Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The History of the Supreme Court
CBN 700 Club ^ | Jily 10, 2003 | David Barton

Posted on 07/10/2003 11:57:09 AM PDT by KriegerGeist

The History of the Supreme Court
By David Barton,
The founder of WallBuilders talks about the Supreme Court, then and now.
Guest of the 700 Club.
July 10, 2003.

The History of the Supreme Court

The Founding Fathers of this nation laid out their elaborate plans for the city of Washington and made no provision for the Supreme Court to have a separate building. As intended by the Founders, the Court met inside the Capitol building for 135 years, first bouncing around from room to room and then finally residing in the vacated Senate chambers. The Founders intended that the Court should not have a major role in shaping the policy of our nation. In the first ten years of its existence, the entire Court term lasted less than two weeks a year; and for the next fifty years, the Court met only six to eight weeks a year.

Contrary to current policy, early sessions of the Supreme Court never saw the practice of public prayer as contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Records show that the Court commenced only after a minister had come into the Courtroom to pray for the Court, jurors, and their deliberations. Communion was often served before the session began, and records even show that early judges would offer a salvation message to those who were sentenced to die. Lawyers would sometimes pray for Justices as part of their arguments in Supreme Court cases. Supreme Court decisions were rendered by the Justices in defense of retaining the Bible as part of official public life.

Early Justices lived lives that exemplified their beliefs. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, also served as the President of the American Bible Society. Through his efforts, thousands of Bibles were printed and distributed across America. Other Justices served as officers and encouraged Christianity in the government and public arena. The Founding Fathers had godly requirements for those who served in public office. Noah Webster based those qualifications on Exodus 18:21, to "rule in the fear of God." Chief Justice John Jay declared, "It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christian for their rulers."

Branching Out

In 1935 the Supreme Court began to branch out, extending its powers by constructing a separate building. After moving into the new building, they extended the length of the Court’s term from only a few weeks per year to nine months per year. By rendering more and more decisions, they drew more power to themselves.

Americans quickly forgot their founding principles. The Court ignored the American government articulated by George Washington who declared that "the fundamental principle of our Constitution enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail." By 1947 the Everson v. Board of Education case, which dealt with the First Amendment and the wall of separation of church and state, began to pave the way for the intrusion of the state into religious expressions. In the early '60s, the Earl Warren Court, with little judicial experience on the part of any but one of its Justices, began to make decisions without regard to historical practices. In 1962 the Court took prayer out of public schools; in 1963 they took the Bible out of classrooms; in 1980 they ended the teaching of creation in schools. The court continues to refuse to intervene in important rulings that differ with an overwhelming majority of Americans. For example, 70 percent of Americans approve the posting of the Ten Commandments in the classrooms and courts, and 78 percent support volunteer school prayer, yet the courts refuse to reconsider these cases.

However, despite these and other current rulings, many reminders of our godly heritage are etched in wood and stone throughout the building. Inside are several carvings of the Ten Commandments, including an etching on the upper right side of the Justices’ seats that shows Moses displaying these sacred laws. When seated, the Justices face a marble relief called "The Struggle Between Good and Evil with Good Prevailing."

David says now is a critical time to persevere in prayer for our courts to return to the godly system on which they were founded.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: 700club; barton; cbn; christianheritage; davidbarton; founders; history; judeochristian; pharisees; pseudohistory; scotus; supremecourt; wallbuilders
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
Yes, there is a legal basis against such an idea. Justices do not serve at the pleasure of the President as do Cabinet members. That is what pre-signed letters of resignation mean. They go when he wants them gone. That ain't the way the Supreme Court works and no one who understands the Constitution would propose such a thing. This issue has nothing to do with "tradition" but is the essence of the division of power between the three branches of government and the constitutionally required independence of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court had exactly the same form during the Civil War as today except for number of justices. I asked what Supreme Court rulings Lincoln ignored but you only reference lower courts.

