User Panel
Posted: 8/30/2004 6:47:20 AM EDT
FYI:
Interviewed on Tony Snow show this morning, Pat Buchanan says the most important reason to vote for GWBush is because he will probably be nominating FOUR Supreme Court vacancies in the next term. So despite his disagreements with the "neo-cons", Pat Buchanan (the 'conservative's conservative) favors GWBush. Both Buchanan and Snow both agreed that there will likely be four (at the MINIMUM) vacancies on the SCOTUS over the next four years - Stevens, Ginsberg, Rehnquist, O'Connor - and maybe more. With the Republicans retaining control of the Senate and a GWBush win, this is our last best chance to get more constitutionalist justices on the SCOTUS. I shudder to think what a President Kerry will want to put on the court. EDITED 10/19/04:
Pretty honorable of him. He sticks to his principles yet understands the gravity of the consequences of this election. |
|
|
Bush can't get any judges through now.
Do you really think the DumoRats would let him put 4 SC Justices on the bench? They would rather leave the SC empty. |
|
+1 |
|
|
his has occured to me. I think if the GOP takes the Prez and adds a few senate aseats, the Democrats will HAVE to play nice, and add some justices...
Then again, W will probably nominate a bunch of "moderates" to appease the democrats... |
|
He hasn't so far. |
|
|
this would be good for us, we need him in there for the nomination process, god help us if kerry were to pick the nominees
|
|
5-6 US Senate seats flipping to us will break the filibuster. And GW has been very fond of picking hard-line Conseravatives to fill judge spots... |
|
|
Unless a party controls two thirds of the Senate, nobody is going to get any SCOTUS judges' appointments approved.
|
|
Sorry, Mr. Buchanan, but the fact that President Bush was going to be able to name some future US Supreme Court nominee should have made you a huge President Bush supporter from the get-go!
This last-minute, slapping of the forehead, 'What was I thinking', turn in your views is, well, to be honest, a little too little, a little too late! Where were you during the past three and a half years? Oh, yeah, carping on the sidelines! Extremely patriotic thing to do, if your idea of patriotism is to....pout. Eric The(ClearAndConcise)Hun |
|
Also, remember some of the SC justices have been completely opposite their believed original political position.
|
|
I doubt we'll get 5-6 more. |
|
|
|
|
|
My thoughts exactly. -LS |
|
|
Who said "retire"? |
|
|
Not funny dude. Real thin line there so I'll just say, "Be careful of what you say." |
||
|
maybe he meant "old age" |
|||
|
Ginsburg is gonna die. She has already had cancer real bad.
GunLvr |
|
I think he meant to say they were going to make him an offer he couldn't refuse!!!
Thats still thin lined ,but that is just exactally the reason Ted Kennedy decided he wanted no more up-grading!!! Bob |
|
Yeah Bush does have a knack for appoint judges who uphold the Constitution.
CRC |
|
Sometimes I lie awake at night and worry more about who would be on the SC rather than who the president would be
|
|
|
I think GWB, if he wins, will have to chose moderate candidates. The same thing if Kerry wins because you know the Repub Senators will screw up the Democratic nominations.
|
|
Not really. If Bush wins, he will <ack>compromise<ack> with the DumoRats and pick moderately liberal judges so he can get them confirmed. If Kerry won, the Republican Senate would roll over like the little bitches they are and pass anyone he nominates - Michael Moore as a Supreme Court Justice! |
|
|
|
|
|
ETH for the supreme court...
Lets just hope they dont get any cases about secession. |
|
But I have been paying attention to how he has been "defending and upholding" the Constitution. Someone with a grasp of the Constitution doesn't sign something he deems unConstiutional. And someone with a grasp of the Constitution would be revolted by the contents of the "Patriot" Act. Sorry, but the man inspires no confidence within me where the Constitution is concerned. |
||
|
You refer to "selection for SCOTUS nominees". I reply with "strict-constitutionalist nominees that have already been confirmed". You pull out a red herring. Very lame. But like I said, it's pretty clear you're ignorant regarding GWBush's strict-constitutionalist judiciary appointees. Think you can stay on topic?
