when we start hearing the same-old song and dance all over again: "Elect Republicans so that we can defeat the Democratic agenda."
Mr. President: the Republican Party is the Democratic agenda.
© AD 2003 The Heustis Update, accessible on the web at www.ReedHeustis.com. All Rights Reserved.
Ford was and is certainly not a conservative Republican. Ford is on the record as supporting the gay activist aganda.
William F. Buckley Jr. also calls himself a conservative but has only minor quibbles with the gay activist agenda (he's a pro-doper too, but that's another story).
Even Barry Goldwater in his dotage came to praise sodomy and all things gay.
In his autobiography Orrin Hatch proudly takes credit for getting Ginsburg and Souter appointed to the high court.
That's what happens when conservatives allow traditional virtues to spoil and rot from neglect and their respect for traditional institutions much as marriage to fade in favor of more trendy mores such as homosexuality.
Let's face it: liberals throw better parties. Once a conservative gets addicted to hobnobbing with the Hollyweird glitterati, he is usually willing to jettison pesky and uncool traditions and virtues just so his new buddies will allow him to continue to hang around.
Seperation of Church and State!!!
____________________________________________________________
And after removing the Ten Commandments from the wall of the USSC, we need to fire the chaplains in the House, the Senate and the military, elimenate the Bible from presidential inauguration, remove "In God We Trust" from our money, put a stop to the prayer breakfasts, repeal holidays celebrating the birth of Christ and his resurrection, change the name of Thanksgiving. IOW, ban everything the Framers of our Constitution found perfectly constitutional. It's that "living Constitution" thing, dontcha know.
If Republicans had 60 seats in the Senate during these appointments and could approve ANY person the President wanted, your theory would be correct. But as the record shows, the DEMONcrats repeatedly destoryed many Republican President S.C. nominees, from Haysworth to Carnwell to Bork.
Let's look at the justices mentioned:
John Paul Stevens (R), 1975
President Ford needed a candidate to replace Justice Douglas, an ULTRA-liberal (appointed by FDR) who was beloved by Dems like a Paul Wellstone of the Senate. If you read "The Brethen" by Bob Woodward, his initial impluse was Robert Bork or Senator Robert Griffith. A Democrat Senator came to Ford and assured him that the Dem-controlled Sentate would NEVER replace "the court's greatest liberal with a nortorius conservative", and promised they were ALREDY going to vote in LOCKSTEP against either on party lines. Griffith was especially hated because he the Senate Dems KNEW his record. Chief Justice Burger then recommended J. Clifford Wallace, a conservative judge from the west coast, and the Dems immediately started looking for dirt on him too. Then Ford suggested Carla Hill, his Sec. of Housing, a right-of-center Republican. His aides rejected the idea because it would smack of croynism. Finally, his whittled his list down to two Republicans with a "middle of the road" reputation that were considered the most likeable and confirmable: Arlin W. Adams and John Paul Stevens. He interviewed both. Adams was cocky and bosterious, Stevens was quiet and modest. Ford picked Stevens, who quitely took his seat and began to move further and further leftward over the years and is now often to the left of Clinton's nominees. In restrospect, I'm sure Ford's aides realize Adams was a better choice, but no way would they get a conservative through that RAT Senate full people concerned about Douglas' "legacy".
Sandra Day O'Connor (R), 1981
Since the Nixon adminstration, the media was worshiping the newfound "empowerment" of woman and urging the appointment of a woman on the Supreme Court. It reached boiling point in 1980 with the movie "First Monday in October", depicted a ficitonal, conservative woman on the Supreme Court. Reagan made a campaign promise to apppoint such a candidate ASAP. Since so many prominate female judges were 'RATs, Reagan decided to go with one that had a repudation as a big GOP party loyalist. He found Judge Sandra Day O'Connor, who had been a very partisan Majority Leader of the Arizona Senate in the early 70s. Reagan quickly went with her while his "honeymood" period ensured he'd have no problems. He didn't, except he didn't bother to check her stance on social issues which became INCREASINGLY important in the 80s and 90s. Sandra turned out to be pretty liberal on social issues, although still a party loyalist (see Bush v. Gore) So yes, this one was the fault of Reagan for picking her quickly and not doing a more through review of her "record".
Anthony Kennedy (R), 1986 Kennedy's appointment was an act of desperation. Reagan BARELY got a conservative in as chief justice because he named a well-repecting sitting Justice (Rehnquist) but the 'RAT Senate was alarmed of moving the court any further to the right and were extremely frustrated knowing they'd be locked out the White House for a long time. To fill Rehnquist's associate justice seat, he picked Robert Bork, an unapologetic conservative who suffered the most vicious and relentless smear campaign of a 'RAT Senate that rejected him simply because they did not like his views. THEN Reagan attempted to nominate Justice Douglas Ginsburg, a lesser-known conservative. The 'RATs hired some guys to find dirt on him round the clock, and "discovered" (big shock) that he tried pot once in college-- which Ginsburg admited. The liberal media reported this as the apocaylse and the Dems launched a "he's not qualifed" campaign so bitter that Reagan quickly withdrew his name without formally submitted it. Reagan then found the little-known judge Anthony Kennedy, who had the same last name as the famous 'RAT family and was known by his friends and collugues to be very conservative but was extremely quiet about it and had a choir-boy spotless background. Reagan went with him with the 'RATs froathing-at-the-mouth, making sure it was taken care of before midterm elections. The 'RATs had to confirm him, and Anthony Kennedy DID vote reliably conservative (as expected) when he got on the court. But Kennedy's certainly no conservative activist, and has shown himself to be heavily influenced by public opinion and liberal colluges on the court, so he caves from time to time. In any case, it's amazing even THIS guy was confirmed.
David Souter (R), 1990 Admittedly, this one is solely the fault of the Bush adminstration. Bush had just been elected and needed someone to replace the justice Brennan, an old liberal who had stayed there forever and people lost interest in him. Bush advisior John Sununu Sr., a country-clubber from New England, recommened someone from his home state, a newly appointed member of the New Hamshpire Supreme Court. This guy was a political cipher had absolutely NO track record on the court, but Sununu "assured" Bush that he had meet Souter on several occasions and the would be a easily confirmable "home run for conservatives". Bush told Souter he was under consideration and an excited Souter promised Bush he was with him. President Bush I was also pretty much a "moderate" Republican and the type of guy who doesn't like going for the juglular. He went with it and the Dems couldn't find anything to object to so they went along with it. As soon as Souter got on the court, he dropped the "conservative" act, kept Brennen's liberal clerks, and basically went along with whatever they wanted. When it came time to replace THEM, he had them pick their own successors (more liberal law school students) and so on and so. Souter's been a liberal twerp who sells his soul to the highest bidder. INCREDIBLY, the New Hampshire GOP establishment has never learned their lesson from this, as they now dumbed conservatives in the primary and picked even more RINOs to control their state (NH got an "A" rating from NARAL last year) Sununu Jr. is now their Senator as they dumped incumbant Bob Smith (whom the RINOs despise), and another Bush + another Sununu "advisor") are giving all indidications that history will repeat itself with Alberto Gonzalez.
So out of the four named here, two were appointed by Republicans because the 'RATs virtually held them as gunpoint, and a third was appointed because the media insisetd on someone with her profile-- although admittedly Reagan should have found a more conservative female judge (bear in mind there wern't exactly a BIG supply of qualified GOP female judges to pick from in 1980) Souter is the only one who's appointment is pure incompetance from a Republican adminstration. Hey, blame the NH "Republicans" and the "electable" RINOs they pick in the primary.
You would have to look up cases on that subject for any rulings.
Here, too. The weather is too nice today in So CA.
Please explain to me how acknowleding one's traditional heritage -- the one in which the DoI and Constitution are firmly rooted -- necessarily involves establishing a theocracy, Drew68.
And while you're at it, would you kindly explain to me from what text in the Constitution have the federal courts received any grant whatever to rule on issues involving sexuality? Are you comfortable with the federal government unilaterally writing the moral code for our nation?
If that's all you know, doesn't that leave it uncertain whether the assault was really "unrelated"?
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.