The American Colonists took their freedom by force? WoW, and all this time I thought they won it in the Lottery. Next thing I know you'll be telling me the Sun rises in the East.
41 posted on 07/11/2003 7:46:32 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Stevens is a senile old coot put in by an accidental president facing a RAT Senate. Souter was a stealth candidate necessitated by a president facing a RAT Senate. He was not Bush I's first choice at any rate. There is no guarantees in this except that you can be POSITIVE any RAT choice will be very bad while it is possible and even likely that a Bush pick, with a sufficiently chastined RAT party, will be very good.

Your strategy is guaranteed to fail.
42 posted on 07/11/2003 7:57:48 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
You forgot O'connor - the swing vote in the Lawrence decision. She was appointed by Reagan. It seems to me that it would not be that difficult to find out if a person is pro-life and pro-Constitution. You seem to be one of those blindly loyal republicans who would follow the party no matter what they did. Well, THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE U.S. CONSITITUTION. They take and oath and then they proceed to violate the Constitution with their anti-Consitutional legislation, refusal to protect our borders even though it is MANDATED by the Constitution. As I said, if you want to waste your vote by voting for people who ignore their oaths to the Constitution, go right ahead - it's your vote. But I vote on moral princple and moral principle alone. The republicans are not much different than the Democrats and are becoming more like them every day. Bush and the Republicans are too cowardly to fight the democrats over the judicial nominations or abortion. I'm sick of spineless Republicans. Furthermore, Bush is a globalist and I despise globalists. I am an American who believes in the sovereignty of the United States. Bush panders to illegal immigrants and leaves our borders WIDE OPEN!! Got an excuse for that? Let me tell you pal, Bush is going to lose ALOT of votes over the immigration issue. Fully 75% of Americans are for controlling the borders and it is a big big issue. Bush has also grown the federal govt in his watch - as if we need a bigger fed. govt! He also refuses to investigate the crimes committed by Clinton - a travesty of justice. Finally, Bush actually PRAISED that bogus Court decision on racial preferences! Tell me, what precisely is conservative about Bush? huh?
43 posted on 07/11/2003 8:16:55 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Your strategy is guaranteed to fail.

I follow my conscience as dictated by absolute moral principles. I don't blindly follow any man. If the country goes down the crapper, it's because the American people are immoral and corrupt. Any people who will vote for Clinton twice, and who would hand the popular vote to Al Gore, need to check their moral compass. If all Americans did the right thing and voted for the BEST CANDIDATE who would honor the Constitution as our founders intended, we wouldn't be in this mess. SO BLAME IT ON THE IMMORAL AMERICAN PEOPLE - that's where the blame belongs.

44 posted on 07/11/2003 8:23:02 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"The Supreme Court had exactly the same form during the Civil War as today except for number of justices. I asked what Supreme Court rulings Lincoln ignored but you only reference lower courts.

Name a ruling issued by the then "Supreme Court" that helped the Confederates and you'll name a ruling that Lincoln ignored/squashed/urinated on. He DID ignore lower courts and I have no doubt that he would have/did ingnore the Supreme Court, if and when they "ruled" against the Union War effort. REMEMBER!!! The Supreme Court's 'Dred Scott decision a few years earlier "settled" that whole slavery issue in the minds of the Supreme Court. I guess the country had other ideas.

"Yes, there is a legal basis against such an idea. Justices do not serve at the pleasure of the President as do Cabinet members. That is what pre-signed letters of resignation mean. They go when he wants them gone. That ain't the way the Supreme Court works and no one who understands the Constitution would propose such a thing. This issue has nothing to do with "tradition" but is the essence of the division of power between the three branches of government and the constitutionally required independence of the judiciary."

Simple --- the President REFUSES to nominate ANY Supreme Court justices. The Existing ones die off one at a time and the Court fades away. Division of power between branches is maintained and the bastards are gone.

Regarding resignation letters:"That ain't the way the Supreme Court works and no one who understands the Constitution would propose such a thing". It is, if that's what they have to do to get nominated. If a potential nominee refuses to sign........"NEXT APPLICANT, PLEASE!!!" would be the President's response. Again, he must have testicles to do it.

" The American Colonists took their freedom by force? WoW, and all this time I thought they won it in the Lottery."

Now THAT, from what you've said, I believe!!!!!!!!

45 posted on 07/11/2003 8:36:44 AM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
"So what you advocating is the rewriting of the constitution to eliminate the supreme court?"

Who said "rewrite"? I say, simply "reinterpret" it. Heh, if the Supreme Court "reinterprets" the Constitution, the President could certainly "reinterpret" the Supreme Court's "reinterpretation" to "interpret" whatever he wants. The difference being, the People have a voice in who makes it to the White House. They have no voice regarding who makes it to that judicial junta called the "Supreme Court".

46 posted on 07/11/2003 8:41:45 AM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
Who said "rewrite"? I say, simply "reinterpret" it.

Could have fooled me. (See your post no. 12, where you said "Getting RID of the Court needs to become a new American tradition.")

47 posted on 07/11/2003 8:54:28 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
Now exactly what does the Dred Scott decision have to do with the Slavers starting the Civil War?

It takes no testicles to do such a lunatic thing merely a complete disregard for what the constitution means. No leader would ever do such a thing.

As I said such a letter only has meaning when the writer serves at the pleasure of the President. What would happen when the president brings out the letter and says Justice Bozo has resigned and Justice Bozo says No I haven't? How ridiculous would the president look and how much ridicule would any party to such a charade endure?

Apparantly you have NO understanding of what the constitution is or means.
48 posted on 07/11/2003 9:05:58 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
I don't argue that the American people are immoral and inexcusably ignorant but that has always been the case. Most of the great decisions made by the American people have been because of a minority pushing the majority. As best as I can figure 1/3 actively fought for Independence. About 1/3 supported the concept of Victory over the slavers in the Civil War.

"Absolute" moral principles are incompatible with political success. Would your "absolute" moral principle have allowed you to ally with Stalin against Hitler or would it required you to stand aloof and go down in defeat? Or would it prevent you from allying with slave owners in fighting for American independence and, thus, remaining part of the British Empire? Overall goals require de-emphasis at times of principles not entirely consistent with tactical needs.

Besides I doubt your principles are "absolute" in any real way and are compromised in many ways. Destruction of the democRATic party is the most moral goal you can set for yourself at this time in history. Besides where would you ever find any man or party you "absolutely" agreed with on every issue?

"Absolute" moral principles are a certain way of becoming abslotutely alone and abslotutely defeated.
49 posted on 07/11/2003 9:20:18 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
O'Connor and Kennedy are generally considered Moderates not Liberals.

Republicans have always been different than Democrats and your attempt to paint them with such a broad brush indicates you don't really know much about American political history.

While I have concerns about illegal immigration and some criticism of the GOP about it there is zero chance of the RATS doing anything about. Bush has been a marvelous president and had Gore won we would be in truly deep shiite as deadly enemies could attack us without regard for consequence as under the Abomination he served with for eight years.

But it also must be remembered that these illegals are here with the connivance and assistment of millions of Americans and that until the latter half of last century there was no concern about illegal immigration. Mexicans wandered across the border at will and no one cared.

Bush HAS fought against abortion and HAS tried to do the right thing in many instances but is blocked by the RATmedia alliance and the lack of loyalty of short-sighted and impatient people who should support him but expect miracles.

Bush is the most conservative ELECTABLE president. He is not a dictator and must work with that same population you just stated was immoral. Changing them is the only way to get the results you seem to want. How can you complain about Bush not being conservative enough when he was put into the White House strictly through the skin of his teeth and only because the Supreme Court applied the constitution?
How could he swerve hard to the right knowing that would defeat him and allow the RATS to return to destroying everything honorable about America? You think he is an idiot? Get real, the views of Freepers are the fringe of the fringe in America and our views will never be the views of any but a small minority of Americans, the rest just WON'T think about these issues. They don't care or are actively anti-American.

