Democrats are cautioned to vote for the Presidency because the Supreme Court is at stake.

[kentuck]

Even if we lose the House and Senate, we can keep the Supreme Court from going right-wing. But, can we?

Does our vote do anything to promote Democratic values on the Supreme Court?

There is even talk of nominating a Republican, in order to get the Republicans to get off the dime and to do their job.

Is this the best we can hope for? It doesn't really matter who we vote for - the Republicans are going to control the Supreme Court? Is that the point we have now reached? Democrats have little to say about Supreme Court nominations unless the Court stays conservative?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. If Sandoval is actually nominated by Obama, I will never again give a second thought to SC arguments

You can't tell us we have to vote for a Democrat because 'Supreme Court', then have Dem Presidents nominate Republicans.

[Hoppy]

6. My feelings about the Obama presidency continue to be affirmed.

Hillary would be worse.

[randys1]

76. So even with the THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

to hell with him, right!

[merrily]

7. Thanks. Took me eight paragraphs to say the same thing!

http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?4975-Obama-Considers-Nominating-a-Republican-to-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States&p=26955#post26955

[pengu]

12. Yep, this

[Chan790]

38. If Obama nominates Sandoval...

there will literally be no reason left for me to hold my nose and fill in a bubble on a ballot for Clinton.

[George II]

44. Why would something Obama does affect your vote for Clinton?

[Chan790]

45. That's a good question...

because I just about totally disagree on Clinton on just about anything...the last reason I would have choked it down and voted for her would have been to flip SCOTUS. If Obama nominates and gets Sandoval confirmed...the lean of the SCOTUS will be set again for another many years. Hillary would nominate someone too far to the right for me and the GOP certainly would. This nomination is the last opportunity we're going to have to move SCOTUS left of center.

Without that, there's literally no reason left for me to actually vote for someone I hate with the passions of a 10,000 white-hot suns like Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[George II]

46. So you'd skip voting for Clinton and make it easier for the republican nominee to win?

You think you'll get a better Supreme Court justice out of the likes of Trump, Rubio, or Cruz?

[Chan790]

47. Yes, on the first question. No, on the second.

I posit to you like this...which one would you vote for if your only two viable choices were Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz? That those were the two major-party nominees...a fake Democrat and a lunatic Republican.

Neither, right?

That's how I feel about Hillary and any of the GOP clown-car assholes. They're both factual Republicans regardless of the letter after their name signifying the nominating party.

[Katashi_itto]

59. See #47. That is my attitude too.

[hfojvt]

60. Did you give them much thought to begin with?

You don't think that

a) replacing Scalia with somebody like Anthony Kennedy is a step in the right direction

and

b) replacing Sandra Day O'Connor with somebody like Alito is a step in the wrong direction?

You'd rather have McCain replace those judges than have Hagen and Sotomayor?

Somebody like Sandoval might have been confirmed. A more liberal pick and Republicans are just gonna run out the clock and try to use the Supreme Court to motivate THEIR voters.

If Romney was in the white house right now, you know that many of us would be demanding that OUR Senators run out the clock rather than confirming a 45 year old Clarence Thomas.

[kentuck]

61. I tend to agree with you...

but we cannot overlook the fact that the Court has become quite partisan since the appointment of Antonin Scalia by Ronald Reagan. After thirty years of right-wing ascendancy on the Court, we have been very lucky that Barack Obama has been able to choose two very good judges, but still, it is a 5-4 court and conservatives believe that is the natural order of things. I don't think the President needs to appoint any kind of radical but I do think he should look to balance the court just a bit from the last 30 years of rightward drift...

[hfojvt]

75. to some degree

it became more partisan after Bush Sr. appointed Souter and he became a liberal on the court.

After that I think they said "no more moderates". Probably they were not that happy with Kennedy either.

[Bucky]

64. The Sandoval nomination is bunk. White House didn't even ask Sandoval if they could vet him

It wasn't even a trial balloon. It was trolling the Republican Senate, nothing more.

[djean111]

2. I have no reason to believe that Hillary would appoint anything but a Conservative.

And if the excuse is that a Conservative is the only nominee that would get approved - well, then, we didn't dodge that bullet, now, did we?

[kentuck]

3. It is my opinion that, in order to make the Court more "balanced"..

...we need a strong "liberal" on the Court. That would not make the Court more liberal, it would only make it less conservative.

[djean111]

4. Neither Obama nor Hillary are going to nominate a strong liberal. Not going to happen. nt

[kentuck]

8. Maybe not but...

that is what we need.

[djean111]

14. Seriously, not just snark - "what we need" has not been on the table for a while.

All there is, is "what I need to get re-elected or get my buddy re-elected" and "what will make the most money for Wall Street and corporations". Those have superseded everything, as far as I can tell.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

21. Especially since analyses of Court decisions over the last few years have shown that,

unbelievable as it might seem, Alito was more conservative even than Scalia. Just not as prone to making outrageous statements.

[Dragonfli]

15. I agree with both your premise and your conclusion

It certainly takes the "you must vote for any (D) no matter how much the stench of the sulfur of lesser of two evils surrounds them" Off the table and directly into the trash.

I find it both most troubling as well as oddly liberating (a feeling I suppose I should feel guilt about).

[Chan790]

48. Should we feel guilt for that?

I feel liberated. The ruse has failed--we, who want to see, can see that the game was fixed all along and we were the dupes.

I feel pity for those so willfully blind as to not see truths laid bare. There's one party and we're not invited.

[Dragonfli]

54. We should not if this is the new normal (that justice appointments will be conservative under both)

I think my shadow of guilt lies in the fact that it SHOULD make a difference if a Democrat is elected regarding Supreme Court Justices.

But I am getting old and yet have to admit to change when it becomes apparent, I feel guilty I suppose because I always voted and yet we still find ourselves in this new situation.

This is a very dire new situation, meaning that with Justices off the table to encourage nose holding (which I ALWAYS hated), we have only two choices, one very hard, and one even harder.

The first is to change the party to become a force for good again, a force that fights for the poor and the working class again, and a force that would mean that a Democratic President will nominate fair and liberal judges again.

The second harder one is far more difficult but made at least possible now that Justice appointments under either party won't matter, a party split, that will leave the Democratic party with it's Den of Moderate Republicans as they are, but give us a true labor party again. As for the Republican turning Fascist party, I hope they are the ones to go the way of the Whigs, because in the end because of the way the rules are built into the Constitution, only two parties can be left standing.

It is a new freedom, but one that leaves us a very serious and grave consideration to have to ponder and decide upon.

[oberliner]

20. Clinton and Obama have nominated the most liberal SC justices in history

How can you argue with Ginsburg and Sotamayor?

[kentuck]

24. How?

With Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts, and previous to his death, Scalia. A very partisan, unbalanced Court.

[oberliner]

43. But I'm saying that our side has nominated good people

And that's why it is important that we get more chances to do so.

[Chan790]

49. Facts, for one thing.

I love my RBG but even she'd tell you she's to the right of Brennan and Marshall.

[oberliner]

50. OK - recent history

Point being - they were good choices.

[hifiguy]

55. William Brennan, William O. Douglas, Harry Blackmun,

Thurgood Marshall, Arthur Goldberg, Hugo Black, and John Paul Stevens were ALL more liberal than anyone except Ginsburg, and she is in the same ballpark with them, at least of Justices going back to those around since the Kennedy admiistration. Sotomayor is solidly liberal, but not as liberal as RBG and the aforementioned justices.

Brush up on your SCOTUS history. NO ONE was ever more liberal than Brennan and Douglas.

[oberliner]

62. They are both good solid liberals

That was my point - apologies for the hyperbole.

[hifiguy]

65. On that we can agree.

RBG in particular is a gem. She's a national treasure.

[Old Codger]

39. LOL

Imagine Bill on the bench...

[djean111]

40. I thought Bill has been dis-barred? I would think that would make him ineligible?

I would hope so, anyway.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/09/gary-north/lost-law-licenses-presidents-obama-clinton-and-nixon/

The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton’s Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr’s successor). On October 1, 2001, Clinton’s U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment.

[Vincardog]

53. You are not required to be a lawyer to be on the SCOTUS. Grassley is the head of the judiciary com.

Last edited Thu Feb 25, 2016, 06:49 PM - Edit history (1)

[hifiguy]

66. True, but Justice Robert Jackson, who was also a Nuremberg prosecutor,

is the last Justice who did not graduate from law school.

[arcane1]

51. She has already stated she would "compromise" on abortion n/t

[bettyellen]

69. IF the decision rested between the woman and her doctor. You keep forgetting that part.

[arcane1]

70. She said if there was an exemption for the mother's health n/t

[bettyellen]

73. Health or life- Which is what makes it totally between her and her doctor. She did not agree to

any specific spiel about the life having to be endangered, or distinguish between mental and physical health.
That is why there is not danger of that sort of constitutional amendment happening- because conservatives have favored very specific restrictions- and she does not.

[randys1]

77. Then you clearly have no idea who Hillary is or her history...sigh

I can barely believe I read that on this forum.

[merrily]

5. I wrote about this just hours ago.

http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?4975-Obama-Considers-Nominating-a-Republican-to-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States&p=26955#post26955

[Dragonfli]

16. As I said above

It certainly takes the "you must vote for any (D) no matter how much the stench of the sulfur of lesser of two evils surrounds them" Off the table and directly into the trash.

