No Evidence Bush Ever Promised To Name To High Court Those In The Mold Of Antonin Scalia And Clarence Thomas

[TheGeneral]

You’ve heard it said many times and so have I: President Bush promised to name to the U.S. Supreme Court nominees in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. But, did Mr. Bush really say this? I have found no such quote and neither has anyone else.

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=436

[Paul]

This may be a topic for a different thread but here goes:

I certainly do not discount these truths; however, I believe that the party would gain more ground if the majority of the time spent on topics was used to illustrate what a Constitutionally sound Republic would look like and operate like (being a novice in this area, I'd love to read and hear such topics).

If all we do is point to the other side and say, "They're doing it all wrong", but we don't teach, "Here is they way that it's suppossed to be done - and here are the advantages to doing it that way", then we're only doing half the job.

[Joe_Liberty]

I think you have a point.

I think one possibility would be to highlight the achievements of Constitutionalists already in office. I spoke to Gary Moeller in Valley Forge and he told me that his county has the lowest tax rates in Iowa. Success stories like that could be featured prominently, demonstrating to Americans that if they vote for Constitutionalists the world is not going to come crashing down, but rather their quality of life will improve tremendously.

At the same time, that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out our opponents' weaknesses. See http://www.constitutionparty.org/news.php?aid=204

[Paul]

Great idea. We have to ween people off the dependency mindset that the current socialist system has them chained too.

The company I work for is offering a High deductible Health Insurrance plan where you can set aside money into a Health Saving Account. It's interesting that many of the people I work with discount the idea without any real thought. They are so enamored by the privatized socialist insurrance system currently in place that the idea of having to pay out of pocket for any care (other then a copay) sends them into a panic. They don't seem to understand that the high deductible plans are much cheaper and that they may actually save quite a bit of money (if they don't go running to the doctor for minor cases of the sniffles).

[bluebird]

I agree with Paul and Joe Liberty,

Siting the misgivings and gross mistakes of the Republicans is about the only claim to fame that Democrats have left anymore. They neither have a vision for the future, nor a valid effort to fulfill one. So they continue to harp endlessly about the all but Obvious mistakes of the Republicans.

I believe we should not shy away from pointing out the mistakes and deceptions by both parties, but then after doing so, continue on to illustrate how the Constitution Party would see and handle things differently.

Continuing to emphasize our "unique" but traditional view of the Constitution will be refreshing for those seeking truth in government and a Party with a realistic vision.

Our views, as a Party, are only unique because for the last 40 plus years this society has rationalized just about everything under the sun to justify their own personal pet projects and leftists leanings.

It is now time to re-instate the Constitution the founding fathers intended.

[Areopagus]

You’ve heard it said many times and so have I: President Bush promised to name to the U.S. Supreme Court nominees in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. But, did Mr. Bush really say this? I have found no such quote and neither has anyone else.

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=436
The moral here: People who are Republican Party cheerleaders lack discernment, are easily deceived and hear what they want to hear even if what they think they heard was never said.


Additionally, both of those good fellows are Catholic.

The Republicans, employing the faith bait initiative, are the new masters of deceit. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/003027365X/002-4730167-2438421?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance

When Mr. Ruse of the Culture Of Life Foundation discovered that John Robersts was “a believing and practicing Catholic,”http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=383
it is probably safe to assume that some of the following verses came to mind:

Hebrews 8:10 I will put my laws into their minds. Phil.2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus. 1 Corinthians 2:16 ... But now we have the mind of Christ ... Psalms 40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart. Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom….Deuteronomy 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

Could the “InfoCision” employee in this interview http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=342 been thinking the same thing when she said: “Well, I do know just a little bit, that he is a conservative Christian, sir, and that we are going to support him.”

The punch line in all this reveals that the joke is on those Christians who supported the faith bait initiative of Roberts nomination . John Roberts said in his confirmation testimony: “I do know this, that my faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role in judging. When it comes to judging, I look to the law books and always have. I don’t look to the Bible or any other religious source.” http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=448 .

And the cock crowed thrice (Matthew 26:69 – 75). Wonder why he mentioned law books, and not the Constitution? Nevertheless, some well meaning, and deluded Christians wouldn’t even flinch at Roberts’s imitation of Peter’s denial. They have been trained, like Pavlovian dogs, by the secular humanists to separate Creator, and State.

What did Goldberg and Harlan say in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963): “Neither government nor this Court can or should ignore the significance of the fact that a vast portion of our people believe in and worship God and that many of our legal, political, and personal values derive historically from religious teachings. Government must inevitably take cognizance of the existence of religion and, indeed, under certain circumstances the First Amendment may require that it do so.”

Alexander Hamilton stated, `No human laws are of any validity if contrary to [the law dictated by God Himself].' Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution, Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. I, at 87 (Harold C. Syrett ed., Columbia Univ. Press 1961) (quoting William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol I, at 41).

Since Robert’s position on sodomy was in question, it is only fitting to refer to the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 106 S.Ct. 2841 (1986) where CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER had the following to say:
Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law.... During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed.... Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named….To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching. http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0478_0186_ZC.html

Exclusive Photo Essay: God in the Temples of Government: Part I http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=2441 contains photos of Moses on the rear facade of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Moses with the Ten Commandments inside the Supreme Court's courtroom. Part II http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=2664 contains photos of a Sculpture in front of the U.S. district court building showing the Cross and Commandments, and a Carving of Ten Commandments on doors of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Article VII in the U.S. Constitution refers to `the Year of Our Lord,' 1787, which is included in this copy http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm . Many copies conveniently omit this statement.

Back to the beginning with the Deuteronomy 6:7 reference. Why bother teaching the young anything about the Bible, if they want to become a judge someday? According to Roberts, it is of no use in his occupation. That alone makes him a mighty fine role model for most Christian parents.