Federal government growth is almost always as a result of threats to the nation, as it has been under Bush. Other than the FSA there has been no growth in number of federal employees. In fact, federal employee unions hate Bush and are very upset with his plans to privitize as much federal work as is possible.

Look at Bush's enemies and tell me you will join them in opposing him. They know very well he is deadly to the RATliberal program and are willing to use every deception, misinformation and lie to defeat him. You apparently have no problem in joining that despicable crew.
50 posted on 07/11/2003 9:42:12 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"Now exactly what does the Dred Scott decision have to do with the Slavers starting the Civil War? It takes no testicles to do such a lunatic thing merely a complete disregard for what the constitution means. No leader would ever do such a thing. As I said such a letter only has meaning when the writer serves at the pleasure of the President. What would happen when the president brings out the letter and says Justice Bozo has resigned and Justice Bozo says No I haven't? How ridiculous would the president look and how much ridicule would any party to such a charade endure? Apparantly you have NO understanding of what the constitution is or means."

Justice Bozo (a relative of yours, perhaps?) can say, "no I didn't!" as FBI agents eject him/her from the court building. Yes, Justice Bozo would, indeed, look ridiculous!!!

Slavers startet the Civil War, when it became apparent that the country was not going to continue down the slavery path that the Supreme Court (via Dred Scott) "ruled" was the correct path.

"......merely a complete disregard for what the Constitution means.".......that's exactly what the Supreme Court does and you say, "oh well".

51 posted on 07/11/2003 9:49:25 AM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
I said: "Who said "rewrite"? I say, simply "reinterpret" it."

You said: Could have fooled me. (See your post no. 12, where you said "Getting RID of the Court needs to become a new American tradition.")

My response: "Reinterpret" the Supreme Court out of existence.

52 posted on 07/11/2003 9:52:09 AM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
O'Connor and Kennedy are generally considered Moderates not Liberals. Republicans have always been different than Democrats and your attempt to paint them with such a broad brush indicates you don't really know much about American political history.

I have a degree in history pal, and I am constantly reading more history. I am also acquainted with the intent of our founders on the U.S. Constitution and the meaning of that document. The Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND, and I'm sick and tired of the SCOTUS (somtimes with Bush's approval) inventing new rights out of thin air (right to Sodomy and racial preference and privacy and on and on). Moderates? You call inventing a Constitutional right to sodomy moderate? I don't and neither does anyone else who gives a flip about the Constitution. In this country, laws rule, not men. Tell that to your buddy Bush.

While I have concerns about illegal immigration and some criticism of the GOP about it there is zero chance of the RATS doing anything about. Bush has been a marvelous president and had Gore won we would be in truly deep shiite as deadly enemies could attack us without regard for consequence as under the Abomination he served with for eight years.

Bush is no better than the Dems on immigration. In fact, he's worse. He panders to the mexicans. The Republicans do nothing because corporations need the cheap labor, democrats do nothing because they want the votes of the immigrants. Everyone knows that.

But it also must be remembered that these illegals are here with the connivance and assistment of millions of Americans and that until the latter half of last century there was no concern about illegal immigration. Mexicans wandered across the border at will and no one cared.

That's because almost all immigrants before then WERE LEGAL. We didn't have an invasion of illegals then as we do now. Now, MOST AMERICANS want it stopped and want it stopped now! Listen to the people Bush. So much for homeland defense!! This illegal invasion makes it a joke.

Bush HAS fought against abortion and HAS tried to do the right thing in many instances but is blocked by the RATmedia alliance and the lack of loyalty of short-sighted and impatient people who should support him but expect miracles.

I haven't seen him do anything but give lip service so far. I don't see him fighting the dems over the holdup of teh judicial nominees. Repubs are COWARDLY SISSIES in this regard. I want people in there who WILL FIGHT.

Bush is the most conservative ELECTABLE president. He is not a dictator and must work with that same population you just stated was immoral. Changing them is the only way to get the results you seem to want. How can you complain about Bush not being conservative enough when he was put into the White House strictly through the skin of his teeth and only because the Supreme Court applied the constitution?