I find it both most troubling as well as oddly liberating (a feeling I suppose I should feel guilt about).

[merrily]

18. That's about what I wrote, plus some points about how past has not always been

prologue when it comes to how SCOTUS justices perform once they are on that bench.

I have no doubt we'll soon hear something like: "Yes, but the Republicans Democrats nominate for the bench will be better than the Republicans the Republicans will nominate."

Wish I had thought of that line while I was writing the JPR post!

[Dragonfli]

25. LOL, I just wrote a reply to THAT post on JPR just a few minutes ago, as I have said many times, we

often think alike. I did it even before following your link above, kinda' funny isn't it, in a good way.

[merrily]

27. I don't trust anyone who thinks like I do.

Kidding!

[chervilant]

9. So, the conservative

REPUBLICANS are holding us hostage, and we're supposed to roll over?!?

If Obama puts up a conservative, I am DONE with the "Democratic" Party.

[Hortensis]

10. Many conservatives are good, decent, even wise and qualified people.

To put it mildly, there is such a thing as being too partisan. It is not only intolerance rising in some cases to hateful bigotry, it is foolishly dysfunctional. A highly principled moderate Republican with quality intellect and fine judicial temperament is better than an inadequately principled, emotionally dishonest liberal or far-lefter any day.

Notably, the conservative described will bitterly disappoint the hopes of the far right, anti-government, pro- privilege right wing, also the bigots and Christian supremacists. Many so-called moderate con justices have come down on what is called the "liberal" side pretty often.

[kentuck]

13. Many liberals are good, decent, even wise and qualified people.

How about this? Let the Republicans nominate good, decent, and wise conservatives and let Democrats nominate good, decent, wise liberals? What's wrong with that idea?

[Hortensis]

19. In some weird parallel universe, nothing.

I'm not ready to say I'd want to live there, though. Are those beings all red or blue ants or something?

Some of you guys seem to have a real problem accepting the human race. Anything people are involved in will be very imperfect. Period.

BTW, those who won't compromise are themselves extremely imperfect, to the point of dysfunction. If anyone ever gets so far as to wonder why the far left, for instance, is constantly marginalized, i.e., never manage to "fix" anything in spite of their "superior" ideology, it's because their own behavior marginalizes them. The far right has the same problem, but less because they make good tools for the wealthy.

In any case, "my way or no way at all" is not a sustainable philosophy anywhere, and certainly not in our democracy right here.

[kentuck]

22. But we must concede that...

there is such a thing as "compromising" too much, when it is to our own detriment and the detriment of the country.

And how can anyone argue that this Supreme Court has not gone too far to the right?

[Hortensis]

26. Of course. Both are dysfunctional and poorly principled

behaviors, if not completely unprincipled.

And I absolutely agree this Supreme Court has gone too far to the right in some decisions. Absolutely!

[Bluenorthwest]

32. You are promoting a man who opposes marriage equality and favors restrictions on reproductive choice

while being against regulations for business. He's be a boon to the Bundy right. So it's fairly hard for me to see the validity in your attacks on others for not being super accepting of an anti equality conservative on the basis of being inclusive. Can we instead appoint a person who is opposed to the rights of Hortensis? Since you are in favor of that sort of inclusion, can't we select a person who will take his biases out on your group instead of LGBT yet again?
I am sick of the abusive nature of US politics. If there must be a hostage, why don't you and yours volunteer?

[Hortensis]

41. I'm promoting rationality and good sense.

Obama CANNOT appoint a liberal justice at all, much less one so leftist he would be acceptable to half of Bernie's supporters. How hard is that that to understand? His successor might, but not him.

In the meantime, he really, really, really needs to fill that vacancy -- in case his successor turns out to be a Republican. How hard is that to understand?

My comments were strictly about a liberal nominating a conservative in general. And I suggest you actually read them.

As for this particular conservative, Brian Sandoval is very likely being vetted as the political maneuver described, with no expectation of actually putting him on the court. The GOP is going to both look very bad and be internally divided if this very well regarded man is just dismissed as McConnell promises. Understand?

HOWEVER, President Obama is both a liberal and a constitutional scholar, he has some of the top constitutional experts in the nation working with him on this, and the person he places on the Supreme Court will likely be his most important legacy. That means that you really should have more respect for his actions. If he were to name Brian Sandoval to the court that would be virtual proof that a lot of your assumptions about the kind of justice he would be would almost certainly be wrong.

But I'd advise waiting to see how all this plays out and not getting all emotionally invested in every name floated -- and certainly not levitating in outrage just because "Republican" is attached to one of them. Some Republicans are MORE liberal than some Democrats.

