Imagine if Hillary had gotten the chance to replace two conservatives on the Supreme Court

[oberliner]

I really wish this had been emphasized more during the election.

[LonePirate]

1. A Republican led Senate would not let her replace any SCOTUS justice, let alone two conservatives.

[Cosmocat]

14. Someone was going to die if she had tried to seat a SCJ

Seriously ...

[bettyellen]

17. That sounds why she spent so much time and energy where important senate races were going on....

People slammed her campaign location decisions but much of it was designed to help out in senate and governor races. Polls made it look like she could reach for that’s

[standingtall]

29. If 2 conservatives retired it would be a 4 to 3 split instead of 5 to 4

So losing to 2 supreme court justices would be the next best thing compared being able to replace them. Maybe after 2018 or 2020 Democrats would've had the majority in the Senate if Hilary were President.

[nycbos]

2. It was.

Many people ignored it.

[JI7]

4. They just didn't care.

[Blue_true]

16. I wonder how young women that were virulently anti Hillary,

Will negotiate the next decade, they stand to lose a lot.

[JI7]

19. Most were male and older people

[Blue_true]

34. There were a lot of prominent young women involved with that shitstorm.

Yes, the smart ones voted for Hillary, but there were a lot of loud ones that disrupted our convention, then voted for Stein or Trump or Johnson (because Johnson was for Pot).

[CBHagman]

58. I long ago lost patience with people who think voting third party or sitting out an election...

...is a workable strategy, and I'm rapidly losing patience with people who appear to think voting is about their self-esteem or level of excitement when it's actually all about what happens to them and their neighbors and to people around the world.

[Blue_true]

59. I hear you. nt

[Agschmid]

64. The majority of white woman voted for Trump.

[JI7]

67. I'm talking about those that claim to be liberal

[underpants]

3. Big talking point on RW radio today

"and the best part is that it ISN'T Hillary" heard that twice in two different shows - national and local.

[joshcryer]

5. It was...

This was the most important election in my lifetime.

[Blue_true]

36. I am single, straight, childless, in decent shape economically.

But even with that, the 2016 election was ALSO the most important in my lifetime so far, the only one that may be more important is 2020, because we could be fighting to survive as a country.

But 2016 had it all, a chance to positively define our values as a nation and reject hate. A clear contest between good (Hillary) and evil (Trump). And some people thought that they were so damned smart and knew better that those that saw the clear and present danger without blinders, or outright jackassery blinding them.

[roamer65]

45. I honestly believe this country will not exist in its present form in 10 years.

I think some states will become independent nations and others will join the Canadian confederation.


A mainstream Canadian news magazine says:

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/is-it-time-for-canada-to-annex-blue-america/

[Blue_true]

47. I can see Washington State, Oregon, California joining Canada.

Would make sense with Vancouver BC being the other province on that side of Canada. I would have to move because I am screwed living in Florida if a spilit happens.

[Hekate]

52. It doesn't work like that, as I am sure you know

[Agschmid]

65. I don't think this will happen.

[mcar]

6. It was, so let's not blame HRC and Democrats

Here on DU, many pooh poohed it as not a big deal. Hillary was a corporatist warmonger, you know.

[EffieBlack]

40. And let's not - never - forget her emails.

[mcar]

42. 600 days on her emails

How many on her policies?

[Hortensis]

7. It was emphasized. Talking SCOTUS didn't make the people

who soaked up the "crooked Hillary" lies into seekers of truth. Same for any other issue.

Some people are especially vulnerable to being tricked with lies written especially for them, and nothing we said could stop the flood of lies or their new sophistication.

[oberliner]

8. Not much on the cable news outlets

It didn't seem that way at least.

[joshcryer]

12. Of course not, Trump owned the cycle.

He got literal billions in free advertising for well over a year.

[bettyellen]

18. 3.5X the coverage of HRC or Sanders. Crazy!

[Hortensis]

30. First, cable was working to elect Republicans.

Oh, there was pretense, but daytime cable on all networks served anti-Democratic Kool-Aid for years, not just the last two. Judged by CNN's Zucker's actions, not his claim to being only chasing ratings, CNN was as committed as Fox to electing Trump and increasing Republican control over governments across the nation.

The NYT and AP are both proven blatantly corrupt and working to elect Republicans -- for just two among many, but a big two. AP news reports especially turn up in virtually all local and national news media, on Facebook, almost everywhere.

But, hey, blame the Democrats. NOT for our long history of limiting the power of the very wealthy over the people and fighting Russia's hegemony, NOT for our principled behaviors that required these huge anti-democracy forces to stop up.

Blame our leaders for being too stupid to what every armchair warrior knows and too lazy and too corrupt to act even when you tell them.