Sounds like hero worship to me. I will speak with my vote and my vote will not go for Bush unless he changes, and neither will alot of other people like me.

How could he swerve hard to the right knowing that would defeat him and allow the RATS to return to destroying everything honorable about America? You think he is an idiot? Get real, the views of Freepers are the fringe of the fringe in America and our views will never be the views of any but a small minority of Americans, the rest just WON'T think about these issues. They don't care or are actively anti-American.

If America is destroyed by liberals, it will be the fault of the American people, not me. I am voting for truth and moral principle. NO COMPROMISE.

Look at Bush's enemies and tell me you will join them in opposing him. They know very well he is deadly to the RATliberal program and are willing to use every deception, misinformation and lie to defeat him. You apparently have no problem in joining that despicable crew.

I oppose Bush for different reasons. The democrats are evil and have their own diabolical agenda. I stand on the U.S. Constitution. I see you have no argument against the fact that our entire govt ignores the Constitution - the law of the land.

53 posted on 07/11/2003 9:59:12 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
Apparently you are unfamiliar with my thoughts or you would not make such a comment. When rulings are made with which I disagree I have no difficulty in saying so. However, I understand that most of the bad ones are the result of the same people on the Court and have replacing them the most important political consideration on my radar screen.

I also understand that many of those critical of the court has no understanding of the constitution nor the basis of these rulings.

However, it will come through constitutional means not some half-assed, ill-conceived, incompletely thought out, contrived methodology explicitly rejected by the founders.

Your lack of grasp of this issue is perfectly illustrated by your belief that the FBI could remove a Justice from the Court against his will without impeachment and conviction. What a dreamer.
54 posted on 07/11/2003 10:06:06 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"Absolute" moral principles are incompatible with political success.

Bill Clinton would agree with you - he believed in success by any means as well. Tell that to the writers of hte Decl. of Independence who believed in the absolute moral rights (given by God) of life and liberty.

Would your "absolute" moral principle have allowed you to ally with Stalin against Hitler or would it required you to stand aloof and go down in defeat?

And because we made nice with Stalin, the Cold War resulted. We should have crushed Russia when we were done with Germany as Patton suggested. Bad things happen when you stray from right and wrong. Bush wants to intervene in Liberia yet does nothing about 2 million christians slaughtered in Sudan. Want to talk about moral alliances?

Or would it prevent you from allying with slave owners in fighting for American independence and, thus, remaining part of the British Empire? Overall goals require de-emphasis at times of principles not entirely consistent with tactical needs.

The slavery issue ended in the bloodiest war in our nation's history. Allowing that wrong resulted in a judgment on our nation (read Lincoln's 2nd inaugural speech). Men are sinners - all men, and all are corrupted by power. That's why we have checks and balances. Tell you what - you follow your own moral compass or Bush's moral compass, and I will follow God's.

55 posted on 07/11/2003 10:13:02 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"Apparently you are unfamiliar with my thoughts or you would not make such a comment. When rulings are made with which I disagree I have no difficulty in saying so. However, I understand that most of the bad ones are the result of the same people on the Court and have replacing them the most important political consideration on my radar screen. I also understand that many of those critical of the court has no understanding of the constitution nor the basis of these rulings. However, it will come through constitutional means not some half-assed, ill-conceived, incompletely thought out, contrived methodology explicitly rejected by the founders. Your lack of grasp of this issue is perfectly illustrated by your belief that the FBI could remove a Justice from the Court against his will without impeachment and conviction. What a dreamer."

......and if the Supreme Court rules tommorow that:

A) Wahhabi Islam is the Official religion of the US.

B) Criticism of the Court's ruling constitutes 'hate speach' not protected by the 1st Ammendment and is punnishable by 20 years in prison/re-education camp.

C) Anyone (including the President, Senators and members of Congress and the public) accused by the Court of 'hate speach' is subject search, arrest, and cooercive interegation and has no civil rights.

