POLITICS: Christians See Court Appointments as Top Bush Aim, page 1

posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 06:23 AM

link

Calling it a top priority, conservative Christian leaders are aiming at the judicial system. Hoping to influence the appointment of conservative judges in both the Supreme Court and through the legal system. These groups may not have long to wait before they get a change to lobby.

story.news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Christian conservative leaders say their top priority in President Bush

"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.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist is undergoing treatment for cancer and may be forced to retire. Aside from the Supreme Court, Bush�s biggest legacy may be with the remainder of the court system. Hundreds of appointments will have to be made during his term of office. While the Democrats approved most of the appointments in his first term, they rejected extreme conservative ones. No doubt any Supreme Court nominee will undergo rigorous scrutiny by the Senate Democrats.

jsobecky

posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 06:38 AM

link

It will be interesting to see how the succession of head of the Senate Judiciary Committee will play out. Arlen Specter is next in line in terms of seniority, but I believe he can be bumped. Specter of course is under scrutiny because of his remarks last week which were interpreted by many as a warning to Bush regarding his appointees' leanings on key issues such as abortion.

Bleys

posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 11:15 AM

link

.

I think those who seek to overturn Roe v. Wade will be sorely disappointed. When Rehnquist steps down in the next few weeks so goes the most conservative member of the court. While Bush can nominate whomever he wants - it has to get through the judiciary committee. The committee is still made up of both republicans and democrats.

I think it will be difficult for the President to push through someone as conservative as Rehnquist. Like jsobecky noted, even Specter is pro-choice.

The way I look at it trading a conservative like Rehnquist for a moderate is a good thing. Take O'Connor for example - a Reagan appointee - she has become more liberal in her interpretations over the past two decades. Worse case scenario - Bush does get a conservative - the court will still be no different than it is now.

B.

FredT

posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 02:27 PM

link

Originally posted by Bleys
The way I look at it trading a conservative like Rehnquist for a moderate is a good thing. Take O'Connor for example - a Reagan appointee - she has become more liberal in her interpretations

Your dead on. This is not the one to really worry about its the 2-4th that you will have to sweat it. I doubt we will see a Bork thrown up by Bush. More like a moderate conservative. As you point out with O'Connor you never know one they get that lifetime job. But on the flip side, while Reagan was percieved as this huge conservative, and that the image he played too, he was far more pragmatic than he is ever given credit for. Its not inconcievable that he knew she would be more liberal in her decisons.

marg6043

posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 02:32 PM

link

Funny how the truth about the religious fundamentalist groups taking over america politics is coming to reality.

Like another member said on a thread if they are going to get their greedy hands on our politics they should be paying taxes too.

FredT

posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 02:36 PM

link

Originally posted by marg6043
Like another member said on a thread if they are going to get their greedy hands on our politics they should be paying taxes too.

Don't get me going on that one!!!!! The Vatican is one of the business in the world and they use tactics that would make Bill Gates blush. Should they all lose thier tax free status? HELL YES!!!!!!

hughes28105

posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 03:27 PM

link

what they don't pay taxes? how is this posible everyone should pay taxes. It american too pay taxes. This is crime agains american to have a riligis group not to pay taxes like everone else. I meen how in the world do they get away with not paying taxes if others don't pay taxes they get thrown away to jail.

[edit on 6-11-2004 by hughes28105]

Bleys

posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 03:48 PM

link

Originally posted by hughes28105
what they don't pay taxes? how is this posible everyone should pay taxes.
[edit on 6-11-2004 by hughes28105]

Congress in their infinite wisdom (sarcasm) allowed tax exempt. status to be bestowed on certain charitable organizations. Boy Scouts, Red Cross, and yes, churches. But there are certain conditions of that tax exempt. status - one being that they cannot tell people who to vote for. Several years ago the Christian Coalition got busted on this big time and lost their exemption.

But to be fair most churches do pay some taxes - not income tax mind you - but payroll taxes on the wages their employees earn. I remember a news story last year where one church quit paying payroll taxes and the Feds actually seized their church.

Here's a link that explains more - Link

B.

jsobecky

posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 08:06 PM

link

The laws are not enforced rigorously enough, because of politics. If the IRS were to go after Julian Bond and the NAACP while Bush were in office, then it would be seen as partisan politics.

If Kerry had won the election, the IRS would probably not have pursued the NAACP because of fear of eroding their voting base.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

:shk: