Healing and bringing the nation together....

[Hot Lips]

Will either man remember this sentiment when it comes time to appoint / confirm Supreme Court Judges?

Just heard that question asked on the evening news. What say you?

[Deuterium]

Bush wasn't re-elected to appoint Liberal, out of touch with reality and morality, judges. He was re-elected for just the opposite. Those that can remember, President Bush tried the olive branch with the likes of Kennedy at the start of his last term. What did he get in return? He got that branch rammed so far up his posterior(and they are still pushing) that even some Dems are blushing(and voted against Kerry). I say drive on with his convictions. If the American public is dissatisfied then they will make their will known in 2006 just like they did during former President Clinton's first term.

[TALOS]

Bush wasn't re-elected to appoint Liberal, out of touch with reality and morality, judges. He was re-elected for just the opposite. Those that can remember, President Bush tried the olive branch with the likes of Kennedy at the start of his last term. What did he get in return? He got that branch rammed so far up his posterior(and they are still pushing) that even some Dems are blushing(and voted against Kerry). I say drive on with his convictions. If the American public is dissatisfied then they will make their will known in 2006 just like they did during former President Clinton's first term.
Further to that, cuz I know someone is gonna say Bush HAS to appoint a liberal leaning judge for fairs sake, if the liberals were in power there is no way on this earth that they would appoint a conservative leaning judge.

[Seiyuuki]

Lets not forget, the President can provide candidates for the Supreme Court. All appointment confirmation are done by Congress, not the President.

[Hot Lips]

Liberal, out of touch with reality and morality, judges.

Nice broad strokes to paint people with.

[Deuterium]

Liberal, out of touch with reality and morality, judges.

Nice broad strokes to paint people with.

Yeah I am on a post-election crack high. You're Right(I hope). Okay I'm better now.

[Hot Lips]

:hug:

[TALOS]

Liberal, out of touch with reality and morality, judges.

Nice broad strokes to paint people with.
ummm, just curious, have you noticed any of the posts about republicans in these forums? ;)

[Hot Lips]

Yes. And have commented. Usually the membership majority gets to them quickly.

[admar2]

Bush wasn't elected to "get along" with the democrats. he was elected to lead. and carry forth the republican agenda.

funny how these calls for "unity" and concessions on the part of the president only happen when republicans win.

guess what, you lost democrats!! if they wanna get on board with the repubs I say more power to them, but there is no need for bush to give in to anything.

as far as judges go, Rehnquist will probably retire and will be replaced with a conservative, the balance of the court would not change.

O'Connor will probably go sometime in the next four years. now she's more of a centrist and I'm sure the repubs would love to have her replaced with someone more conservative.

[szr]

guess what, you lost democrats!! if they wanna get on board with the repubs I say more power to them, but there is no need for bush to give in to anything.You're bound to keep those seats in 2006 with that kind of attitude. Keep it up! rofl

[Hot Lips]

I hope everyone noticed that the question I posted applied to both candidates and their respective parties.

[admar2]

guess what, you lost democrats!! if they wanna get on board with the repubs I say more power to them, but there is no need for bush to give in to anything.You're bound to keep those seats in 2006 with that kind of attitude. Keep it up! rofl

funny, considering republicans keep GAINING more seats in Congress.

rofl



a republican president isn't elected to carry out the democrat platform. If the dems want to compromise and get on board when it comes to certain things then great.

if they want to filibuster judges, let em, then they can run on that record in two years.

If dems want to filibuster fixing social security let em, they can run on that record too.

If dems want to filibuster tax cuts, let them, they can run on that record.

[szr]

funny, considering republicans keep GAINING more seats in Congress.

rofl



a republican president isn't elected to carry out the democrat platform. If the dems want to compromise and get on board when it comes to certain things then great.
The Dems were saying the same thing in 1992. Then November came around... ;)

[Flagg]

Will either man remember this sentiment when it comes time to appoint / confirm Supreme Court Judges?

Just heard that question asked on the evening news. What say you?

I reckon any Supreme Court appointments during Term 2 will be quite conservative.

As long as a viable candidate can't be cooked by opposition dirt digging we're looking at an equally conservative or possibly MORE conservative Supreme Court.

I'm sure pressure will be on the conservative moldy oldies to retire NOW so the appointment(s) for their younger replacements can be completed before the mid-term elections.

As I'm sure liberal judges will feel pressured to remain until a more liberal President returns to office.

[Deuterium]

Oh the one thing you can be sure of is that ANY nominee will be grilled, sliced and diced by the Dems.

[szr]

The Dems were saying the same thing in 1992. Then November came around... ;)By the way, that would be the November of 1994 that I'm referring to.

[admar2]

The Dems were saying the same thing in 1992. Then November came around... ;)By the way, that would be the November of 1994 that I'm referring to.

you do realize what cost most of those dems their seats, right?

[szr]

The Dems were saying the same thing in 1992. Then November came around... ;)By the way, that would be the November of 1994 that I'm referring to.

you do realize what cost most of those dems their seats, right?Enlighten me?

