ConfirmThem

I've been saying for a long time that Giuliani would not be as good on judges as his defenders have been promising. I applaud Giuliani for telling the truth, but I don't want anyone near the White House that thinks that a good strict constructionist judge would uphold Roe. And he can't even give a straight answer on public funding for abortion. Which is weird because I thought his campaign already had him protecting the Hyde Amendment.

I hope this gets wide airplay because conservative voters need to know that Giuliani will NOT be giving us the Scalias, Roberts, and Alitos.

I was tentatively leaning towards Giuliani before his recent comments; now I am not so sure. But here is some food for thought: Giuliani's statement of the other day is precisely the argument put forward as part of the confirmation strategy for Roberts and Alito: we cannot know what a strict constructionist would do with Roe, because of stare decisis and "super-duper precendent". Indeed, it is because of remarks like that by the nominees themselves that some of us still aren't yet breathing easy Alito and Roberts.

Like it or not, the political reality is that an on-record opponent of Roe (like Edith Jones) cannot be confirmed and therefore will not be nominated. Any GOP president is going to say he does not know what the nominee will do with Roe, and any nominee, including favorites of this board like JRB and Luttig, would give some variation of the "respect for precedent" line when testifying about Roe and would deny that a strict constructionist philosophy will invariably lead to the overruling of Roe.

Does this mean that Giuliani will really look for the best strict constructionist nominees? I guess we don't know. David Frum made an interesting point on NRO yesterday, though: we know that Giuliani will want justices who are strong on executive authority and the war on terror, and we also know from experience that there is a strong correlation between that type of justice and a down-the-line strict constructionist.

Giuliani's position on this issue is not just related to judges. Suppose a Democratic Congress were to pass a bill making abortion totally legal throughout all 9 months, wherever the federal government has jurisdiction. From what I've heard, Giuliani would sign it. So, even putting aside the judges issue, this may be a show-stopper.

I don't think abortion should be a litmus test for judicial nominees, but at the same time it can be a litmus test for presidential nominees. Giuliani says he would not try to change the state of the law on abortion, and to me this sounds like he actually may believe that someone like Harry Blackmun was a "strict constructionist."

yet I really don't think Ted Olson would sign on if this were the case.

Check out Patrick Ruffini's TownHall article on how Waxman's subpeoning the White House game plan on winning back the House and Senate.

Time for a weekend thread?

Ted Olson WOULDN'T have signed on...

First, pregnancy has stages, not "trimesters."

Second, whether abortion is legal in the first eight weeks, or twenty-eight weeks, or all forty weeks, in each case the law would be predicated on the principle that parents are legally entitled to kill their children, at some point, if they so desire.

The pro-life movement is predicated on the principle that every human being, born, or unborn, is entitled to the protection of law from being arbitrarily killed.

90% of the reason Roe was wrongly decided are the 90% of babies killed in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. The other 10% of the reason Roe is wrong is the 10% of babies killed later in pregnancy.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand consistent and uncompromising conservative leadership.

Just to be clear, Andrew, I was talking about Giuliani's statement in the same interview that a strict constructionist could be either for or against overturning Roe. (This is what I thought Thomas Alan was referring to in the first part of his comment.) Here's the full text of the relevant statements:

BASH: And one of the things that you have said is that you will appoint strict constructionist judges.

GIULIANI: For different reasons, not necessarily that reason. I — generally, that is my philosophy. That is the only way I can really see it. We protect the separation of powers, personal liberties.

By strict constructionist judges, I mean judges who will interpret the meaning of the Constitution, not create…

BASH: And many people see that as code. The conservatives can say that means that he is giving me a wink and a nod saying he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. Do you want to overturn Roe v. Wade?

GIULIANI: Dana, I don't wink and nod. I'm a very direct person. I tell people what…

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: So what is the direct answer?

GIULIANI: The direct answer is, a strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade. They can look at it and say, wrongly decided 30 years ago, whatever it is, we will overturn it.

BASH: But what is your personal deal on Roe v. Wade?

GIULIANI: They can look at it and say, it has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent. Conservatives can come to that conclusion as well. I would leave it up to them. I would not have a litmus test on that.

My overall view would be judges who are going to struggle with the meaning of the Constitution, and that applies to criminal justice issues, it applies to terrorism issues, it applies to a whole host of issues, to the Second Amendment and the individual right to bear arms, there is a whole group of issues.

Bigskybob, I agree that "trimesters" really have no biological significance. However, that's how the pollsters have asked their questions, so we're kind of stuck with that framework as a feature of the discussion. I agree that it would have been better to focus on biological stages, such as the embryonic stage which is followed by the fetal stage. More than 40% of abortions occur in the fetal stage.

Like it or not, there is a vast number of people who would say abortion should generally be legal in the embryonic stage, but generally illegal in the fetal stage. I'm one of those people.

It's obvious that the U.S. Supreme Court had no business legalizing any abortions at all, regardless of whether an embryo or a fetus is involved. That decision was constitutionally baseless. It was seven white male lawyers deciding that they know better than a majority of the American people, and pretending that the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights was on their side. The Supreme Court's decisions on abortion have been an outrage, and remain an outrage, and have poisoned the past three decades in ways that really cannot be measured.

Andrew, this is a surprising post from you, because Giuliani and Scalia are talking about completely different issues. Giuliani is expressing the view that he believes government should not have laws prohibit abortion; to the extent that Scalia's comments address abortion, he is saying that he believes that the Constitution neither prevents nor mandates laws prohibiting abortion. I agree with Scalia and disagree with Guiliani, a sentiment I'm certain you share, but neither you nor I can pretend that there is any tension between Giuliani's statement and Scalia's - a person might hold both views concurrently with no dissonance. Indeed, the idea that one's stance on Roe and the Constitutionality of abortion laws must spring from one's normative preference on abortion is the big lie pushed by liberals ever since, and it's staggering to see even an implicit concession to that view on ConfirmThem.

I can live (grudgingly) with a President who opposes abortion laws, but what I refuse to accept is a President who believes that such laws are not only unwise but unconstitutional. Which Guiliani believes is the most important question hanging over his candidacy.

~Simon

"Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind." - Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 426 (1970) (Black, dissenting)

Simon, the Giuliani quote in the post mentions that he thinks "it is a woman’s right." From the context, he apparently means abortion is a constitutuional right. After all, in the linked article, he says that he wouldn't do anything to change the state of abortion law. He's also said that it would be perfectly legitimate for a "strict constructionist" to uphold Roe v. Wade. So, to my ear, Giuliani's remarks indicate [1] he would not do anything to stop legislation making abortion legal throughout 9 months wherever the federal government has jurisdiction, [2] he has no problem with the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence, and [3] he has no problem with what Scalia accurately described as an aristocratical (or oligarchical) SCOTUS.

As you note, I did not explicitly say that one's stance on Roe must spring from one's normative preference on abortion. I didn't even imply that. After all, as I explained in the comments, I believe abortion should be legal during the embryonic stage, and yet I also believe that statutes banning it would be perfectly constitutional during that stage.

P.S. I've taken the liberty of editing the post, merely to quote more of what Giuliani said.

Giuliani's statement of the other day is precisely the argument put forward as part of the confirmation strategy for Roberts and Alito: we cannot know what a strict constructionist would do with Roe, because of stare decisis and "super-duper precendent".

Well, those are answers given to the den of scum we call the Judiciary Committee. It's even more important than a meaningless "no litmus test" pledge. The context of Giuliani's quote, as a presidential candidate already opposed to pro-life positions (and seemingly moving back to the left) is quite different.

It, to me, represents an "out" for him. All he would have to do is find someone who gives outsized deference to precedent and he gets to keep Roe the law of the land (his preferred policy and judicial outcome).

I sincerely hope that Rudy's recent comments derail his quest to secure the GOP nomination. Stare decisis means NOTHING if the precedent doesn't have a strong foundation in the text and orginal understandiing of the Constitution. That's why I like Scalia and Thomas so much; they are not afraid to vote to strike down a constitutional precedent if it is completely contrary to the text and orgininal meaning of the Constitution, no matter how longstanding! Roe v. Wade, Buckley v. Valeo, Lawrence v. Texas, and many other "precedents" SHOULD be struck down because they have ABSOLUTELY NO constitutional basis. I'm dubious that Roberts and Alito, but especially Roberts, think that longstanding precedents that have no constitutional founding should be struck down entirely. (Though, only time will tell whether I'm right or wrong.) I am a judicial minimalist when judges and Justices are deciding cases that have clear constitutional basis, but I want constitutional precedents that don't have constitutional founding (in text and oiginal meaning) to be completely struck down ASAP.

Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain are frauds whom I will NEVER support. Fred Thompson is also a quack. (I will NEVER support him because he was a huge proponent of McCain-Feingold and because he backed McCain in 2000.) The only true conservatives in the GOP race right now are Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, but unfortunately neither will be in the race for long. I will do a write- in for Tancredo in 2008 if amnesty isn't passed. If amnesty is passed, Hillary or Obama WILL be our next president because they will have millions of additional voters and I will NEVER vote again. The GOP will also be in the minority for a VERY long time if amnesty is passed.

You're not being very helpful.

I really don't understand all the support Rudy has. I guess he became a bit of a folk hero as a result of 9-11, but before that, he could not even win the GOP nomination for NY Senator. Do we seriously want somebody like that to be our president? No! Rudy has got to be stopped.

I know McCain has angered and frustrated many of us, but as president, do any of us really think he would not do a fantastic job? I of course am concerned about his age and the possibility of cancer reappearing.

I am still hoping though that a solid conservative with national credentials joins the top three.

Romney and Thompson are both pretty good on immigration. I'd never vote for Guliani or McCain under any circumstances, and it's mind boggling that those two are in the race at all let alone people who call themselves conservative seem to be supporting the. Some of the others aren't bad. Hunter and Tancredo being excellent.

I'm not going to elect a lib just because I Thompson wants campaign finance reform though. Immigration, the war on terror, and judges are the most important issues and Thompson would probably be good on those. I think Romney would probably be good enough on those issues also.

I know McCain has angered and frustrated many of us, but as president, do any of us really think he would not do a fantastic job?

Umm, yeah. I think he'd do a horrible job and make us regret putting him in office at least twice a week.

Giuliani and McCain are both non-starters.

What exactly do you think McCain would do that would make you feel he is doing a horrible job as prez? Giuliani, I can understand - every time he vetos a pro-life bill, I would get furious, and every time he would appoint a judicial nominee that would refuse to overturn Roe. But what do you think McCain would do that would be so horrible? He has an solid 82.3 rating from the American Conservative Union.

Please give me one piece of evidence that McCain would not appoint solid conservatives to the court.

As I say, I know he has angered many for being a part of the Gang of 14, and I understand that. But as prez, what do you think he would do that would be all that bad?

For the most part, I agree with paragraph one. I disagree with much of paragraph two.

As far as anyone saying they won't vote for so and so Republican in the General, or writing them in, do you really want Hillary as president (or any other Dem.?). I'm sure that even Rudy's appointments would be light years better than those of a Dem prez.

I don't think any of the candidates are frauds. I'm also not going to throw my vote away with a write in vote.

And this is written by one who is angered by what the WH is doing (or isn't doing) with regard to the two border agents currently in prison--not even allowed to be out on bail pending appeal (unlike Scooter Libby, whom I think is rightly allowed to be on bail pending appeal).

If you think McCain would provide conservative leadership in any form whatever so ever, you haven't been paying attention. He's a Democratic operative that has infiltrated the party. Kerry jus talked about his desire to be the Dem VP in 04 and his desire to switch parties in 2000. Not to mention his cosponsoring of the worst bill of the century, the McCain-Kennedy open borders bill. That and the gang of 14 and the other 10000 times he's voted with the Democrat party.

in the primaries (and don't think he'll be the nominee), I will point out that he has been solidly pro life for years; he is a staunch supporter of Iraq and the over all war on terror; he did not switch parties in 01; and did not become Kerry's veep in 04.

Giuliani was on Hannity the other day taking questions from listeners. Several of the questions had to do with gun control. He repeatedly answered by praising the Parker decision and stating how he believes the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right. That sounds great, but actions speak louder than words. He was mayor of a city with some of the most paternalistic gun laws in the nation (maybe second only to DC). Did he ever speak out in favor of gun rights when he was mayor???

Let’s face it; the guy is an elitist lib who doesn’t trust average law abiding adults with the right to carry firearms. His views on abortion and gay marriage are equally bad. He will let conservatives down in a big way if elected. We’re one vote away from getting the court back; we cannot afford to make the mistake of electing this guy.

Why isn’t Senator Brownback getting more support??

Of Rudy, Mitt, and McCain, I think McCain would appoint the most solid conservative judicial nominees. Rudy already has basically said he would not appoint a judge to overturn Roe. Mitt I simply have too many questions about.

When somebody says things like 'McCain is a Democratic operative that has infiltrated the party', it affirms my previous statement: McCain has angered and frustrated many of us.

I understand that. He is a maverick who does not always go with the party. But as far as who he would appoint to the courts, I think he would make great appointments.

In 2008, for me, the three big issues to consider in nominating the GOP prez nominee are: 1) Iraq and war on terror, 2) Judicial appointments, and 3) electability.

On those three issues, McCain stands above Rudy and Mitt.

Until Tommy Thompson or some other solid conservative rises to the top (and I am definately willing to support somebody other than McCain if somebody comes along), McCain has my support for the nomination.

McCain has grandstanded with "torture", closing Gitmo, and wants to restore habeus corpus rights to terrorists. That is not strong on terror, is it? He voted against tax cuts. Voted for open borders. Bottled up nominees in committee with the help of his minion Lindsey. Voted against the Pro Marriage Ammendment. He is for Carbon Caps. Need I go on. McCain is terrible. Plus he is old and not a good speaker. Did you see him on the Late Show the other day. He rambled on and on, even with Dave trying to make him funny he just kept botching joke after joke. McCain looks Bush look like Ronald Regan.

To the poster who likes Brownback: He is even worse than McCain. His selfish behavior screwed up the deal for the 6th circuit judges. That alone is reason not to support him. Plus he is also for McCain Kennedy

What exactly do you think McCain would do that would make you feel he is doing a horrible job as prez?

There are some things I like about him but I agree with the many negative people have pointed out above. As to the SC, I suspect he thinks SDO was a wonderful Justice.

Of all the candidates, no one has more contempt for the First Amendment then John McCain. How can we trust someone like that to appoint strict constructionists? We can't.

John McCain is a self-absorbed megalomaniac who has in some years been among our most liberal Republicans. One suspects that that's where his heart is. I do not think he would be a good president. Better than a Democrat? Well, okay. But that's not a very high bar.

Not one of them - Giuliani, McCain or Romney - sound great on judges.

There is no doubt in my mind that Giuliani thnks Roe was correctly decided. Theodore Olson behind him or not, I am positive that Giuliani would not nominate a judge to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe or Lawrence.

Romney is big question mark in terms of judges at the moment. His track record of liberal Democrat judges in Massachusetts might be the result of being stuck in a Democrat state with a Democrat legislature to deal with or it might portend for the future nomination of moderate judges. Who knows for sure?

McCain, despite his treatment of Haynes, has a proven track record in the Senate of voting to confirm strict constructionist judges like Roberts, Alito, Owen, JRB and Pryor. Despite these votes, though, would McCain himself nominate similar people? Another big question mark in my mind.

Banana Republic (in 25) stated my thoughts about McCain more eloquently than I could have hoped for. I completely conur with his statement. I would also state that on the border, habeas corpus rights for terrorists, McCain-Feingold, etc., you'd be hardpressed to find a more liberal member of Congress on these issues than John McCain.

Re: 18

The only way I can avoid sacrificing my principles is by doing a write-in for president in 2008. I will not be satisfied with anyone except Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter as our nominee in 2008. I would not be sacrificing my principles by voting for either one of these two candidates; but all others I would. The probable GOP nominees would be just as liberal as Hillary or Obama on many issues. No matter who is elected president in 2008, conservatism loses. If amnesty is passed, the GOP will be in the minority for DECADES to come. I fear that many loyal GOP voters won't ever vote again if amnesty is paassed. I know I won't.

I sacrificed my principles in 2004 by voting for Bush. I knew he was pro-amnesty and didn't give a damn about protecting our borders, but I thought he'd appoint strict constrctionist judges. (I haven't trusted him since Miers nor will I ever trust him again.) Bush is ever so marginally better than Kerry, but not much. I made a mistake by looking the other way in 2004 (the first presidential election I was ever eligible to vote in), I will NEVER make a similar mistake again. Bush's liberal policies have decimated the 2008 GOP presidential field as well as the conservative movement. We had short term gains under Bush but at the expense at the party's future. I am certainly despondent when thinking about our contry's and party's future. In short, we're doomed.

Currently, we have a President GWB who has

1) Nearly single-handedly decimated the Republican party to the point in which is now fair to say the Democratic party is the majority party [lean 50%], while the Republican party is the minority party [lean 35%], when the to parties had been in near parity for a decade previously. The loss of the House and the Senate are merely blips compared to this structural disaster.

2) Destroyed the prestige of this nation by launching an ill-conceived, irrational and hopeless war again, I do believe, Iraqis who fail to share Western notions of propriety.

3) Impoverished future generations by trillions of dollars in reckless spending, including a trillion, or so, to fight some undefined backwardness in Iraq.

4) Politicized immigration to the point where our nation's immigration policy isn't driven by the best interests of the American people, but, rather, a political decision by the political class to import an new people to dilute the vote of the American people. [Gerrymanding is politicians chosing voters. Bush's immigration policy is the politicians electing a new people.]

5) Assaulted the Constitution, and the Geneva Convention, in its treatment of captured domestic, and enemy combatants.

6) Federalizing primary education, reducing its responsiveness to parents.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand true conservative lead the movement.

While it is true that there are a "vast number of people" who believe that abortion should be legal in the embroyic stage, and illegal in the fetal stage, it is also true that there are a vast number of Americans who believe that it should be illegal in both. There are also a vast number of Americans who believe that it should be legal in both.

The solution is not to compromise, or seek a middle ground. The solution is for the pro-life to fight until they prevail.

Science has proven their is a genetic component to whether, or not, one is pro-life. Pro-life parents tend to have pro-life children as a matter of both nature and nurture. Pro-choice parents tend to have pro-choice children as a matter of bother nature and nurture.

The difference is that pro-choice folk tend to have more abortions, and fewer children. As a result, the genes for being receptive to the pro-life position will become the dominate gene.

Each and every generation will have a greater natural propensity towards a pro-life viewpoint. The fight is uphill for the pro-choice and downhill for the pro-life.

"Conservative" leaders should stress these facts, not bemoan the current snap-shot of public opinion.

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand principle, uncompromising conservative for their leaders.

BoBo, if Romney's past record " might be the result of being stuck in a Democrat state with a Democrat legislature", then why can't the same be said of Giuliani? The main difference between the two, as I see it, is that Romney made the tactical decision to reverse all of his socially liberal positions to try to appease the base, which has led to him being branded an opportunisic flip-flopper, whereas Giuliani has made the tactical decision to stand by his socially liberal positions while trying to assure the base that those positions don't matter (by stressing federalism, e.g.), which has led to him being branded unacceptably liberal.

Both of these men had to run to the left to win over the electorate in their extremely socially liberal jurisdictions. McCain, by contrast, is probably more liberal than the conservative electorate who sends him to the Senate, and his own pro-life record and support for conservative judges might be more attributable to that fact than to his own convictions.

For what it's worth, Giuliani started his political career pro-life and opposed to Roe. He flipped on the issue when it was hurting his run for mayor in 1989. See here (TimesSelect required): http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE7D91E30F937A3575BC0A....

This really is a tough choice for conservatives. True believes like Duncan Hunter are non-starters: with no name recognition or records of substantial accomplishment, they have no chance even in the GOP primary and less than that in the general election. At some point, conservatives will just need to make a leap of faith, support the candidate who is not only the lesser of the evils but also has a realistic shot of defeating Hillary/Obama, and then keep the heat on the president after the election. If a President McCain or a President Giuliani selects the next justice based on executive authority and national security, there's a good chance that person will be good in other areas as well.

Paul Clement has been designated to investigate Gonzales and his handling of the U.S. Attorneys "scandal". He better be careful or his report might used against him in a future confirmation hearing:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2007/04/clement_to_supe.html

Open borders fanatics McCain and Guliani are so obviously unacceptable that Romney is the only real canidate left.

Rightwingextremist- Hunter is a much beter nominee than Tancredo especially on the issue of terrorism and funding our military. They are the same on immigration. Tancredo is more more unhinged than Hunter also.

We often joke about "President Hillary", but I believe a Hillary presidency is a very real possibility, especially if we nomination somebody easy for her to defeat. Are we willing to risk a 'Hillary presidency' by nominating Hunter???

