Many conservatives consider the Presidential election this year a "Hobson's choice," of sorts. They claim that Bush isn't nearly conservative enough, and believe that staying home on Election Day - or at least not voting for either of the two major candidates for President, if they do happen to go to the polls - may be their best option.
Numerous conservatives plagued with great consternation have emailed me with worries about what to do and have asked for "just one reason" they should pull the lever for Bush again this time around.
Well, last night at the Democratic National Convention, Al Gore reminded many conservatives of one (of several reasons) Bush needs to be President over the next four years rather than Kerry. It's the number-one reason I give to doubtful, doleful conservatives searching for an answer to the "why even bother" question.
Here's what the man-who-would-have-been-President-had-he-won-his-home-state-of-Tennessee said from the podium in Boston that ought to remind conservatives of what's at stake:
- "Let's make sure not only that the Supreme Court does not pick the next President, but also that this President is not the one who picks the next Supreme Court."
So, what's at stake in this election? Possibly two to four Supreme Court vacancies.
"Four Supreme Court slots?" you ask.
This is what The Hill reported this yesterday:
- "If Bush is reelected, activists engaged in the fight over judges expect Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justice Sandra Day O??¢â???¬â???¢Connor, both Republican appointees, to retire within the next four years. If Sen. John Kerry wins, Democrat-appointed Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has battled health problems, are expected to retire.
"But even if Bush wins four months from now, it is questionable whether Stevens, who is 84, and Ginsburg will have the stamina to stay on the bench until after the next presidential election, in 2008."
Considering that as many as four Supreme Court nominations could be possible, conservatives need to remember what the candidates have said about whom they would nominate, specifically if social issues are what really matter to you.
John Kerry: The "most liberal Senator" said he will impose a pro-abortion litmus test on all Supreme Court nominees, telling a DNC conference on October 3, 2003:
- "I am not appointing anyone to the Supreme Court of the United States who doesn't understand and respect the right of privacy and who will guarantee we will not undo Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose in America. And you can call it a litmus test if you want, but I will explain to America what it really is. It's defending constitutional liberties in the United States."
President Bush: Said he would nominate judges like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. From NBC's "Meet the Press with Tim Russert":
- BUSH: Well, because those are extraordinary circumstances. I know there's somewhat of a contradiction there, but, nevertheless, that's the position I've taken.
RUSSERT: Would you want to know the views of a potential Supreme Court justice on abortion before they were appointed, not for a litmus test but just know their views?
BUSH: Well, let me tell you what I'd like to know. I'd like to know are we compatible from a philosophical perspective on a wide range of issues. But the most important view I want to know is are you a strict constructionist, Mr. Jurist? Will you strictly interpret the Constitution or will you use your bench as a way to legislate? That's the kind of judges I've named in the state of Texas. On of the-I've got a record on this. I've named four Supreme Court justices in our state. As you know, we elect judges in Texas. But when there's a vacancy, I name, and I do.
RUSSERT: Which Supreme Court justice do you really respect?
BUSH: ...Anthonin Scalia is one.
That's just a small taste of the two disparate views on the Supreme Court.
Still looking for a reason?