[Flagg]

Oh the one thing you can be sure of is that ANY nominee will be grilled, sliced and diced by the Dems.

This sounds like a job for an Eagle Scout with a law degree and no parking tickets.....who cares what they actually know about lawyerin'

everything else is mere details......

[Geezah]

The Dems were saying the same thing in 1992. Then November came around... ;)By the way, that would be the November of 1994 that I'm referring to.

you do realize what cost most of those dems their seats, right?

It was the AWB, the feel good law that cost large number of the Dems to lose their seats, and this was also reflected in Gore losing his own State of Tennesee in 2000(his anti-firearm stance)
The majority of Americans don't like it when people mess with the 2nd ;)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

This is all much ado about nothing. If you dig deep into the details of Bush campaign promises, you will see that he has promised to burn down the Supreme Court and Capitol buildings, blame "internal enemies" such as terrorists and Democrats, then have the Republican majority pass something called the "Enabling Law" which allows him to govern independently of the Congress for 4 years. Done and done (brushes dirt from hands).

In this way, he will be able to get more things done. :lol:

[Kitsune]

Bringing the nation together? Crap !!!

The cultural differences within the USA have become so dire that they have to be considered unbridgeble. There is only one viable solution: Secession. I have worked this out already. p-)

California, Oregon and Wyoming secede and found a new state, the "West American Union" (WAU). Arnold Schwarzenegger becomes their first President.
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Illnois join Canada.
And the northeastern states around New York call themselves "New England" and become part of the European Union.

The other states stay the "United States of America". The constitution is changed, all parties except the Republican Party are forbidden. Christianity becomes the state religion and homo****** acts are seen as "crimes against nature". The leader of the state is George W. Bush, the office he holds shall be known as "The Dubya" forevermore. He himself stays in power until he appoints an successor who then becomes the next Dubya.

That should solve the crisis: everyone should be happy. Neat, isn't it? ;)

p-)

[KB]

Bush ran a pretty agressive agenda during his first term, when he lost the popular vote by 350,000. Now that he has won outright, nothing indicates he'll change his tune or pull his punches.

There is a fundamental split in the US electorate which appears to be unbridgeable, at least in the current environment, regardless of the statements of both sides on the need for unity.

[achilles]

Bringing the nation together? Crap !!!

The cultural differences within the USA have become so dire that they have to be considered unbridgeble. There is only one viable solution: Secession. I have worked this out already. p-)

California, Oregon and Wyoming secede and found a new state, the "West American Union" (WAU). Arnold Schwarzenegger becomes their first President.
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Illnois join Canada.
And the northeastern states around New York call themselves "New England" and become part of the European Union.

The other states stay the "United States of America". The constitution is changed, all parties except the Republican Party are forbidden. Christianity becomes the state religion and homo****** acts are seen as "crimes against nature". The leader of the state is George W. Bush, the office he holds shall be known as "The Dubya" forevermore. He himself stays in power until he appoints an successor who then becomes the next Dubya.

That should solve the crisis: everyone should be happy. Neat, isn't it? ;)

p-)

cant get any more neat than that rofl

[[SAB]Grey]

Bush wasn't re-elected to appoint Liberal, out of touch with reality and morality, judges. He was re-elected for just the opposite. Those that can remember, President Bush tried the olive branch with the likes of Kennedy at the start of his last term. What did he get in return? He got that branch rammed so far up his posterior(and they are still pushing) that even some Dems are blushing(and voted against Kerry). I say drive on with his convictions. If the American public is dissatisfied then they will make their will known in 2006 just like they did during former President Clinton's first term.

Who said anything about that (nice party line you have on judges however). The point is that in the spirit of coming together he won't appoint judges that are going to use the constitution as a blunt instrument to attack freedoms that a significant portion of the country believes in. It is with the understanding he would, however appoint judges who would be moderates (neither left or right leaning).

As to the congress I would disagree and say it was the other way around and that's why some republicans came and voted for Kerry. Neither here nor there as a point because Bush said just yesterday that we all need to work together (unless he was lying) so that trumps your view.

Your last point is great if we were discussing senate or congressional seats. We are however talking about supreme court justices which are appointed for life, so unless his appoinments step down or die we aren't seeing a change in the courts no matter who is elected. All assuming that he makes any appointments at all or that the nominees are approved (assuming they are not moderates).

[ElHombre]

Bringing the nation together? Crap !!!

The cultural differences within the USA have become so dire that they have to be considered unbridgeble. There is only one viable solution: Secession. I have worked this out already. p-)

wow. then all those red states can do without all the federal tax money they get from the blue states. since since red states receive more federal tax money than they give and blue states give more than they recieve, it should be fun to see how long it takes for the red states to turn into third world countries. most of the red states already rank badly when it comes to poverty, child mortality, education, etc. and that's with federal money provided by the blue states. with secession, the red states will have to pull their own weight. for a change. no more whining about washington.