Would Hunter probably be a good president? Yes.

Would a Hunter as a GOP nominee probably result in Hillary becoming president? Yes.

I for one am not willing to take that risk. The war and the SC are too important.

And even if McCain does appoint a 'SDO-type' to the court, (and I suspect he will nominate a mixture of conservative & moderates to the court), think what a GREAT improvement that will mean in the SC when Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter retire in the next four year.

Mark my words, if we don't nominate somebody electable, we will all be kicking ourselves in 4 years when Richard A. Paez and Stephen Reinhardt are no longer on the 9th circuit, but on the SC instead.

I would much rather have a Hillary presidency than a McCain or a Guliani presidency. sorry. These two are real loser canidates especially McCain.

You are being quite short-sighted. A president like McCain who might nominate a squishy moderate conservative like O'Connor or Kennedy to the Supreme Court is a much better choice in my mind than a president like Obama or Hillary who would nominate a raging liberal like Elena Kagan.

Re: 32

I am a HUGE Tancredo fan; I will reiterate that I think he's the greatest politician this nation has seen since Reagan left office on January 20, 1989. On balance, I still prefer Tancredo over Hunter because I'm more familiar with him. (But I'm biased because Tancredo's my U.S. Representatve; I couldn't have a finer one!) But, Tancredo has a perception of being very intransigent and caustic, especially when it comes to illegal aliens. (Which he should be!) I love these qualities in him, but many people detest these qualities. Hunter is much less caustic. Hunter would still be far preferable to any other GOP candidate, including Fred Thompson. But tragically, hell would reach absolute zero before Tancredo or Hunter were the 2008 GOP nominee. (That just shows how far left the GOP has drifted since Bush took office-and he's at Bush tops the list of blameworthy people for the situation which the GOP currently finds itself in.)

Re: 31

Paul Clement is amazingly brilliant; he won't do himself in while investigating the AG-U.S. Attorney "scandal"!

Tancredo is squishy on the war on terror. Hunter is the one member of congress who will always support out military, supports a larger military, and supports the war on terror. Hunter is also the best on trade. He is against the globalization that is going on and the decimation of our national industries. He's also superb on immigration, and he has a military record to back up his strong stance on global terrorism. He was an army ranger in Vietnam unlike Tancredo. Tancredo is full of dumb statement that the left wing media can exploit like his Miami is a third world country. It might be true, but he knew they were going to use it for the left's purpose. Hunter is much more rational. When presented with the same questions Hunter tends to say stuff like, well I support legal immigration. enough said, and the left can't distort him. btw guess which canidate national journal ranks the most conservative of those running (hint, not Tancredo.)

National Journal ratings
Lifetime scores for Republicans running

- Sen. Duncan Hunter of California, 82.5.

- Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, 81

- Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, 75.9

- Sen. John McCain of Arizona, 71.8

- Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, 71.5

- Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, 51.7

People not in congress are not listed of course.

I wouldn't even vote for McCain even if he changed positions and lied to us that he was a Republican. If he runs I'll start donating to Hillabeast just to spite him. I give him a rating of 0/10 for is performance in office.

Acrosos, I hope you enjoy the new line up of the Supreme Court after President Hillary is elected. Please don't come complaining to me when Kagan and Paez are on the SC.

When George H. W. Bush ran on a slogan of "Read My Lips!, No New Taxes!," and nominated Souter, I advocated that he be repudiated.

Instead, the Republican party renominated him.

The same Bushies who should have been forced to obtain real employment, instead, were allowed a comeback by fronting the Bush boy.

The Bush boy proceded to destroy the Republican party with his arrogance and incompetence. It is now the case the the Republican party is the distinct minority party [leans 35%], while the Democratic party is the majority party [leans 50%]. This is quite an accomplishment given the two parties had been near parity for over a decade!

As the emerging majority party, soon to be augmented by tens of millions of formerly-illegal aliens, and their parents, siblings, cousins, and spouses and their spouse's parents, siblings and cousins and the spouses of those parents, siblings, cousins, and their families etc. , the Democratic party will hold the White House most of the time. As such, it will be able to appoint a majority of the Courts, including the Supreme Court.

Thank you, moderate establishment for destroying the Republican party on the national level as you managed to destroy the Republican party in the North-East!

The country was has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand true conservative leadership.