Posted on 07/25/2008 4:13:05 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
The conservative nightmare (and liberal dream) is an Obama Court requiring taxpayers to fund essentially unlimited abortion rights throughout pregnancy; ordering all 50 states to bless gay marriage; expanding and perpetuating the use of racial preferences far beyond the 25-year phaseout suggested by the justices five years ago; prohibiting tuition vouchers for religious schools; stripping "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance; banning the death penalty; striking down the new federal wiretap law; expanding judicial oversight of military detentions, CIA interrogations, and perhaps other operations worldwide; opening the floodgates to big-dollar lawsuits against business; eroding property rights; and perhaps creating new constitutional rights to physician-assisted suicide, human cloning, and massive government welfare and medical care programs.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
This is what’s truly at stake here.
The anti-christ is very near.
Oh for Petes sake. The Rats will make certain a conservative judge has no prayer. Even if McCain wins, if he tried to put a conservative judge through, it will not be allowed to happen. If the GOP still had the majority in Congress it would be difficult.
More important to vote for House and Senate.
The first Presidenet Bush was able to get Clarence Thomas through a strongly ‘Rat Senate. McCain could pull it off if he plays his cards right.
I do not think so. If The Messiah loses, the RATs will be very mean. The last thing they will do is settle for a conservative SCOTUS appointment.
That's assuming that he still has all his marbles and doesn't try to trade a conservative justice for something horrendous like amnesty or carbon credits.
No question that Obama would nominate some incredibly bad judges.
But McCain isn’t much better. Bush managed to get two good SCOTUS appointees through while he had a majority in congress, but McCain almost managed to block them with his Gang of 16 nonsense. And McCain helped guarantee that a ton of other judicial appointees never had a chance to come up for a vote during the Bush years.
Whatever happens at the top of the ticket, we need to support conservative senators and congressmen, if we are ever going to turn our courts around.
The most likely retired or expired judges are left leaning so it’s doubltful that obama would make any significant changes in the court’s composition.
“so it’s doubltful that obama would make any significant changes in the court’s composition.”
Maybe not, but the court’s current composition is less than stellar.
Could not disagree more. The vote for House and Senate is at least as important, if not more, than the vote for pres.
I will unwillingly vote for McCain and then hope he stays on his meds enough so he doesn't destroy the country.
Even a middle of the road Justice a la O’Connor would be better than Ginsburg, Beyer, & Co.
uh.....I just said what you just said. Why are you disagreeing when we both said the same thing? LOL
Oh for Petes sake. The Rats will make certain a conservative judge has no prayer. Even if McCain wins, if he tried to put a conservative judge through, it will not be allowed to happen. If the GOP still had the majority in Congress it would be difficult.I disagreed with, and still do, the last sentence.More important to vote for House and Senate.
Sorry, we are not saying the same thing.
So you do not believe the vote for House and Senate are the most important. Right?
Is that what you disagree with? You think the House and Senate votes are NOT as important.
Well, unfortunately we are missing a golden opportunity to change the court for the long run. If Bush and the Republicans in congress hadn’t screwed up and offended the base, we wouldn’t have gotten hammered in 2006.
And if the RNC hadn’t failed to learn the lesson of the past 40 years and pushed McCain to the fore, we might have had a landslide in 2008, as Obama reveals himself for what he is.
Court appointments are absolutely vital. But we are now in a position with our backs to the wall, having to build up our base all over again, because of the stupid Country Clubbers who run the Republican Party.
And it WILL make a difference if we replace the current three aging leftists with younger leftists, because they will be on the court for decades to come. We had a golden opportunity right now, and it looks as if we will miss out on it because of RINO stupidity.
“Well, unfortunately we are missing a golden opportunity to change the court for the long run. If Bush and the Republicans in congress hadn’t screwed up and offended the base, we wouldn’t have gotten hammered in 2006.”
Maybe the Base shouldn’t be so shortsighted.
When are these borderline-insane boneheads not mean? I still remember my welcoming committee in northern Ohio 2 years ago. The liberals are NOT friendly - ever.
Please carefully reread #14. It’s all there.
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
What? Wasn’t the Senate Republican in 1991?
John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are the most likely retirees. Obama will replace them with far left wing counterparts that will be on the court for the next 30 years. If McCain gets to replace either one it will make a drastic improvement on the Court, even if McCain puts in a "moderate" liberal like Kennedy.
What worries me is Scalia. He is currently in good health, but is 72 years old and has been on the Court since 1986. If something were to happen to Scalia and Obama replaces him, say goodbye to the Constitution.
It cuts both ways. I voted, and no doubt you voted, but a lot of ordinary people got fed up and didn’t vote.
Who is to blame? You can blame them, of course, but it might be more productive if the damned politicians wised up and stopped provoking that kind of reaction.
Especially since they did it again, with the McCain nomination.
What many today fail to reason through is that the so-called "right to choose," is an invented euphemism of recent decades designed to mask the ugly act of "destroying" the life and liberty of the child in the womb. By that euphemism, an artificial right was bestowed by unelected justices of the Supreme Court of the United States on only one class of citizens (women) to destroy the Creator-endowed, therefore "unalienable" life and liberty of an as-yet-unborn citizen.
This question is the most important one to be considered in the 2008 election of a President.
Consider the logic utilized by those who say they personally oppose taking the life of the child in the womb, but believes in the trite and tired old phrase of "a woman's right to choose."
Why could a 75-year-old daughter not use the same reasoning to apply to a "right to choose" to get rid of an elderly mother whose care is threatening her own health? (And don't say it is not realistic to claim the health risk that many face!)
Or, why should the nation's law not provide that same "right to choose" to both men and women who consider another individual to be a threat to their personal health or wellbeing, an inconvenience to their lifestyle, or merely a burden they cannot take care of?
Clearly, America's laws against the taking of life do not allow for a citizen's "right to choose" murder as an optional way of solving a personal dilemma, no matter how perplexing or burdensome.
Unmask the faulty logic of the fence sitters, and let them articulate what is their real reason for favoring the taking of a life in the womb! Is it not possibly because they do not see children in the womb as beings "endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
Whichever candidate is most likely to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand this basic principle underlying the American Constitution is the only logical choice to lead this nation, in this voter's humble opinion!
Good point.
John McCain is far from perfect, but he is unlikely to knowingly appoint someone who is committed to upholding Roe vs. Wade.
No. The Senate was Republican, though, in 1986 for Scalia’s nomination.
One only wonders what could ahve happened if the Scalia and Bork nominations were flipped.
I remember when Scalia was nominated. Everyone knew he would sail through. The baby-killers had shot their wad on Bork. Also, Kennedy didn’t dare trash Scalia because of the Italians.
I think that, without Bork, Scalia might not have made it—although, as I recall, Scalia didn’t have a paper trail anything like Bork’s.
Of course, a Democrat could nominate Kate Michelman, and the Republicans wouldn’t raise one question about her ability to be “objective” about Roe v. Wade. Every Clinton nominee was just as transparently pro-abortion as Michelman.
He didn’t have the paper trail. More importantly, he didn’t have the attitude and knew how to keep his mouth shut.
The Democrats were simply a step ahead in the game, even from 1972 and the Rehnquist nomination.
O’connor and Scalia sort of sailed through, but Reagan either didn’t understand Ted Kennedy and the radical left, or he didn’t care, and as a result we got Judge Kennedy.
20 years later, Roberts and Alito knew how to talk a lot without saying much, so I guess they learned their lesson. I don’t think you’re right though.
The Democrats took things to a new level with this filibuster BS. They will regret it. Ultimately, the liberal judicial philosophy is utter nonsense at best; it’s tough to explain to the public how the Constitution:
A. Doesn’t protect private property rights.
B. Protects abortion on demand.
C. Protects criminals and Gitmo detainees.
D. Allows for racial affirmative action.
E. Doesn’t allow RKBA.
etc.
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.