Does this apply to all the scary talk about SCOTUS appointments?

[Scuba]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/25/pzn.01.html

(Bill) CLINTON: Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this. If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.

For those trying to scare us into voting for Hillary because "she has the best chance of winning" and "you don't want Republicans naming Supreme Court Justices" I say: I'm voting for Bernie who wants us to think and gives us hope. Besides, I think he has a better chance of winning the GE than Hillary.

[Agschmid]

1. Hillary certainly hasn't said that...

Sure people on DU but that's to be expected... a no one here is a spokesperson for her.

[Gothmog]

3. The only references that I have seen to HRC and the SCOTUS is the litimus test for Citizens United

Sanders, Clinton and O'Malley have all stated that they will only select SCOTUS nominees who will vote to overturn Citizens United

[Gothmog]

2. No, control of the SCOTUS is an issue that has been raised by the GOP-i.e., Rick Perry

The issue of the control of the SCOTUS would be an issue even if HRC was not running. I have not seen her specifically raise this issue other than to promise to impose a litimus test with respect to Citizens United for any future appointments.

Rick Perry may be an idiot but he raised this issue a while back and all GOP operatives are aware of this issue and will be pushing it http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/perry-identifies-the-top-issue-the-2016-race

But over at Bloomberg Politics, Sahil Kapur reported over the weekend on a South Carolina event, where former Gov. Rick Perry (R) highlighted a central national issue that doesn’t generally get as much attention.

“Something I want you all to think about is that the next president of the United States, whoever that individual may be, could choose up to three, maybe even four members of the Supreme Court,” he said. “Now this isn’t about who’s going to be the president of the United States for just the next four years. This could be about individuals who have an impact on you, your children, and even our grandchildren. That’s the weight of what this election is really about.”

“That, I will suggest to you, is the real question we need to be asking ourselves,” he continued. “What would those justices look like if, let’s be theoretical here and say, if it were Hillary Clinton versus Rick Perry? And if that won’t make you go work, if I do decide to get into the race, then I don’t know what will.”

Whatever one might think of Perry or his skills as a potential president, that’s actually an excellent summary of an underappreciated issue. ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser, whom I wouldn’t describe as a Perry proponent, said the Texas Republican made “last week’s single most incisive statement about the 2016 election.”

This chart makes clear why control of the SCOTUS is ups for grabs

?itok=RU4tfAN1

The results of the last three decision days at the SCOTUS demonstrates why control of the SCOTUS is critical. If the GOP wins the White House in 2016, the GOP will get to select three to five SCOTUS nominees and these nominees will control the direction of the court for a generation

[Andy823]

4. I say

Vote for who you want in the primary, but once the nominee is picked by the people, we need to make sure that that nominee, and not one of the "clowns" from the GOP clown car, is the one who will be picking and new members of he Supreme Court.

[Gothmog]

15. In the primary process, it is proper to consider general election viability

I have yet to see any explanation as to how Sanders would be viable in a general election contest against the Koch Brothers spending $889 million and a GOP candidate who will raise another billion dollars. I was to young to vote for McCarthy in 1972 but I knew people who were supporting him. An out of mainstream candidate who is not finances has little chance back then and less chance now.

[dsc]

5. Do you have any skin in the game in regards to SCOTUS?

If you don't will you be willing to put some in the game? For example, if you are male and the right to abortion is ended will you refrain from any and all sex, or wear sympathy outfits and raise all unwanted kids until the right is restored? If you are straight and the right to marriage equality is taken away will you give up your marriage? If you don't use subsidies for Obamacare and they are taken away will you give up your insurance, or at least pay a few hundred a month so someone else can have it? Some of us actually have skin in the game in regards to SCOTUS. If you don't, you have absolutely, positively no right at all to tell us that mentioning SCOTUS is a scare tactic.

[Agschmid]

7. ...

if you are male and the right to abortion is ended will you refrain from any and all sex

You can be male and have sex... that could never cause a pregnancy. Trust me.

But I get your point.

[Scuba]

8. I have plenty of skin in the game. That's why I want Bernie as our candidate.

[dsc]

10. I notice you pointedly avoided my question

so I'll try again. What, if any, right that you currently enjoy would be lost if Kennedy and Ginsburg were replaced by people who voted more like Alito or Roberts? And if the answer is none, as I suspect, then what right are you willing to give up if some of the rest of us lose ours?

[Scuba]

11. You asked if I have skin in the game. I told you I did.

The details are none of your business.

[dsc]

17. they most certainly are

you are accusing us of falsely fomenting fear of a conservative SCOTUS. If you actually would lose something from SCOTUS I think we have a right to know what it is so we can see why you apparently think that is no big deal.

[Gothmog]

19. Those of us suffering due the gutting of the VRA have a great deal of skin in this game

In Texas right now, we are living with GOP voter suppression in all of its glory. My county party raised a record amount of money for the 2014 races and ended up getting fewer votes that in 2010 due to the Texas voter id law. My county alone lost between 9,000 and 12,000 votes which is in line with the projections made by the expert witnesses in the Texas voter id trial. Statewide, Democratic turnout out was down between 300,00 to 600,000 votes for 2014 compared to 2010.

The gutting of the Voting Rights Act by the SCOTUS affected me and my fellow democrats. If the GOP wins the White House in 2016, the GOP will get to pick three to five SCOTUS justices who will control the direction of the court for a generation.

The SCOTUS is not some made up issue for those of us dealing with the effects of bad SCOTUS decisions. I really do not want to give up control of the SCOTUS in order to run an out of mainstream candidate. That strategy worked so well in 1972.

You are welcome to support Sanders in this primary process and I will be supporting Hillary Clinton. I simply think that she has a better chance of being a viable candidate in the general election

[antigop]

6. Scuba, was it you who said, "We can all be equal in the breadlines"? nt

[Scuba]

9. No.

[Cheese Sandwich]

12. Who remembers we were told to nominate John Kerry because he was the most electable...

Didn't work

[strategery blunder]

13. +1

Hillary Clinton has the same "I was for it before I was against it!" problem that John Kerry had, and the IWR is but one example. Anyone remember that line?

Kerry wasn't my first choice (Dean was), but by the time the Missouri (where I then resided) primary came around, the media had already given Dean the scream treatment, and that was a shame.

I voted for Kerry in the general, and even campaigned for him. But the "for it before I was against it" line will be even more damning for Hillary than it was for Kerry. I have sincere doubts as to her electability. Bernie is relatively unknown, but he is consistent.

As for Hillary...

We can TRUUUUUUUUUST the politician!!!

[HereSince1628]

14. This is partly the cost of a life in politics...the celebrity/name recognition is great

but the problems and the contexts the problems must be resolved in change over time.

Some politicians blow more in the wind then others, and blowing in the wind certainly an essential part of implementing triangulation.

For long serving elected representatives, the machinations of politics creates an encumbering history. Political bundling of bills to make them acceptable or to poison them purposefully leads to seemingly strange votes if the context and the baggage are not considered.

[dsc]

18. I am a supporter of Dean who remembers no such thing

there were lots of reasons given why we should vote for Kerry, Electability was not one of them when he was sitting at 2% in the polls.

[Le Taz Hot]

16. Yeah, all the Practical People

told us that Kerry had the best chance of winning the General in 2004, too. Boy managed to lose to the worst. president. ever.