........your response would be.............(drumroll, please)....... "Let's hope the Court allows us to work within the broken system to change it back to what it once was."

In Revolutionary War times, those people were called, "Tories" and they were invited to emigrate to Canada after the Revolutionary War. Let's see what happens when the Supreme Court rules this fall that the CFR law in no way violates the 1st Ammendment when it bans certain political ads from TV based upon the contents of the ads that certain Senators and Congressmen find offensive. You'll just pout, won't you? Nah, don't answer that. I already know what you'll do.

Read Lincoln's comments on what should be done when the Government abbandons the people and forgets who put it (the Government) in power. Then again, Lincoln had testicles........

56 posted on 07/11/2003 10:31:51 AM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Geist Krieger
bump for later
57 posted on 07/11/2003 10:33:46 AM PDT by Badray (Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
Your fantasies are irrelevent to me, no matter how enjoyable they are to you.

What does any of those ridiculous hypothetical proposals have to do with the FACT that the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government altogether outside, BY DESIGN, the control of the executive and only answerable to the Congress through the Impeachment mechanism.

What "people" are you referring to? Your writing is as unclear and confused as your understanding of the constitution.
58 posted on 07/11/2003 11:57:41 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Apparently many of the signers did not believe in those "absolute" rights since they owned other human beings.

I was asking about WWII not the Cold War. Two different issues.

Liberia has nothing to do with the Sudan. And there will be no massive military intrusion into Liberia. Keep to the subject.

Bush is following God's commandments and, if you are opposed to him, quite likely you are not.

And you dodged the question. Was it correct for the Founders to ally with Slavers to achieve American independence when they knew slavery was wrong?
59 posted on 07/11/2003 12:03:13 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
If you have a degree in history apparently you learned nothing obtaining it. Particularly about politics.

Apparently you did not learn that the SC decides which laws are laws and which are just words on paper. Or that IT WAS ALWAYS THAT WAY.

O'Connor has always been considered a "moderate" don't blame me for it.

What "everybody knows" is not known to me and is generally wrong anyway.

Why is it that Bush, who should have plenty of knowledge of all the problems with illegals since Texas is one of the states most affected, not in the same panic as the experts here? Could it be that, for the most part, it is not a killing issue or one that is easily solved? For all the raving about it there is not ONE practical, implementable idea ever presented on how to solve it.

While amassing historical knowledge you seemed to have missed the FACT that the Executive does not control the Senate and apparently are unaware that the RATS are not helping themselves with these stunts. Let them keep it up only those who want everything to have happened yesterday are upset. Most of the politically aware understand that this is a huge briar patch the RATS are getting themselves into.

After the next election the clueless will be whining again about how the RATS didn't get their message out and that is why they were smashed again.

There are many Republicans who will fight. What crew of absurd non-entities would you support? Harry Browne? Or some one who crawled out from some other rock? Who is going to vote for these people since the most conservative presidential candidate in the last 25 yrs could not even get a majority of popular votes? Last time I checked one had to get more than 2% of the votes to be president.

You will have to face facts at some point and Bush is FAR and AWAY the most conservative president who could possibly get elected. There is no other except in the wet dreams of the hysterically deluded. This is RAT strategy, try and alienate "real" conservatives and turn them against Bush. It won't work but don't let that stop you trying. There are only two sides here Pro or Anti America and you are apparently willing to side with Michael Moore, Dan RAther, CNN, the Dixie Chicks, Jeanine Garofolo, and Tom Daschle. But don't insult us by claiming to be a conservative.

And No there won't be a lot like you. You will merely be part of that 1% who represent no one but the permanently dissaffected. I don't worship heroes though I will praise them.

It is merely hyperbolic hysteria to claim the "entire government ignores the constitution." There is nothing to argue about such a statement which is just silliness.

It matters not what excuse you use for joining the Anti-American side, it only matters that you are.
60 posted on 07/11/2003 12:27:36 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson