Bush to appoint "first" Hispanic (liberal) to the U.S. Supreme Court?

We were told how many times, and are continued to be told, that the reason it is so important that Bush is elected and that we blindly support his Administration, and not even to be permitted as conservatives to criticize his policies, is because of judges, because of who gets appointed to judgeships. Bush will probably have the opportunity to nominate and advance one Supreme Court judgeship. And in addition, his Administration will influence appointments to judgeships across the nation.

And, of particular importance, the reason why we dare not, as reasonable patriots, criticize any policies of his Administration that betray conservatives, is because of that Supreme Court appointment, because if a Supreme Court judgeship is advanced by his Administration, this appointment will effect the course of our nation for many years, if not decades, to come. And so it is important that a conservative be appointed to this Court, and to courts across the nation. Bush will forward conservative nominees to the court.

Well, across the nation, that is not exactly happening. Maybe it started to happen, but it isn’t anymore. In fact, if you look at the influence the Bush Administration has played, if at all, in nominations and appointments, they are often going to liberals, and especially to Hispanics (which invariable in the end turn out to be liberals as well) as part of the continued effort by his Administration and some Republicans to court the “Latino-American” vote, and other politically motivated nominations and appointments.

President Bush's efforts to promote Judge Charles W. Pickering Sr. to an appeals court post? President Bush's nomination of Jeffrey Sutton for a federal judgeship? So what. Sure, this made headlines by the phony liberal news acting as mouthpieces for the Democratic Party. What has made lesser news, is the liberals that were appointed to courts across the nation, in which the Bush Administration has either been, for political reasons, out of the picture, or even supported liberal judges. His Administration, and especially since the Trent Lott affair, is not trying to influence such appointments to promote conservative judges. And since the Lott affair, with even many conservatives supporting Lott’s removal, you have seen a shift to the left to appease anyone who may call one a racist. As predicted, the left and the Democrats are now using the same spin that many conservatives have allowed them to use against Lott as an attack on other Republicans. It is now started even in regards to Reagan and his legacy, and the rewriting of his legacy – Reagan supported “States Rights” in one of his speeches, thus he is a “racist in heart” like Lott or any other Republican who opposes Affirmative Action.

They are on the phone right now, the “coalitions”, threatening Republican officials and officeholders with the same attack, they are working in conjunction with the phony liberal news, and they will, and are, influencing them behind the scenes. And, like I said, many of you conservatives, you did it to yourselves. This whole spin, this new weapon that you have handed to the enemy, they will use it, and use it well. They will use to effect any Supreme Court nominee. And, who is the Bush Administration now turning to for advise in judgeship nominations? The Log Cabin Republicans. That’s right. You don’t believe me? Well, just watch the conservative talk shows, the truth will get out. You don’t think the Lott affair, the concession in large part supported by conservatives to such P.C. speech control, will not only control political speech but also stage-manage who gets nominated to such appointments? It will. It is.

And, as far as a Supreme Court nominee? Bush is going to give us conservative judges? Right?

And, no one dare criticize Bush. Because of the Supreme Court judgeship. It’s very important. That he or she be a conservative.

Well, on the Walter Williams show today, Walter said the word is out that the Bush Administration is seeking to appoint the “first Hispanic to the Supreme Court”. I don’t know if this is exactly true – not that the Bush Administration is thinking about doing this, because that is probably now very true, rather, if there has never been an Hispanic on the Supremes. Because, maybe there was only he or she didn’t know it. But, it probably is true, the new Bush agenda as far as the Supremes are concerned. That, this will be their nominee.

You think it will be a conservative Hispanic? What if it is not? And, it probably will not be. In fact, it likely will not be.

It’s all about Bush we are told, pray for Bush, because Bush will appoint a conservative to the U.S. Supreme Court. And then he nominates, and forwards, a liberal.

But, don’t be surprised. Don’t say you didn’t expect it. And if and when that happens, maybe you should think about the Trent Lott chess-move by the left. Pawn takes Knight.

Bush has now been in office for two years. When he first got into office, he spent a lot of time running around with Vicente Fox. In fact, he spent so much time running around with Vicente Fox of Mexico, that he wasn’t interested in a whole lot of folks who were saying that Al Qaida and the Islamic Terrorists are going to hit the U.S. again, they definitely will try the World Trade Center again because they didn’t finish the job the first time, and that our national security is at risk, that our borders are porous, illegal aliens, (lack of) INS enforcement, and crazy immigration policies are going to cost thousands of American lives. But, you know, can’t deal with that because it might make some Hispanics mad at us.

And, with the Trent Lott affair, gosh, now we have to be even more diligent – not about our borders, but about the possibility of insulting Hispanics. As Republicans, we have learned our lesson since Trent Lott. And the lesson is, it’s been two years of Bush, and our borders are porous, and we are going to be hit again. But that isn’t the issue. The issue is, what can the Bush Administration, and Republicans, do about race relations? Gosh, maybe the answer is, what we are hearing the Bush Administration is probably going to do. What better way to build a legacy for the Bush Administration, than to appoint the an Hispanic to the U.S. Supreme Court? So what if he is even a liberal? Hey! I have an idea! The Bush Administration can setup a Palestinian State! Now, there’s a legacy! Gosh, maybe the Palestinian State will get the nuclear bomb, like North Korea did under Clinton. Gosh, since the Palestinians glorify suicide bombers so much, maybe this Palestinian State will decide to become just one big Suicide Bomber State and blow itself up with it’s own nuclear bomb and thus take out a few neighbors like Israel in the process. After all, that’s the whole idea anyway. It’s isn’t about a State. It’s about killing all the Jews.

By the way. How’s our borders? Just wondering, because the same folks who want to kill all the Jews, they want to kill all the Americans as well. “Death to the Jews, Death to America”, they say. But that isn’t hate speech. In fact, the liberals, the left, those who run our schools and universities, are showing a lot of “solidarity” with the “struggle” of the “ (you name it) people”, who want to do this to us. But Trent Lott, now what he said, that’s hate. And I guess a lot of conservatives went along with it. Gosh, maybe protecting our borders is now hate as well. Gosh, maybe a conservative judge for the U.S. Supreme Court is now hate as well. And, we sure learned our lesson. We won’t do the same mistake, again.

Anyone who believes bush is a conservative is living in a draeamland!

The reason he is appointing an hispanic is to show those 3,000,000 illegals that he deserves their votes because he helped them gain citizenship in spite of their breaking the law!

How about an "overview" of his "conservative" agenda?:

1. $782,000,000,000 of NEW spending of OUR money!

2. 2. Let's not forget his violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution by signing the CFR!

3. The agenda that has given us the mis-named obscenity called the p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act and, of course, the fatherland, oops, excuse me, the "homeland" security law.
I suggest all of you remember these two words "critical infrastructure" because you'll be hearing about them in the future. These words also apply to the internet and are in the "homeland"law

Once again, a violation of his oath!

4. The agenda that calls for giving amnesty and citizenship to 3,000,000 illegals.

5. The agenda that hired Adm. Poindexter (a convicted liar)
to oversee a database on all Americans even to what they buy and where they buy it?

6. An agenda that declares an Axis of Evil, then picks and chooses who to go after, rather than all of them?
How many of you remember his comment at a news conference a couple of months ago, and I quote " You know, saddam tried to assassinate my dad 10 years ago" end quote. How much of this "make my day attitude" is influenced by his comment?
Keep in mind, I make no accusation as I'm just thinking out loud. It would have not entered my mind if he had not made the statement.
I bring this up because we are going after only one of the axis of evil. I know, I know, in the last couple of days he's been sword rattling against n. korea, but. that is only in very recent days.

7. An agenda that wines and dines muslims at the White House, a group who refuses to condemn murdering civilians, but, gives a strong reprimand to a dumb statement by one of his own party?

8. The agenda that embraced the democrat's "education" policy?

9. The agenda that embraced the democrat's position of placing 50,000+ new employees on the the gov't payroll (read, our backs)?

Is this a conservative agenda?

Please don't say that he took these issues from the dems, because if you use that argument, you are saying dupliciy is acceptable when your guys do it, but, bad when the other guy's guys do it. If you use that argument then you are no better then the clinton's apologists who defended the indefensible.

You are either a man or woman of principle or you are not!

Bush is a clever politician, no more, no less, and like all politicians, he is not to be trusted without reservation.

If the slimeball clinton has done all of this, all of you party loyalists would be all over him and rightly so, as would I.

There is no difference in the parties other than a matter of degrees, which is to say, the dems would do us in (and they are up-front about wanting big gov't) on a faster pace than the republicrats who use the "salami" approach or one slice at a time. the speed at which we lose our freedoms and liberties doen't matter because the result is the same.

Flame away.

FReegards

"You should have stopped your post after that sentence because the rest is meaningless"

The purpose of the overview was to show those that believe that President Bush is the savior of conservatism is simply not true. We'll get thrown a "nugget" occasionally and fall into the false hope once again while the liberal democratic agenda gets passed in watered down versions. The repubs lost their conservative oars long ago and is nothing more than rudderless clones of the dems. They eat their own, they copy liberal social programs, they appoint "moderates" and, most importantly, don't seem to handle leadership well when it is handed to them. They should challenge, not cower for favor.

Why haven't they said anything about that senator who lauded bin laden? They should do to her what was done to Newt, Livingston and the idiot Lott, which is to say, barrage the public with what she said. Bush chatised Lott severly publicly, but, what has he said about Murray? Are they afraid they'll lose votes because she's female?

They should point out true differences if they are indeed different. They know that those who promise the most get the votes.

FReegards

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.