Redstate

I'd be curious to know from the social conservatives here what of substance, rather than of words, they have gotten from the Bush presidency.

Cheers -

lots of judges.

First, a bunch of judges.  A partial birth abortion ban.  It looks like the Flag Burning amendment might pass the Senate for the first time this year.  And the Schiavo intervention must count for something since it assuredly hurt the party with the general public.

Second, as I learned from my poker habit, not losing $20 is the same as winning it.  And even though treading water doesn't appease everyone, social conservatives would assuredly be in a worse position under a President Kerry or a Democratic Senate.

I didn't realize that was really that big an issue for conservatives.  Obviously, the partial-birth abortion ban is big for social conservatives, but I didn't realize that a flag burning amendment was comparable, at all really, with things like a ban on partial-birth abortion.

Of course, my radar might just be way off here.  I think people who burn the flag are ignorant.  When they burn the flag, they destroy any possiblity that they will be taken seriously.  It's an immature, infantile act.  All that being said, I don't think an amendment to prohibit flag burning is necessary.  Flag burning is offensive to me, but so are many things we cover today under free speech.  YMMV.

Some 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan with a shot at something called "freedom."

Say it with me Judge William Pryor, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, and Judge Priscilla Owens.

Health care savings accounts and a move towards market-oriented health care reform.

Unsigning Kyoto and the International Criminal Court treaties.

Hopefully the end of the political fortunes of Gerhard Schroeder and Jacques Chirac.

Civil service reform

Bankruptcy reform

Class action reform.

Pentagon reform (slowly but surely)

The best shot in 40 years at some sort of personal retirement account option for Social Security.

right?

Oh please oh please oh please nominate this man.

I can't wait for the confirmation hearings.

I've got some golf clubs right here!

See you on the links, Mike.

an issue for Social Conservatives? I might actually suggest that people of faith ought be suspicious of a law seeking to ban "desecration" of a secular symbol, since how can such a thing be sacred in the first place? At best we are confusing the thinsg of earth with the things of heaven. At worst we are practicing idolatry.

You've got to be kidding. That particular act of political prostitution has been as harshly criticized by the Right (including the Social Right) as by the Left.

And what "market based healthcare reform"? Sure, there's been rhetoric, but that's about it.

But I can learn! I'm a quick study, I promise!

Psst.. can I also borrow those clubs?

That's old news.  I read that in articles days ago that he was still being considered.  Gonzalez barely got confirmed for Attorney General, so why should they be any easier for him on the USSC?  Personally, I just struggle to believe that this is accurate information.

What was your source?

I'm no social conservative, but I'd rather see an anti cross burning amendment than an anti flag burning amendment. (but of course I wouldn't support either one)

 . . . then you haven't really lived yet.

swearing that generally seems to trail behind most golf carts that I've been around, I find that hard to believe. :-)

 18 of the last 26 years worth. It's not going to do a hill of beans's worth of good to get more judges if the judges will just go ahead and reinforce existing law that you don't like....and many judges do just that. Which is one reason why Roe v. Wade is alive and kicking today.

 Another note:

 'In the mold of Scalia and Thomas'. Yet, those two have managed to disagree before, and will probably do so again - look at the medical marijuana stuff.

 How about we do something shocking on both sides and just go ahead and stick good legal minds on these courts instead of trying to read tea leaves about how they're going to change the world to suit our desires?

It's not for economic conservatives or small government conservatives... who is it for?

I would love to see Gonzalez nominated to the Court. Given the fact that I am fully expecting someone cut from the same stuff as Scalia or Rehnquist, Gonzalez would be fantastic. Way more than I could hope for.

And another point, I think Gonzalez would pass easily in the Senate. There is no way he could be considered 'extreme' to the extent that it would violate the agreement between the gang of 14. Also, his nomination would play nicely into the recent torture debate given his statements re the Geneva Convention.

... is that when you see protesters burning a U.S. flag, you feel relieved of any need to stop & figure out what they're saying, etc.  It's a useful heuristic.

or rather the reason for Bush to nominate Gonzales would be to try and convert even more hispanics to the Republican party.  - sure hope Bush isn't doing this to try and disprove Dean's "white christian party" comment..