[Squinch]

9. If I didn't know better I'd say this sounds like gloating. But that can't be.

[JI7]

21. +

[Alpeduez21]

10. But people had to vote for Jill Stein or just abstain b/c of

integrity or email or she's a woman or she favors wall street or what the fuck ever I am a selfish prick and don't really care that MF'er Hump could win.

GET OUT THE VOTE THIS TIME YOU SELFISH BASTARDS!!

[Mike Nelson]

11. It was talked about...

… much more than normal, I thought. It should be mentioned that, along with Hillary winning the actual vote, Democrats won he "popular vote" for Congress, too, if you count the overall votes... without looking at the way they divide up the districts and such...

[Blue_true]

24. We elect by districts and states. FACT!!!!!

What we need is people not wasting votes in critical states and costing democrats wins there. Anyone who don't see that the Democratic Party is the ONLY hope is a damned fool at this point.

[Blue_true]

13. You clearly were not listening.

She mentioned that the next President could make four appointments often.

This is what drives me crazy. People saying that she did not mention it, when she did, often.

[Cosmocat]

15. I hate like hell that she gets knocked

She is a very decent, highly capable publics servant, and ran a solid campaign overall. Not perfect, but good enough to win if she wasn't running at a time when this country veered into DEFCON 1 stupid.

This thing where people make her out to have been "a bad candidate" enables the complete lack of responsibility that republicans rely on.

She lost because 1/3 of the country is insane, and 1/3 of the country is too GD scatter brained to not bother to vote.

We have no hope to get this turned around until we start to call things for what they are.

[Blue_true]

33. Hillary was attacked from all directions.

The news media, the left, 30 years of lies about her. Young women, of all people, who were barely or not born in 1996 were talking about what an awful person she was. The lies and slander against her were complete bullshit.

That being said, I think that we can turn this around in 8 years, November is critical, if we fuck up then, we are doomed. But if we hold in the Senate and win the House, then in 2020 we can capitalize and gain in 2022 and 2024. Roberts, Thomas will likely step down on the right sometime during that period, if we control the Senate, we can prevent confirmation of any more justices, then defeat Trump in 2020 and consolidate our gains in 2022 and 2024, if we do that, we could have. 6-3 liberal Court by 2026. We just CANNOT have far left people exclusively attacking democrats, if they do, we need to get more POC registered to vote NOW (Perez is doing a quiet but excellent job on that front). Look, the rightwing hate vote maxed out in 2016, it is not going to grow, but we had a lot of people sitting at home or pulling shit attacking Hillary at the polls.

[oberliner]

20. She did - I meant, not mentioned on the news

Not really discussed much on CNN/MSNBC and the like.

[wonkwest]

27. It's not an entertaining enough point

I know in speeches and appearances, Clinton and many other Democrats pressed the point often and hard.

But, we have no control over cable news. They want spectacle, controversy, and rubbernecking.

Politicians and strategists talking soberly about policy is no fun at all.

[mcar]

54. 600 days on her emails

The rest on Dotard. Then they had the nerve to say she didn't talk policy.

Let's not forget those on the left who rejected the idea that SCOTUS was important.

[Hoyt]

22. She did, and it was obvious to any listening. The burn it

down and rebuild it crowd will be long dead before these Justices are gone.

[Blue_true]

37. I don't agree on the justices. We have far superior numbers.

The hardcore republican/hate vote was maxed out in 2016, it won't get larger. Special election results are indicating that a lot of the No Hillary or sit at home voters on 2016 finally pulled their heads out of their asses and are voting for democrats. Trump has screwed up a key piece of the ACA in regards to poor people, that will hurt a LOT of his voters, add that on to what is happening with some farmers.

We can have a 6-3 liberal Supreme Court by 2026, but that will take discipline in every election through 2026. It is absolutely critical that we hold or gain in the Senate and take the House in November. In the Senate, we can pick up Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee and maybe Arizona again if McCain vacates. If we hold seats and pick up two, that gives us control of the Senate and we can fillabuster anyone Trump tries to appoint ala Mitch McConnell.

[Hoyt]

38. Hope you are right, but trump could get 2 more nominations.

[Blue_true]

41. If we get to 51 in the Senate, we can use the McConnell Rule.

The picks will have to sit through the 2020 election without hearings or a vote.

[Hoyt]

43. That's a big IF, but I suppose we can be optomistic and say the burn it crowd didn't have

anything to do with this mess.

[joshcryer]

44. The Democrats don't have that fortitude.

Another poster did point out that Clinton's appointments would've been held up forever. The Democrats won't do that, however.

[MineralMan]

23. I imagined that a lot in 2016.

Wrote about it here, too, in threads that sank like stones.

[Hekate]

55. I remember a clutch of DUers who did not want Obama in 2008. I finally just wrote SCOTUS SCOTUS....

...across the subject line and stopped trying to engage them. Very stupid people -- or possibly trolls. Hard to tell the difference sometimes.

[lapfog_1]

25. kennedy would not have resigned

so, for right now, a moot point.

