The Supreme Court Giveth, the Supreme Court Taketh Away

Townhall.com ^ | July 16, 2007 | Ken Blackwell

[gpapa]

The Supreme Court teeters on a knife’s edge regarding lawsuits against faith expression in the public square. So, conservatives better redouble their efforts to restore a court faithful to our Founders’ vision, or lose all that has been gained in recent decisions after the 2008 presidential sweepstakes.

At the end of its term, the Supreme Court signaled that it is evenly split on a key matter regarding religion. It stopped a liberal advance against religious liberty in the public square, but also refused to end a legal rule that is used by the Left to attack religious liberty.

[nickcarraway]

BUMP

[Always Right]

Until we have one more liberal justice replaced by a conservative, we are going to have Kennedy moderating every ruling from the court.

[Clump]

That is true. We can't get anything bold done right now with him there. But we are winning, and that jut lays groundwork for big wins later should we get one more solid vote. Roberts is doing a very good job in the tug of war over Kennedy.

But he can only do so much when all is said and done.

[Clintonfatigued]

“We can’t get anything bold done right now with him there. But we are winning, and that jut lays groundwork for big wins later should we get one more solid vote. Roberts is doing a very good job in the tug of war over Kennedy.
But he can only do so much when all is said and done.”

That is very true.

Also true is this line in the column:

“In doing so they showed that this is no longer a liberal court, but neither is it a conservative one.”

[#1CTYankee]

"Until we have one more liberal justice replaced by a conservative, we are going to have Kennedy moderating every ruling from the court."

It won't happen barring some unforeseen circumstance prior to the next election.

We need a Repub like Thompson or Hunter to pull of a conservative nominee, Rudi is an obvious no win and at this point I still don't trust Romney. (We don't even have to address Mcinsane)

[Clintonfatigued]

I remain hopeful. After all, Bush’s father gave us Clarence Thomas.

[#1CTYankee]

I was thinking along the line of the Libs not stepping down while Bush is still in office, they will hang on waiting until the next election.

[Clintonfatigued]

I’m inclined to agree. If Democrats win the White House next year, than the liberal justices will be racing for the door.

Ruth Ginsburg has had a string of health problems, and David Souter is burned out and wants to be in the private sector. And of course, John Paul Stevens will be 88 y/o next year.

But if Republicans hold the White House, perhaps they will step down if they think that the Republican President won’t nominate a Constitutionalist (especially if the Democrats increase their margin in the Senate).

[#1CTYankee]

BTW I hope your screen name is passe in a few years. ;-D

[PEACE ENFORCER]

My guess this is why the Democrats MUST secure defeat in Iraq. If they can manage to secure the defeat then blame a Republican White House show how incompetent they are they will be able to secure the courts for another 25 years by gaining control of future Supreme Nominees by winning the White House. That’s what this whole fight is about in the Senate. This is the fight for the Supreme Court though indirectly