Something To Be Thankful For

Yes, he did expand government. On the other hand...

By krempasky Posted in | | Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

There's a lot for conservatives to be cranky about when it comes to the Bush Administration. Education bill, Prescription Drug Bill, size and scope of government...the list goes on. But noticing the cover of today's edition of USA Today reminded me that even if you're a disgruntled conservative - especially one that thinks Republicans ought to lose to learn a lesson - don't think for a moment this President hasn't done good, important things. Here's just one.

And if you needed a reason to focus on November, 2008 - well, there you go.

« Just stupid: the NYT editorial boardComments (4) | The worst pitch vs. one of the bestComments (8) »
Something To Be Thankful For 21 Comments (0 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

issue come 2008. The next president will probably get 2-3 appointments on the Supreme Court, even if they are just a one-termer, 2009-2013.
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

I heard the same argument in 2000 and 2004. I think it is less likely in 2008, here's why.

First, only 2 Justices are so old that they may retire without choice. For both of them to do so would be unlikely.

Second, if an R wins, then neither of those two are likely to step down. Thus, only a retirement by Scalia would be plausible and seems unlikely.

Third, if a D wins, then the 2 could retire.

So if an R wins, it is likely 0-1 with an outside chance of 2.

And if a D wins, it is likely 1-2 with an outside chance of 3.

If I were a betting man, I'd say an R gets 0 in the first term and a D gets 1 in the first term.

Still worth voting R if this is your one issue. And you never know when someone will retire or pass, but odds are no one is getting 3 nominations from 2008-2012. Too much good health care in the country for that. :)

Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana

I do think a minimum of 1, Stevens, and the 2nd most likely I think would be Ginsburg, regardless of which party gains the White House. And yes I do think that we'll definitely see those 2 retire on the liberal side of the court should a D win, also they might not want to hang around for 4-8 more years should an R win, though. The third one is a wildcard of Souter, so yes I think it is possible that 2-3 justices will step down - especially if there in a landslide for the R candidate (meaning likely an 8 year term).
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

Of being regaled about the sacred balance of the court. How it would be a tragedy if it shifted to the right. Last but not least how the president will be doing end runs around the constitution. Of course there will be no mention of how the court got tilted to the left in the first place.

Ahh well as bad as it may be, getting good judges in will be worth it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Of course this is rumor and hearsay, but apparently the man never envisioned himself as a "lifer," doesn't really like the job, and doesn't really like DC. Reasonable odds that he retires.

Sounds like wishful thinking.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Check out this part:
"whether the Supreme Court will ban an abortion procedure for the first time since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 guaranteed a woman's right to end a pregnancy. The court is weighing a case that tests the federal government's ban on a procedure that critics call "partial birth" abortion."

The Supreme Court is NOT deciding whether to ban an abortion procedure. Congress banned the procedure. The Supreme Court is deciding whether the ban is unconstitutional. Why is that so hard for a reporter to get right?
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana

Since when have liberals been able to advance their cause by telling the truth anyway?

"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."

Judges have arguably become the most powerful branch of government. This development is unfortunate, but the best way to combat legislating from the bench is to nominate strict constructionist judges.

I do get angry when "purists" will threaten to sit out an election if the Republican Presidential nominee is insufficiently conservative. Even a moderate Republican will appoint far better justices than ANY Democrat. Democrats will nominate left-wing, card-carrying ACLU members and no one raises a peep. Clinton's nominations were essentially unoppossed by both Republicans and Democrats.

I dislike McCain, but it would be foolish to hand the election to the Democrat out of spite. The next President will likely appoint at least two Supreme Court justices, and scores of other important judicial nominations.

If conservatives can get two more constructionist justices on the Supreme Court, it's game over for much of the liberal agenda.

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "

William F. Buckley, Jr.

Sounds to me like you're advocating one-issue voting. If someone does almost everything wrong, but happens to appoint decent justices, I am still not going to vote for them.

Yes, our system favors a two-party system. But its that way because of the arguments being made here. I may vote libertarian before I vote for a Guiliani-type.

The two Supreme Court justices nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate are superb additions.

Roberts and Alito, he hung tough on taxes, he killed a lot of Jihadies. BUT, he did nothing at all about immigration, he greatly expanded the cost and power of the federal government, and he seriously botched the first two years of the Iraq war.
I give him a C -. (the same grade I give Bubba Clinton.) Let's go forward from here and let this be our motto. No more Bush's or Clinton's!

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"

(I'm feeling awfully agreeable today.)

There are certainly things that he should have done better, but there are plenty of things he's done right too. Certainly appointing good judges is one of them. Here's another:

I have also been disappointed with Bush on many occassions, especially on immigration, but as a whole I think he is a Conservative worth supporting.

He lowered taxes, appointed conservative justices, and has been steadfast in the war against Islamic facism.

Many of Bush's other conservative proposals, such as private social security accounts, greater tax relief, drilling in ANWR, missle defense, etc. died in the Senate.

Unfortunately, sometimes you have to work with what you've got, not what you want. The primary is where a candidates "purity" should be scrutinized. Once a nominee has been decided by primary voters, I think conservatives have a duty to support the Republican nominee. Looking at the big picture, the Republican Party is clearly the best vehicle for enacting conservative policies.

There was an alternative to Bush to vote for both times, Gore and Kerry. I think it was a pretty easy choice to make.

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "

William F. Buckley, Jr.

I've only been part of the "fray" here for about two months but wanted to congratulate all of you at Redstate on both Fred Thompson and Senator Sam Brownback joining us here at Redstate in just the past week. Very impressive!

...if you stick around, I think you'll be even more pleasantly surprised. We have a few Reps who are pretty regular round these parts - Tom Price, Jack Kingston, Roy Blunt, Thad McCotter, and some others - and tend to have other good contributions as well, be they from Reps or Sens. I think, with the election season heating up, you'll see quite a few more good additions to the officeholder-contributor list :-)


"Expanding government" is a small price to pay compared to having two solid SCOTUS justices.

Despite some good moves he has made, you can't help but look back at missed opportunities. He had a Republican House and Senate (with somewhat sizable leads in both) and wasn't able to get more done. From social security to immigration to school vouchers, he had some of the best opportunities for the party to pass their plans.

I guess it's like cheering the quarterback for throwing a couple touchdown passes while forgetting about the fact he threw some interceptions in the end zone as well.

Ouch that hurts :)
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

enemy in that war on capitol hill. You know, the alligators and the swamp thing.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service