Posted on 07/22/2004 1:28:57 PM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
While President Bush has been able to do a number of good things as President, the most tragic aspect of his presidency, is that he has not been able to appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court.
I was sincerely hoping that Stevens, Rehnquist and O'Connor would retire, as was widely speculated in the media, which would allow Bush to appoint conservative justices in their 40s and early 50s, who would influence the court for the next generation. These justices would have the same influence on the court that Justice Rehnquist has had over the past 30 years. Unfortunately, Bush is likely to serve out his first term, without making judicial appointments to the high court.
If Kerry was to win in November, and get to serve two terms, he may make as many as 4 appointments to the Supreme Court. Rehnquist cannot hold on for another 8 years, so Kerry may name his replacement. Stevens will retire happily if Kerry is elected, perhaps a few days after Kerry's inauguration. O'Connor is also likely to leave over the next 8 years. And Justice Ginsburg, with her cancer, will be glad to retire on health grounds and have Kerry pick her replacement.
Those are the stakes in the November election.
Christians will be demanding the separation of Marx and state. I wonder what position Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State will be, during that debate.
Possible court rulings of a Kerry Court. Gay marriage will be made legal in all states, using the 1967 Loving v. Virginia as a precedent, as Andrew Sullivan has so often argued. Prostitution will be legalized in all 50 states, in the name of "privacy". State laws restricting abortion will be declared null and void. America may also follow the British example, and make 16 the age of consent for sexual intercourse for all states. The right to gun ownership will be restricted in all states, following the British and Australian models.
American justices quoted legal precedents of European courts, in deciding the Texas sodomy case. This may become more common in a Kerry court.
Why do you think that a President Kerry would have any more success in breaking Senate filibusters than President Bush does?
"Why do you think that a President Kerry would have any more success in breaking Senate filibusters than President Bush does?"
Because the GOP senate is spineless and will rollover like little puppies after the first signs of criticism comes from the NY Slimes and CNN. They (the GOP) just have to be called racist or anti-female just once and Kerry will get whomever he wants on the bench in a New York minute.
Because the Democrats present a united front and have more sense of purpose than the Republicans can seem to muster.
Whether it is gall or guts, I am not certain.
Oh remember the huge fight the GOP put up in opposing Ruth Bater Ginsburg???? Oh yeah, that's right, she flew threw the Senate with flying colors. So what if she was an ACLU left-wing nut, that did not seem to raise any flags with the RINOs in the Senate......
If Kerry wins, the mid term congressional elections will make 2002 look like tight race. Kerry will face a hostile, snarling, congress, who, if they grow spines, will remember the judge wars that Bush had. Its all academic anyway, Bush will win in November..
Are you assuming that the Democrats will also take over control of the Senate if Kerry wins?
"Why do you think that a President Kerry would have any more success in breaking Senate filibusters than President Bush does?"
Because the law does not apply to rats. He would find a way around it.
Apart from the war on terror, this is the most important reason to vote for President Bush
Voting third party or staying home just so you can "show Bush" is the same as voting for Kerry and the above listed nightmare.
We're talking about people like Orrin Hatch and Arlen Spector.
That's a big "if".
Because the Democrats present a united front and have more sense of purpose than the Republicans can seem to muster.
>>Why do you think that a President Kerry would have any more success in breaking Senate filibusters than President Bush does?<<
Two reasons.
The first is that a president Kerry would have the media on his side. No Kerry nominee will ever be smeared as a supporter of cross burning, as Charles Pickering was.
The second is the fact that Republican Senators are more spineless than Democrats. You can expect the New England Republican Senators and Arlen Spector, to team up with a few other wishy-washy Republicans from the Midwest, to come up with 60 votes to beat a Senate filibuster.
This would be the end of America, as we know it.
A Democrat will take over control of the Judiciary Committee in any event - either Patrick Leahy or Arlen Specter....
I shudder to think of four more lefties on the court. That will make it 7 Socialists to 2 Conservatives. Say goodbye to our Consitution, Western Civilisation and our way of life. Al Qaeda and the America hating Muslims will walk right in. Scary thoughts are conjured up by a Kerry Presidency, but we must be prepared for the worst.
A Democrat will take over control of the Judiciary Committee in any event - either Patrick Leahy or Arlen Specter....
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.