Petition Urges Bush to Nominate Conservative to Supreme Court

[nChrist]

Petition Urges Bush to Nominate Conservative to Supreme Court

by Allie Martin and Jody Brown
July 6, 2005

(AgapePress) - A petition with tens of thousands of signatures from concerned Christians urging the president to select a conservative nominee to the Supreme Court will be delivered later this week.

For weeks now, the Center for Reclaiming America has allowed citizens to sign the online "Judicial Vacancy" petition. So far, more than 200,000 people have signed the document, which calls on President Bush to select a nominee who will uphold the original meaning of the Constitution and defend the right of people to publicly acknowledge God. With last week's resignation of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Chief Executive now has his first opportunity to nominate a judge to the high court.

Dr. Gary Cass is executive director of the Center for Reclaiming America. Cass is convinced that if the nation "continue down this road of a so-called living constitution, essentially we have no constitution." The end result of that, he contends, is "the opinions of five justices -- that becomes the foundation. And as we've seen, many of these rulings that have been handed down to us, even recently, the precedents they cite for the basis of their ruling is international laws or social science."

Cass also asserts that President Bush must be true to his campaign promises. "Hopefully the president will nominate a younger person who will be on the court for many years to come [and] who can bring us back to our traditional way of approaching the Constitution," he says.

Such a nominee, according to Cass, is someone who does not view the Constitution as a living document that can "morph into whatever any judge wants it to say" but actually examines the intent of the founding fathers. "And the president has promised that that's the temperament of the judges that he will be appointing," Cass adds.

The petition also calls for the president to choose a nominee who affirms that children in the womb deserve the same legal protection afforded the rest of the nation's citizens.

'Gut-Check' Time for Family Advocates
Cass is joined in his call for a conservative nominee by Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families. He describes the vacancy on the Supreme Court a "gut-check" time for the pro-family movement, and notes that many Americans "have given sweat, toil, and tears" to elect a conservative president and a conservative Senate majority for precisely this moment.

"This is our time," Bauer says, urging on his fellow conservatives. "[It is] our opportunity to restore balance to the Supreme Court and to end the hostility to our most deeply held values." Those values, he predicts, will be central to the expected battle over confirmation of Bush's nominee to the federal bench.

"[The White House] should make it fully clear [to Senate Democrats] that while they did not ask their nominees about specific controversies, they did pick someone with the philosophy that makes them confident their nominee has no problem with 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, no problem with the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn, and understands that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission concurs. Justice O'Connor's resignation, he says, opens the door for the opportunity that "millions of Americans have been praying for" for well over a decade.

"That opportunity," he explains, "is to redress the imbalance in the Supreme Court and to make it a solidly original-intent court that will interpret the Constitution, not view it as an 'evolving' document to be rewritten according to the personal views of the justices with allusions to international law."

Land feels President Bush's long-term legacy will be tied directly to the types of nominees he sends to the Senate for confirmation to the Supreme Court. "For President Bush, social conservatives, and the senators they helped elect, the moment of truth has arrived," says Land.

Even Number = Odd Results
The Washington, DC-based group Coalition for a Fair Judiciary points out how critical it is that a new justice be in place by October, when the next high court's next term begins. Based on filibusters of the president's judicial nominees by Senate Democrats since Bush has been in office, it is by no means certain the confirmation process can be wrapped up by that time.

"To submit to the obstruction of a minority of senators and leave this court with a seat empty could mean several 4-4 decisions," notes Coalition president Kay Daly. "Make no mistake -- this is a historic moment for this president and for this nation."

Daly's organization points out that "every justice matters" on the high court. Justices often change their minds based on their colleagues' insights, says the Coalition -- and upcoming issues expected to be addressed by the Supreme Court deserve the full range of views, the group adds.

Then there is the obvious: an eight-member Supreme Court might split on a 4-4 decision -- keeping a lower-court's decision in place. "We do not want the litigants to wonder whether the outcome of their case would have been different if the court had been fully staffed," states the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary's website.

The group contends that allowing lower-court decisions to stand could lead to a "patchwork of law" across the country, with Constitutional rights and protections varying widely from state to state.