Politically, a latino appointee is a good call.  The problem is with this latino appointee.  There are many Catholic, pro-life, (and probably one or two constructionist) latino judges that he could find.

A Gonzalez vote would be comical political theater, at least as viewed from my side of the aisle.  Democrats would be compelled to vote against him if they voted against him for AG, but they wouldn't filibuster because they'd rather have him on the Supreme Court than somebody else Bush might appoint.  Republicans would be caught between supporting their president's nominee and swinging the Court from 6-3 in favor of Roe to 7-2.

That said, I just don't think it will happen.  The Bush/Rove political strategy is centered around pleasing the base, and the Supreme Court is the 800 pound gorilla.  Replacing a conservative on the Court with another conservative would also not be met with the same resistance as if he were replacing Stevens, for example.

conservative catagory, but I could care less about a flag burning amendment.

Not really sure who is in favor of this one, but it doesn't really make my list of things I would like to see.

but I think Thomas was right on medical Marijuana.

Guess I am a social conservative, but I believe in the power of the states to determine things like that.  Probably why I am not too keen on a flag burning amendment.

Although maybe I am not a social conservative, but a religious one, maybe there is a difference.

I would much rather see him appoint Estrada, but I don't think Estrada would go through the whole confirmation thing again.  I am okay with Gonzalez as AG, I don't want him on the Supreme court.

Although I do think the senate would be likely to approve him over others, if for no other reason than he isn't cut of the Scalia/Thomas/Renquist cloth.  He would be more like an O'conner or Kennedy than the other three, and that is the last thing I want on the court.  

Social conservatism and true states rights fit together real well. Let's face it, I know full well that not everyone is as socially conservative as I am. But I'm more than willing to move to a state where there are more of my "kind". Likewise, I kindly invite anyone who doesn't agree with the constitutionally sound, democratically determined, socially conservative laws to move to, say, California.

But when the Supreme Court starts decide that states' wishes don't matter, that's when the trouble starts.

Of course it was criticized by the left and the right. But it was supported by a large fraction of the personal responsibility crowd.

No wonder some of us voted for the President, but also voted for Libertarian or Constitutional Parties in local elections.

Keep up the good work, Mr. President and alienate your base!  Who did I vote in 2004? hmm...Forgive me if I forgot, but trust me, I won't forget in 2006.

I would much rather see him appoint Estrada...

I would much rather he not pander at all or play the games they play on the other side of the aisle.  Appoint someone who's qualified.  That should be the only criteria IMO.

that it is pandering and that we would all be better off if politicians put the pandering aside, and just appointed those who are qualified, but the game of politics now seems to be all about pandering-but I do think Bush is determined at least to pander to the hispanics, and is out to appoint a hispanic to the supremes, and frankly I would prefer he not Choose Gonzalez, when he plays the card.

Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton then... or some other "better" choice.

If we hadn't picked up 4 Senate seats, we could never have pushed the Constitutional/Nuclear Option as far as we did.  Judges Brown, Owen, and Pryor would not be judges today.  If the Senate was 50-50 and President Kerry was appointing judges, imagine your reaction.  It may not be perfect, but no one promised that.  There were two choices, we got the better one.

But NOT Rehnquist.

Look, we all know that if Bush gets to a Stevens replacement, all 45 Democrats and a bunch of pro-choice Republicans will "Bork" a Scalia-style conservative judge.  Doesn't mean Bush shouldn't try to appoint one, just means he won't get a confirmation.  Therefore, a guy like Gonzales would be ideal to replace a liberal Justice like Stevens, who was so far to the left that even Gonzales would pull the Court to the right.

Heck, even in O'Connor's case, Gonzales would do no damage.  The Court would probably just stay the same as it is now on issues like abortion, affirmative action, etc.