Whatever. So - do you think Badnarik is gonna crack the 0.33% this time? |
||||
|
Personally, I dont care. I will have voted for someone who represents me, which Bush does not. I am sure you have heard the horse-race/election analogy, so I wont waste your time with it again. And give me a link for these "strict-Constitutionalists" and their nominations. I have heard nothing about it. |
|
|
Judge Jay S. Bybee Nominated to: Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Status of nomination: Hearing 2/05/03; Confirmed
Can you believe GWBush actually put this radical conservative on the NINTH Circuit Court of Appeals - such a respected and revered court sullied by this rightwing extremist. One can only hope GW and the Repubs don't try to nominate someone like this to the Supreme Court! |
||
|
Professor Michael McConnell Nominated to: Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit Status of nomination: Confirmed 11/15/2002
Let's just hope GWBush doesn't choose him to replace Sandra O'Connor someday!! God only knows how far right GWBush wants to pack the Supreme Court. |
||
|
Janice Brown is a conservative African-American who's ruled against affirmative action and abortion rights. Here's a few recent decisions by her regarding the RKBA in California: ======================================================================== * Court decision cripples assault weapons ban 6/29/01 Judges cannot declare firearms illegal under the state's assault-weapons ban law, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a decision the dissenting chief justice said created a "loophole" in the 1989 act. Justice Janice Rogers Brown, agreeing with arguments made in the case by the National Rifle Association, wrote that the 1991 provisions - enacted to ban the proliferation of generic versions of outlawed weapons - was too vague for gun owners to know which of the "copycat" weapons of the Russian-made "AK series" were illegal. Without explicitly listing each weapon, Brown wrote, "ordinary law-abiding citizens could suddenly find themselves ... subject to prosecution." The immediate fallout of Thursday's decision is that an untold number of copycat weapons to the AK series are now legal in California. ------------------------------------------------------------------- * Calif. Municipalities Can Ban Gun Shows (link expired) 4/23/2002 The California Supreme Court ruled that counties and cities in the state are allowed to ban gun shows on government property, Justice Janice Rogers Brown, the one judge dissenting, said that the municipality implementing the local ban "exceeds its regulatory authority." ------------------------------------------------------------------- * State Assault Gun Ban Survives Court Test (link expired) February 22, 2001 In an opinion by Justice Janice Rogers Brown, the court said the Legislature was entitled to conclude that banning certain guns would make California safer. She also said judges acted within their powers by reviewing the attorney general's proposed additions to the forbidden list. [She didn't necessarily agree or disagree with what the Legislature was doing - she simply affirmed they had the authority (under California's Constitution) to do it.] ------------------------------------------------------------------- * California Justices Uphold State's Assault Weapons Ban (link expired) 29 June 2000 "For good or ill," wrote Justice Janice Rogers Brown for the court, "the Legislature stood up and was counted on this issue, one of the most contentious in modern society." Brown strongly rejected any suggestion that the state Constitution protects the rights of Californians to own weapons. "No mention is made [in the state Constitution] of a right to bear arms," Brown wrote. [Again, she says she's not deciding whether the law was good or bad - just that it was constitutional because California has no RKBA in their state Constitution.] ======================================================================== So I'm not sure where Justice Brown stands on the RKBA, but she sure seems to uphold a strict interpretation of her state's constitution. She'll certainly displease a lot of moderates if she does the same to the US Constitution. Currently Janice Rogers-Brown is being filibustered - one that will CERTAINLY be broken as soon as the election is over. BTW, the buzz is that she's on the short list for SCOTUS nominees also. Just WHAT is GW thinking????? |
||
|
Timothy Tymkovich Nominated to: Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit Confirmed: 4/01/2003
Oh Lord! Not ANOTHER States-Rights/Gun-Nut/Right-Wing WHACKO on the Federal Judiciary!!! This is starting to look ugly! Doesn't he know there's not supposed to be any CONSERVATIVES appointed by Tweedle-dum or the Republicrats??? Doesn't he know there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans??? These right-wing whackos are on the Federal Bench FOR LIFE now!!! And are one step away from the SCOTUS!!! This is NOT AT ALL what I was thinking GWBush would do when I voted for him and for the Republican-controlled Senate!!! |
||
|
So all you head-on-the-sand idiots who keep voting for Michael Badnarik or Howard Phillips or "George Mason" or Daffy Duck because you don't want the "lesser of two evils" listen closely - The Most Conservative, Constitutionalist Justice Ever Nominated To The SCOTUS In The Last 60 Years Gave You All A Warning - "FILL THE SENATE WITH REPUBLICANS". Or else you might as well just vote for the Democrat. It wasn't the Democrats or the Libertarians or the Constitution Party who nominated and backed Scalia, Thomas, Bork and all the other strict constitutionalist justices recently nominated to federal benches. In this election, you have four choices: 1. Take Robert Bork's advice and get more Republicans elected. 2. Vote for the Democrat 3. Write in "Patrick Henry" on the ballot. 4. Stay home on election day. The results of numbers 2-4 will be the same. |
||
|
|
Too bad Buchanan isn't running, I'd vote for him over the two assclowns we have to choose from now.
|
|
What marvelous things did Buchanan do with all his support he gained in the '92 and '96 campaigns? |
|
|
Personally, I don't think ANY vote is wasted. |
||
|
Educate others on what your candidate has done. But dont flame and judge if they dont agree that those things are representative of them or worth changing their vote. But I am starting to think that ARFCOM is the wrong forum for such polite behavior. his) |
|
|
So what did Buchanan do with all the support he gained in '92 and '96? (answer: NOTHING - he wasted their votes) |
|||
|
I agree that at least two and probably three of those mentioned will likely retire and having John Kerry make those appointments would be a bad thing. I've actually been one of the few people thinking about this, I guess, because I never seem to see anything on the news about it.
