Long term Presidential legacy

[ksnecktieman]

As our system works now the US Supreme court defines and translates all laws, eventually. President Bush can not get the judges he is trying to appoint confirmed. The Democrats are keeping his appointments from being installed in office. In the next four years we may get as many as four new judges on the supreme court, their appointments will be for their lifetime. Are the Democrats rejecting his choices because they expect Kerry to make choices more to their liking?

When I see someone claim that they are going to vote for a third party because Bush is not perfect, I wonder,,,,,,, How will they feel if Kerry gets elected? If Kerry selects four supreme court justices the court will be stacked firmly against individual rights, and gun ownership. Will he be able to outlaw civilian gun ownership in his eight years in office?

When he is voted out and we replace him, (with someone more freedom oriented) will it matter with his supreme court if we get a better potus and congress after he is gone?

 

[atek3]

I don't know what you are talking about. The conservative judges on the supreme court are a bunch of closet goose-steppers. But instead of chanting 'seig heil' they shout, "law and order". And use that as a flimsy justification for all manner of abrogation of the 4th amendment.
Of course kerry appointments would be bad, but I'm just saying Bush's would be bad too.

atek3

 

[Standing Wolf]

What new federal judges?

The Republicans haven't done much more than exercise their mouths in defense of Bush's nominees, and that only half-heartedly.

 

[HankB]

If Kerry were elected, it wouldn't be out of the question to see such august personages as Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer on SCOTUS . . . unless the latter became Attorney General instead.

The Stupid Party (aka the GOP) would not have the intestinal fortitude to block their nominations.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

If Kerry were elected, it wouldn't be out of the question to see such august personages as Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer on SCOTUS

This is a scare tactic of the Republican Party. There is no way either would get confirmed by a Republican controlled House and Senate.

 

[HankB]

There is no way either would get confirmed by a Republican controlled House and Senate.

Do you mean the same Republican-controlled Senate that wouldn't pass a "clean" firearms liability bill, adding AWB renewal as an amendment, thanks to RINO Republican votes?

Or are you talking about the Republican-controlled Senate that allowed Democrats to "filibuster" Bush judicial appointments without making them stand up and talk, 24/7, the way a filibuster is supposed to work?

Or perhaps you mean the Republican-controlled House in which just enough RINOs have indicated support for AWB renewal so that, if the bill comes to the floor, there just may be enough votes for passage?

Many other issues come to mind, from spending to illegal aliens, in which the RINO-infested GOP is becoming almost indistinguishable from the Democrats.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

When I see someone claim that they are going to vote for a third party because Bush is not perfect, I wonder,,,,,,, How will they feel if Kerry gets elected? If Kerry selects four supreme court justices the court will be stacked firmly against individual rights, and gun ownership. Will he be able to outlaw civilian gun ownership in his eight years in office?

7 of the 9 current Justices are Republican nominees. Yet they still managed to refuse to hear Silveria v. Lockyer and still managed to uphold the Campaign fnance Reform Act which gutted the first Amendment.

Voting Republican does not insure a government run on conservative principles.

 

[jefnvk]

As our system works now the US Supreme court defines and translates all laws, eventually. President Bush can not get the judges he is trying to appoint confirmed. The Democrats are keeping his appointments from being installed in office. In the next four years we may get as many as four new judges on the supreme court, their appointments will be for their lifetime.

I think the probelm is not with who nomiunates the judges, but how they get their jobs. As far as I know, there is no way for the public to choose the judges, except tto exert pressure on their reps. What we need to do is to make the SC an elected position, with term limits. The problem ith that, is that judges shouldn't be party aligned. What we really need to do is to find a way for the deneral public to select the judges, while still leaving party considerations out of it.

And doesn't anyone else think that 9 unelected people have just as much , if not more, power as teh President? And that if a single person disagrees with a federal law, they can get it changed themselves by using the court systems?

 

[Nick_90]

_______________________________________________________________

Voting Republican does not insure a government run on conservative principles.
_______________________________________________________________

Once again, as a Swiss citizen, I should be minding my own business but I can't not react to such comments. Perhaps voting Republican does not insure a government run on conservative principles but voting Democrat insures a government run on liberal principles! And that is far worse...

I can't understand how any conservative pro gun American can even think of voting for anybody else than Bush. He certainly isn't perfect but given the alternative there is no choice. And voting for some minor party without a single chance of getting anyone elected is just throwing away a vote and giving one to liberal gun grabber John Kerry...

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Once again, as a Swiss citizen, I should be minding my own business but I can't not react to such comments. Perhaps voting Republican does not insure a government run on conservative principles but voting Democrat insures a government run on liberal principles! And that is far worse...

Not necessarialy. A Liberal President still needs a Liberal House and Senate to promote his agenda. Bill Clintoon accomplished very little in office, other than to disgrace the office, after the Republicans took control of the House.

I can't understand how any conservative pro gun American can even think of voting for anybody else than Bush. He certainly isn't perfect but given the alternative there is no choice. And voting for some minor party without a single chance of getting anyone elected is just throwing away a vote and giving one to liberal gun grabber John Kerry...

Bush doesn't even rise to the level of "less than pefect" He is a bona-fide Liberal in his own right.

What Bush did to Trent Lott is a good example. He knifed Lott in the back, Lott who represents southern white men who voted for Bush by 85%, all in order to pander to Blacks who voted against him by 95%.

Bush is a moderate Liberal who has a desperate need to be "liked" by the Liberal media.

As for RKBA under Kerry, he would still need to get any new gun control legislation past the House and Senate.

And, if it's close in Va, and it won't be, I may hold my nose and very reluctantly vote for Bush.

 

[Shooter 2.5]

It's because we're not there yet. We dumped a liberal gun grabber and now we have a moderate. It's important to vote Bush back in with a straight Republican ballot so we can replace the dems with Republicans. It's important because gun owners don't have a majority in the Senate and that's why we are still having trouble. We need to kick some more dems out of office.

Hopefully in about four years we can get a real conservative in the White House. If we don't, it will take decades.

 

[Shooter 2.5]

If kerry get in, he will be the most anti-gun president in history plus with those numbers, the dems will probably retake the Senate.

To top it off, the politicians will believe the country really does want gun control. After all, the gun owners didn't do anything to stop it.

 

[Benjamin]

I think I missed something.

You can't appoint a supreme court justice until there is an opening.

Current political makeup is to inept to impeach and remove a sitting justice.

All 9 are hanging in for the present, though a few are waiting to retire.

My understanding is that they'll sit in until they find a replacement they agree with, or drop dead.

To my read, this point wasn't addressed. Therefore, I don't see too much point to a hypothetical argument about why Bush isn't nominating the right people, or why Kerry will nominate the wrong people...

 

[JPM70535]

Just a few comments on the appointment of individuals to SCOTUS. I really don't think it matters at all which party makes the appointment, as the appointee is most likely going to be " Left Leaning " in his or her philosophy.

Before the flames get too hot let me just interject that in almost all cases, the apppointees are LAWYERS who have most likely undergone a thorough liberal training and conditioning for at least 6 years while in pursuit of their LLBs. I would hazard a guess that during this traing and indoctrination the Conservative bent is given short shrift, and those who argue it's merits are less likely to acheive their goal, membership in the "Loyal Order of Ambulance Chasers". (Apology to any Conservative Attorney who feels offended, but I just never met one)

What I am suggesting , is that by the time an Attorney is in a position to be nominated to sit on SCOTUS, the likelyhood that he/she will be a true Conservative are slim to none, and the best we cn hope for is a Moderate who will do a minimum of damage to that already damaged Icon, THE CONSTITUTION.

tHANKS

jpm

 

[cloudkiller]

It is hard to define

When it comes to the SCOTUS it can be hard to define who is a liberal and who is a conservative. People won't admit it but it isn't clear cut.

"Conservative" in a libertarian sense is someone who would limit regulation, particularly at the federal level, and defend rights.

Was the vote a few years back defending the right to burn a flag as free speech "liberal" or "conservative". To me, it was "liberal" because I associate "liberal" with a broader definition of free speech, and greater willingness to defend expression as "speech". To others this may be "conservative" because it rejected regulation of expression. However most "conservatives" believe that flag-burning ought to be illegal based on a patriotic stance that is inconsistent with libertarian principles.

What about abortion? Is the judiciary being activist by promoting or restricting it? It isnt' clear cut. The Insofar as flag-burning goes, few people point out that simply defining what a flag is in legal terms would be very difficult. You could go and burn large posters of flags and be OK, but not cloth flags? What about flags made with 12 bars and 49 stars so they wouldn't technically be a true flag? -- It gets messy.

In terms of civil liberties, what kind of SCOTUS would be desired? One that is willing to limit gun ownership and protect government intrusion, or one that is willing to limit social freedoms including sexual freedom, reproductive rights, separation of church and state, etc? It seems like those are the two choicese today. A third argument would ask for a court made up of advocates of limited Federal power that would let States make regulatory decisions in many cases. Of course, for most of the 20th century, State governments, and not the Federal Government were behind the most egregious abuses against American citizens.

It is a really messy issue.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Before the flames get too hot let me just interject that in almost all cases, the apppointees are LAWYERS who have most likely undergone a thorough liberal training and conditioning for at least 6 years while in pursuit of their LLBs. I would hazard a guess that during this traing and indoctrination the Conservative bent is given short shrift, and those who argue it's merits are less likely to acheive their goal, membership in the "Loyal Order of Ambulance Chasers". (Apology to any Conservative Attorney who feels offended, but I just never met one)

There's a great deal of truth in what you say.

For example, many Constitutional Law texts barely have any discussion at all of the case law surrounding the 2nd Amendment. Few Law School courses even mention the subject.

However, there are still plenty of conservative Lawyers and Law Students.

Note that the Bush Administration & Republican leadership of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to their great credit, no longer use a recommendation / evaluation from the very liberal American Bar Association as a criteria in selecting judicial nominees.