As I have said to my friends who complained John McCain wasn't conservative enough to earn their vote for president, elections have consequences. Most of them realize that now and are ruing the day they voted for Bob Barr or sat out the presidential election altogether. The absurd mentality that "both parties are the same" has always been one of the laziest arguments advanced by so-called "independents." Right now we are clearly experiencing the consequences of a far left regime (i.e. the modern Democratic Party) that sees little value in the individual and instead views government as the all-knowing panacea to run every aspect of our lives.
Perhaps one of the most significant consequences of an election is the power to appoint judges to the highest court in the land. Today, John Paul Stevens announced he was stepping down from the Supreme Court and with that news, in just under 15 months, Obama was given his second opportunity to appoint a SCOTUS replacement.
Keep in mind that President Bush only got to appoint two justices in eight years. The same goes for Clinton. Two justices in 15 months is astonishing, and I don't have to tell you that Obama and every progressive in America is thrilled to be in this position. If you thought the Warren Court was an enemy of the people, just wait until you see who Obama appoints.
Imagine for a second that McCain had won the election in 2008. We would be looking at the potential appointment of two conservative judges, greatly tilting the court in favor of an original interpretation of the Constitution. After 110 years of moving to the left, the SCOTUS would finally be restored to it's rightful place as envisioned by Marshall, Jefferson, Madison, and all of the founding fathers; as a protector and defender of individual liberties and states rights against a limited federal government with specific and enumerated powers.
Instead, we are left with Sonia "Race Matters Most" Sotomayor and whatever left wing activist Obama chooses to pluck from the lame circles of academia where he used to "teach" constitutional law. Fortunately, the ideology of the court remains relatively unchanged, but at the rate these justices are retiring, I have my doubts that we will make it through the next six years without a conservative stepping down.
Six years?! Don't you mean two? Are you suggesting Obama is going to serve two terms? Yes, actually. While I think Republicans can win back Congress this year, I don't think you can necessarily count on the Ron Paul and Tea Party types to support a Republican for president in 2012 who isn't named Ron Paul. And clearly Ron Paul won't be the next GOP nominee. These idealistic libertarians will again take their toys and go home rather than participate in the democratic process or worse, sacrifice their vote for some third party candidate with no chance of winning. They might as well be pawns of the ever-expanding state, because once again their actions will hurt the fight for liberty and weaken the Republic even further.
Some of these are the same people who still have contempt for Bush, but I can't say how pleased and fortunate I feel that Bush got to appoint two strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. Both of his appointments serve a center-right court that represents the last firewall against power grabs by the over-reaching state, and the Obama regime in particular. I expect them to strike down ObamaCare should it come to it, as well as the EPA's power to tax carbon, and there is precedent to do so.
For that, I can only say "Thank you, Mr. Bush." Even though McCain wasn't my first choice, it's too bad we don't have a President McCain to cement a non-activist conservative court for years to come. Both parties aren't the same. Elections have consequences. Let's hope everyone remembers that next time.