The sad thing is, that most of the american people aren't thinking about the Supreme Court, or the people that are on it or those who may step down, or those who will replace them. |
|
What the hell are you talking about????
|
|||
|
Voting for President is not a poll on how I feeeeeeeeeeeel - it's about making a decision that will have real consequences. In the real pragmatic world, the lessor of two evils is reality. People who voted for Nader in Florida did not "send a message" to Gore, they sent GWBush to the White House. A third-party vote will have only ONE effect on the result of the election - it will get the guy you want LEAST elected. And that's all I care about - what is the RESULT. |
||
|
Ok, not flaming. But you most certainly wouldnt win any "teacher of the year awards" with the attitude that you teach with. Btw, I will read those tomorrow. I have to go to bed. |
||||
|
In actuality I DID waste my vote on a staunch conservative Republican once - his name was Pat Buchanan. I wasted the vote because HE wasted my vote. He did NOTHING with the support he built during the '90s.
HE blew it for conservatives in the Republican Party. HE did more to damage the conservative wing of the Republican party than anthing GWBush has done... THIS is part of the reason why conservatism is dead in the Republican Party:
Dammit he was GAINING support. He was starting to WIN elections. He should have stuck with it! THAT'S what it gonna take to turn this country around. So HE couldn't be the Number One Standard-bearer for the Republican Party - so is THAT a reason to quit the party??? His ego got the best of him and he really hurt all the momentum he was building in the party. Same with the "Young Turks" in the '94 Congress. They thought the highest leadership positions in the House were theirs just because they showed up. Many 3rd & 4th-Party folks who vote for their local dog-catcher to be President hold up people like Patrick Henry or George Mason as their standard of American patriots who stood up for their principles, did not compromise them and always "voted their conscience". Henry even voted AGAINST the US Constitution because it didn't contain the BOR. All that may be true about Henry and Mason - but ya' know what - neither of them ever had a chance in hell of becoming President and yet the fringe-party-folks today fail to see how vitally important and significant Henry and Mason were in the lower offices that they DID hold. Do you think people like Fineswine, Schumer or Lautenberg have little influence in the course of what goes on in Congress? Do you think people like Pelosi, Waxman, Rangel and Conyers have no say in the Democratic Party's direction or goals? And do you think they all got there all at once? Do you think that just because The Corpulent Tick lost his bid for the Presidency in '80 to Carter that he is now irrelevant in his Party's political landscape? Remember, he LOST his bid to become the Democratic Presidential nominee and yet look at where he is now! Hell, today he's practically RUNNING the entire Democratic Party! Or how about Ronald Reagan? He lost TWICE in running for Presidential nominee of the Republican Party, once in '68 and again in '76. And, well, you know the rest of the story with him... But by comparison, where's Pat Buchanan today?? {crickets} What's the difference here? The difference is that Kennedy and Reagan did not QUIT after failing but instead continued working within the party to gain more power and supporters. The problem with the 3rd-party fringe-mentality is that they always want to stampede for the highest office in the land when no one from their party has even proven they can even be effective Mayors, Governors and Senators let alone President! They abandon reason, quit working IN the Republican party and start working AGAINST the Republican party. That splits conservative voters, divides the base and weakens THEIR OWN influence in the advancement of conservatism. They have no support because they haven't WORKED for it and they haven't EARNED it. Good ideas don't implement themselves - it takes political experience and political leadership and the 3rd Party candidates have neither. Goldwater didn't quit when he lost. Reagan didn't either. They continued to work WITHIN the party to get their principles advanced to the forefront of the Republican agenda. We HAD a great chance back in '94 - we HAD secured a solid foothold in the Republican Party with the "Republican Revolution" but what did some of the "Young Turks" do? Folks like Bill Paxon and Susan Molinari stampeded for the top leadership position before they had secured and expanded their support in Congress - they got impatient and charged ahead and waged war WITHIN the Republican Party when they should have spent the next few years BUILDING on their success and GROWING their support which would then allow them to RISE to positions of leadership rather than "take-over". Now they're gone, the "Republican Revolution" has lost many of it's up&coming leaders because they were too intent on gaining CONTROL rather than gaining SUPPORT. Same with the 3rd Party fringe-voters. |
|
|
So you are saying I should write in Ron Paul? He is a Republican, after all...
And with that, I am actually going to bed. |
|
Thats what you WANT us to believe. |
|
|
Yes, he WANTS you to believe the truth, but you stubbornly cling to a lie. |
||
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.