[haikugal]

42. Well said! I thank you!!

[djean111]

17. The Conservative in question does not care for abortion or gay marriage, but says that it is the law

of the land, so he acquiesces. Not the kind of person I want to see literally deciding on the law of the land.

[alarimer]

23. No they are not.

Conservatism is a morally bankrupt philosophy with no basis is reality. They have no empathy for their fellow human beings, no idea of what poverty really is. No such thing has "highly principled" when it comes to Republicans. Their only principle s "screw you, I've got mine".

I'm sorry, I'm tired of this. I'm so fucking tired of Democrats compromising and compromising AND GETTING NOTHING IN RETURN.

Better to leave it vacant than send in someone who is a fucking conservative snake.

[HughBeaumont]

34. Maybe in the 1950s-1970s.

Today's "conservative" is Dubya on Steroids.

[Cobalt Violet]

11. It is the best we will get from any triangulater.

We will never get a real liberal from them.

[Nyan]

28. If you're concerned about SC and the possible new appointees' liberal credentials,

Go with the safe choice in the primary, and that's Bernie who is mostvlikely to put up a good fight.
And on this instance with Obama, I think we should wait just a little bit before we fully understand what the president is really aiming for.

[CrispyQ]

29. SCOTUS is the left's bogeyman, just like Roe vs Wade for the right.

I told my husband, as soon as I heard Scalia was dead, "You wait. Obama will nominate a repub & tell us it's the only way to get anyone appointed."

If he nominates a repub, I may sit out the election in 2016. Just sayin', you can only take so much betrayal from your own party before you say fuck it.

[RKP5637]

31. I am so fed up with the democratic strategy to move forward is to be republican lite. Damn,

I'm fed up with it. No wonder we lost the House and Senate and now likely the presidency in 2016. Democrats need to get their F'en act together.

[CrispyQ]

35. They have an enthusiasm gap, in an election year, & he's gonna put up a repub for SCOTUS?

[RKP5637]

36. It's a total WTF. So much of an enthusiasm gap. FFS, now I'm hearing some democrats

say in some ways Trump sounds more like an old time democrat, especially on these inane trade deals, etc. that were made. Obama is playing triangulated chess, while more democrats on the border wonder WTF is going on. Some have switched to independent. On the outside, it sends IMO a message that democrats can not come up with a SCOTUS candidate, or can, but admit they have lost the power in the US to place them on SCOTUS.

[RKP5637]

30. Democrats have lost the core values from years ago, at least many of TPTB.

Now, it's a game of capitulation to advance. I find it quite sad and disheartening. Many have lost the desire to stand their ground!

[w4rma]

33. Reid just endorsed a Republican for the Supreme Court on the same day he endorsed Hillary. (nt)

[hifiguy]

56. Nuff said, I think.

[leftynyc]

37. I think anyone that thinks

Hillary would put a scalia or alito on the supreme court has lost all contact with reality.

[HooptieWagon]

52. That threat loses its effect...

...when the POTUS is vetting a Republican for SCOTUS, and Clinton is running on his record.

[Katashi_itto]

57. No we can't Screw it.

Hillary will put whoever her masters tell her to on the Bench.

[jwirr]

58. I know that President Obama will add this to his legacy but

personally I would rather go without a full SCOTUS than down grade it to conservative again. If they will not work with us then we will just have to make do until we can get a good nominee.

4-4 is not all that bad if that is as good as we can get.

It is too bad that we the people cannot sue the Congress for refusing to fill the seat with someone we want. Congress can sue the president but we the people cannot sue them?

[kentuck]

63. Agree.

And that would give the next President, we hope it is a Democrat, more legitimacy to choose a more liberal judge.

[malokvale77]

67. If a Dem Pres is going to put a conservative on the SCOTUS...

that kind of nullifies their last scare tactic.

[bettyellen]

68. I believe Obama will nominate a Republican like I believed he would cut SS, and Hillary give away my

reproductive rights. I don't buy any of it.

[Andy823]

72. Exactly

Some here have a habit of setting their hair on fire and running around in circles instead of waiting to see what really happens. I think Sandoval's name was leaked to see what Mitch would do. No way do I think he would ever have been the nominee.

[bettyellen]

74. I think they are going to play this up to hurt the obstructionists as deeply as they can.

The public is finally paying some attention to the issue, and I think Obama is going to blow up senate if they keep fucking with him on this.

[Chichiri]

71. Sandoval is no longer under consideration.

I would have been supremely disappointed if Obama had nominated Sandoval, and will be disappointed if he nominates any Republican, unless there's a liberal Republican judge hiding in the witness protection program or something. If you're going to fight the ultimate battle of your political career over this, for god's sake make the prize worth it!

[flamingdem]

78. Good, it was a strategic trial ballon

and was no doubt meant to rile up the Republicans.