But yes, she would have named at least one moderate to liberal... and we wouldn't worry so much about the health of RGB, and there is also others on the court that might pull a "scalia" and die in their beds.

[tavernier]

26. Democrats would never allow that.

We are too fair minded.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

28. As has already been pointed out, this never would have happened.

Last edited Tue Jul 10, 2018, 09:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Mitch McConnell would have died before he scheduled hearings for one of Hillary's nominees. His successor would have continued that policy.

From January 20, 2017, until July 31, 2018, there would have been eight Supreme Court justices. From August 1, 2018 until whenever, there would have been seven Supreme Court justices.

Why? The possibility of impeachment, because of Benghazi, or email, or -- anything, really.

[standingtall]

31. What people keep forgetting is even if McConnell would not schedule a hearng is

If just one Conservative Supreme retired the balance of the Supreme Court would shift from 5 to 4 to 4 to 4. Which would've been huge. If 2 retired it would'e shifted to 4 to 3. Maybe by 2018 or 2020 Democrats would have the majority in the Senate.

[Demsrule86]

49. Yes but...they wouldn't have gotten two nominees either....sometimes just stopping them is all you

can do...and down ballot Democrats like Feinstein should have won...it is a damn disgrace and those voters involved in not voting
for the Democratic nominee have dealt progressive policy a near fatal blow...with two fucking SCOTUS conservatives being confirmed.

[LisaM]

32. Imagine if Al Gore had gotten the chance....

Bush's picks were absolutely terrible.

I know that moving forward is the only option, but we should never, ever forget the stolen 2000 election.

[JI7]

35. That's why i have no problem going after people like susan sarandon

It wasn't the first time they did it.

I notice many who felt too pure in 2000 were the same ones discouraging support for Clinton in 2016. And attacking Obama because they had to convince people he wasa horrible president so they can claim there is no difference.

[Blue_true]

39. There were trolls here in 2016 and earlier.

MannyGoldstein, SomethingPenn, several others. I notice some are back with different usernames, people need to be careful when reading posts that say democrats are weak or need to do something or the leaders don't care. Their goal is to peel off the people that fall for their shit and turn those people against democrats.

[RhodeIslandOne]

46. I hope they're celebrating on Jackass Radicals tonight

Of course, they barely discuss Trump there, like he’s doing no harm. Mostly they whine about the Democrats being harsh on Russia. Gee wonder why?

[Demsrule86]

50. That is against the rules. If you know this for a fact...then tell someone.

[Demsrule86]

48. It was emphasized. We were told that was 'blackmail'...or not important.

[Hekate]

51. The SCOTUS issue was emphasized, along with everything else we wished was emphasized. She won...

I never tire of pointing this out: the majority of voters voted for Hillary and against Trump. The majority of voters found her message compelling.

However, voter rolls were ethnically cleansed in a number of states, as many as 200,000 in one state where she "lost" by a slim margin.

I'll skip the rest of my sermon. You know the drill.

[D_Master81]

53. This was emphasized on the right

I know several people who didnt like Trump but voted for him b/c they didnt want Hillary to be able to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court.

[dflprincess]

56. Prior to the election McConnell & McCain both said that if Clinton won

and the Republicans held the Senate they would never approve any of her nominations to the Supreme Court and they didn't care how many vacancies there might be.

[oberliner]

57. This seems to be the norm now

The days of 98-0 confirmation votes appear to be over.

[NewJeffCT]

61. In the 19th century

it was not uncommon for SCOTUS nominees to be rejected when voted upon - 7 in the 19th century. It happened five times in the 20th century, but the vacancy was always later filled by the same president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

[oberliner]

62. Scalia was confirmed 98-0 and Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3

Hard to imagine seeing those sorts of votes again anytime soon.

[NewJeffCT]

60. McConnell said that if Hillary had won

he would continue to block any supreme court nominee she put forward.

1) If she nominated somebody in January or February of 2017, I would hope she gives it the qualifier of saying that if the nominee does not get hearings and a vote within 90 days, the Senate will have waived their right to advise and consent.

2) I think Kennedy would not have stepped down if Clinton had won, so maybe holds out for a few more years hoping Clinton loses in 2020.

3) I would think RBG would have stepped down soon after #1 happened, so it would have been a liberal for a liberal.

[oberliner]

63. How about imagining Hillary winning along with a few more D victories in the Senate?

I guess that's what would've been needed.

[Blue_Tires]

66. I screamed about it for months...

Both Hillary and Obama repeatedly told crowds what was at stake, but the left hated Hillary more than they feared Trump and you know the rest..

[dflprincess]

68. I consider myself part of "the left"

I did support Bernie right up until Hillary became the nominee. I honestly don't know any Bernie supporters who didn't vote for Hillary but then most of them are in my age group and have been through this kind of thing before.

[yardwork]

69. It was emphasized a lot during the election.