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion02966.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/
Copyright © 2003 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.

(My Note: Click and go to the main story page for other links you can click related to this story.)

[5555]

O'connor plans to stay until her replacement is sworn in, so 4-4 votes are not a big issue yet. I predict the Senate will delay into October and ultimately reject Roberts. I also think Bush wants them to so they will seem vicious and petty and endanger their jobs. Any Republican speaking against Roberts will become a target for a primary challenge next time. Also, the longer this takes, the greater the possibility that another justice will die or become unable to continue. When there are 2 nominees being considered at the same time, one gets a free walk (like Rehnquist in '71 and Scalia in '86.)

[nChrist]

5555,

First, I see that you are new, so WELCOME!!

It will be interesting to see what happens with the nominations and appointments. We've done some kidding here in several threads about possible nominees, but it really isn't a joking matter. Any appointment will effect the future of our country for many years to come. I simply pray that GOD will be honored with the decisions made by the Supreme Court in the future. I firmly believe that those who are strict Constitutional Constructionists will make decisions that turn out to be the most pleasing to God.

Now, more than ever, our country needs to turn back to God.

Love In Christ,
Tom

John 14:26 ASV  But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.

[5555]

Thanks for welcoming me. I was in another chat room for a few months. Suddenly it downsized. I thought I reregistered but looked at the new topics and saw only the theologians there. I'm not computer savvy and can only get into it through my mailbox. When they didn't send any more emails I was left out. It was a load off my mind for awhile, but the Supreme Court has become an obsession and I have to talk about it. An hour before the name of the nominee was released I recorded a tape with the above prediction, the week before a long essay tracing the court back nearly 100 years. It's amazing how your opinion changes when you study something that closely.

[nChrist]

Hello 5555,

For me, I'll simply say that the record of the Supreme Court over the last 50 years is very poor. Generally, they are known for making law and ignoring the Constitution. This is the biggest fault that I find with the Supreme Court. Our elected representatives make the law, and the Supreme Court needs to be brought under the control of "Balance of Powers" established in the founding. That "Balance of Powers" is broken and needs to be fixed. It should not be material what other countries are doing or what the individual opinions are of the people sitting on the court. The Constitution should be and must be the guide if some of the broken things in this country are to be fixed. It is exceptionally obvious that the Supreme Court has failed to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. I won't leave out that God was the focus in the founding, and the focus should be returned to God. Those who would start hollering "Separation of Church and State" after my comment wouldn't have a clue about the Constitution, other founding documents, the actual founding principles, and the real history of America.

Love In Christ,
Tom

2 Timothy 4:1-2 ASV  I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:  preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.

[5555]

Most of those decisions were made by the ultraliberal wing of the court more than 30 years ago. Specifically Hugo Black (1937-71), William O. Douglas (1939-75), William Brennan (1956-90), Thurgood Marshall (1968-91) and Harry Blackmun (1970-94). Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953-69) had no chance to win any conservative votes so he converted and became as liberal as Black and Douglas. Chief Justice Warren Burger (1969-86) wanted to be on the winning side so much he often witheld his vote until it was obvious who would win. When Blackmun joined the court people expected him to follow Burger, but he found no leadership there and within 2 years was with the liberals. Lewis Powell (1972-87) replaced Black, and was often the fifth vote for the liberal agenda. If their argument had any real basis in law the moderates at the time (Potter Stewart 58-81 and Byron White 62-93) would be persuaded and the chief would join. Rehnquist (1972-) often stood alone with arguments that rarely won converts. When Stevens replaced Douglas it meant that the liberals had to make sense to win. O'Connor replaced Stewart and like him voted with the law. When Burger retired, Rehnquist was elevated to chief and Scalia joined. Those 2 and Thomas since he replaced Marshall in 91 have voted together. What I just learned is that those 3 are as willing to write laws from the right as the others were from the left. Every time they try though, they lose likely votes from O'Connor, Stevens, Kennedy  or Souter, making it appear that the liberals still dominate when in fact the moderates are protecting us.