Jump to content

What I worry about the most


Camilo

Recommended Posts

By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Christian conservative leaders say their top priority in President Bush's second term is the appointment of conservative judges to the Supreme Court and throughout the judicial system.

 

"We have high hopes of changing the judiciary. Every judicial appointment that President Bush makes will make the courts less radical and more in tune with the voters who turned out in Tuesday's election," said Gary Bauer, a prominent Christian conservative leader and president of American Values, a conservative pressure group.

 

Unprecedented turnout by evangelical Christians was a key factor in ensuring Bush's narrow victory over Democrat John Kerry in the election. Many were motivated by their opposition to same sex marriage and abortion.

 

Bush may soon have an opportunity to make his first Supreme Court appointment. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, is undergoing treatment and chemotherapy for thyroid cancer and may have to step down.

 

Analysts have speculated Bush could have the opportunity to appoint as many as three or four new justices since all but one of the nine justices are over 65 and several have had health problems. Even if he does not reshape the Supreme Court, Bush will certainly make hundreds of lifetime appointments to the federal trial and appellate courts in the next four years.

 

"Front and center on the agenda is the Supreme Court. We hope and pray for Rehnquist's recovery but if a vacancy arises we are looking to the president to follow the pattern he has already applied to appeals court nominations," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice which specializes in constructional law from a conservative Christian perspective.

 

In his news conference on Thursday, Bush said it was premature to speculate about Supreme Court appointments since there was no vacancy.

 

"I told the people on the campaign trail that I'll pick somebody who knows the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law. You might have heard that several times. I meant what I said."

 

Senate Democrats approved most of Bush's judicial nominees in his first term but blocked a handful, saying they were too extreme.

 

BANNING SAME SEX MARRIAGE

 

Many Christians see passage of a constitutional amendment outlawing same sex marriage, which Bush has endorsed, as an important priority.

"Getting the amendment enacted within the next four years has become a realistic goal," said Charles Colson, a radio host and founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries which seeks to rehabilitate prisoners by converting them to evangelical Christianity.

Influential radio evangelist James Dobson and other conservative Christian organizations lost no time after the election in calling for a renewed push for the constitutional amendment, which failed in both houses of Congress this year.

 

But Sekulow said that was probably still beyond their reach, even after Republicans strengthened their majorities in both houses of Congress.

 

To win passage, a constitutional amendment must be approved by two thirds majorities in both houses of Congress and by three fourths of the states.

 

"It's still an uphill battle on the marriage amendment. The votes are still not there," Sekulow said.

 

On abortion, few Christian leaders believe that reversing the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal in the United States was realistic in the short term.

 

But they expected progress in their drive to erode abortion rights and make abortions more difficult to obtain.

 

"There can be a significant paring back of the reach of Roe v. Wade, by insisting that minors seeking abortions get parental consent and getting rid of partial birth abortions. In pragmatic terms, you want more parental responsibility, more education for pregnant girls and more abstinence teaching," said Colson.

 

"In the longer term, the whole life issue will turn more on judges than anything else," he said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 10
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

I may be mistaken, but wasn't Colson the hatchet man for Nixon? I believe he served time for Watergate. Some irony there.

 

I do not think we will get a flaming conservative judge - even Arlan Specter has issued some call for moderation. He retracted his statement in the face of outcries from the conservative base, but the sentiment is there. I think even more conservative Republicans will not push a "true believer" into the Supreme Court. They may pack the appellate courts, but not something as high profile. They might get someone who is a stealth judge in terms of ideology. The Republicans do not have enough votes to break a filibuster and I don't think the Republicans want to squander their capital on a fight that might pul people away from them. Its one thing that gay marriages are not favored by a majority, its another to say that Roe v. Wade should be repealed - I think a majority would not be in favor of that.

 

Then again, they might feel that its now or never with the balance of power shifted. Just seems ruinous from a Republican point of view - with a majority, they can continue the erosion of Roe v. Wade. It might make for good television though - would make the Clarence Thomas fight seem like a PTA election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be mistaken, but wasn't Colson the hatchet man for Nixon? I believe he served time for Watergate. Some irony there.

 

I do not think we will get a flaming conservative judge - even Arlan Specter has issued some call for moderation. He retracted his statement in the face of outcries from the conservative base, but the sentiment is there. I think even more conservative Republicans will not push a "true believer" into the Supreme Court. They may pack the appellate courts, but not something as high profile. They might get someone who is a stealth judge in terms of ideology. The Republicans do not have enough votes to break a filibuster and I don't think the Republicans want to squander their capital on a fight that might pul people away from them. Its one thing that gay marriages are not favored by a majority, its another to say that Roe v. Wade should be repealed - I think a majority would not be in favor of that.

 

Then again, they might feel that its now or never with the balance of power shifted. Just seems ruinous from a Republican point of view - with a majority, they can continue the erosion of Roe v. Wade. It might make for good television though - would make the Clarence Thomas fight seem like a PTA election.

 

Don't worry they bitch slapped Spector into place and he retracted WP Article pitty.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...