But Rehnquist is a CONSERVATIVE.  He thinks Roe should be overturned.  He thinks racial preference-based affirmative action is unconstitutional.  He thinks social issues should be decided by the PEOPLE and STATES, not the federal gov't and certainly not the federal courts!  Whether you share all these views or not is irrelevant.  What matters is that replacing Rehnquist with anything other than a conservative would shift the Court to the left.  And that's not what most Bush voters signed up for.

I want to see the evidence.  And I hope it's a mistake.

On the flag, I also think it's a silly idea.  But the fact is that a whole lot more than just conservatives support it.

The only thing outlawing f b'ing would do would be to make it so much more sexy for professional protester losers to engage in it.

Good grief, being able to burn the flag is highly symbolic of what makes this country the greatest in the history of timespace.  Our flag doesn't need protection-- it is better than that; its strength is the strength of our nation.

Hey, Washington: What happens when a protester burns a big photo of a flag?  Or steps on a flag lapel pin?   Please don't mar our constitution with something so obviously stupid.

Unfortunate, though, that this "right" was discovered by the courts, so we have the correct outcome for the wrong reasons.  It's not "free speech", it's "burning a flag".

It would be nice to give the courts a mild spanking with this, but I'd prefer we found another issue to do that with.  Roe v Wade would be a good one, of course.

If Gonzales is really put for the SC, I'll think that Bush has lost his mind. With all the appointment struggles right now, why would Bush put up somebody with such already terrible negatives? Bush burned though any political capital he had very early in his second term with the other judge and Schaivo. He's on empty. This just sounds dumb.

That's why I don't really believe it's going to happen.  When GWB first came in, a Gonzalez appointment to the USSC looked more believable.  But now he's saddled with lots of baggage (in the eyes of Dems) over the prison abuse, etc.  He probably would be voted down from the left over this and from the right by the southern conservatives who don't think he's sufficiently pro-life, anti-gay, etc.

I mean, do we really think that guys like Tom Coburn, Sam Brownback or David Vitter are going to be thrilled by this guy???

A flag burning amendment also represents a governmental "taking" of property. If someone buys a flag he ough tbe able to do any darn fool thing he wants with it that does not adversely affect others (in a metaerial not a psycological sense).

You know, the Bible (the Old Testament laws of Israel) actually included a provision for a regular debt amnesty for everyone, every 25 years I think (though I could be wrong about the time span). Pat Robertson even mentioned such a notion back when he ran for president in 88. Now, the OT Law certainly does not apply to us today (except perhaps to Orthodox Jews) but the principle behind that idea ought to be valid still: people who get in over their head due to adverse circumstances ought to be given a chance to start over. Even the Lord's Prayer, in one version, mentions something about forgiving debts and debtors.

that Gonzales is pro-Choice?

Largely dealing with some cases that came before the Texas Supreme Court. What makes pro-lifers nervous is that we can smell a Souter here.

think once a generation.

It provided for the freedom of all slaves (they were free to return to their homes), and all property was returned to its original owners.  Also they didn't sow or reap any fields in that year (Leviticus 25)

You are probably thinking more of the 7 year sabbath (Leviticus 25 too and Deuteronomy 15) which cancelled debts among the Israelites every seven years.  They also weren't to sow or reap the fields in that year.  Debts to none Israelites weren't cancelled.

Any flag-burning amendment would need an exemption for the proper disposal of worn-out flags, which are ceremonially burned.

Ussually carried out by a VFW Legion or Boy Scout troop.

Google "flag disposal" and see the proper methods.

by sinking the Geneva Conventions

I don't think it's on the radar for most social conservatives. And I think you'd be surprised by how many "small government conservatives" -- by which I mean actual conservatives, not libertoids, who put their focus their -- would happily see that passed.

fires are controlled in city limits, but not with respect to flags?

I can burn one flag.

I cannot burn one small stick of tobacco.

I cannot burn one bag of trash.

I cannot burn a pile of leaves.

Can I burn a bag of flags?

Can I burn a pile of flags?

I can't burn a cross.  

Shouldn't flag burning follow the rules for other burnings?  No on Code Red Air Quality days.  No during Brush Fire Alerts etc.

Both Crosses and Flags are political symbols.  Fair is fair.  No fires.