As Sanders supporters, do you find the Supreme Court appointment rhetoric compelling?

[HereSince1628]

That argument is used to push unity, and mostly to push unity toward establishment candidates

Being older than the average American, I have experience to draw on as well as present campaign rhetoric. The argument that -this- particular term is the most important term in supreme court history has been made most presidentical elections I can remember. It's routine quadrennial appearance suggests that while it's possible THIS COULD BE the most critical election in history with respect to SC appointments , the argument has a history of being hyperbole used to force voters into the jaws of "every democrat is better than any republican" logic.

Yes, there are age characteristics of SCOTUS in play, and yes a supreme court justice can sit on the court a long time, but if you look at it, every president typically gets to nominate justices If your party doesn't make an appointment in the next term then your party will make appointment(s) in future terms.

Illness and accident can befall anyone. There's really no good way to predict -which- judge. A younger judge or an older judge can be eliminated on any particular day of any year.

Moreover, there is really no way for average voters to have any understanding of who might be nominated. How many voters actually dreamed and longed for Kagan to be appointed, and had it impact their vote?

At its base this argument to vote for the establishment candidate relies on fear. Fear that a republican president (who are assumed to -always- worse at everything than democrats) would appoint someone who would enable tyranny (think Wisconsin on a national scale).

But this argument simultaneously overvalues the person who nominates a SCOTUS justice while undervaluing and sometimes even completely discounting the importance of -our team with correct values- controlling the senate, which can reject and obstruct judicial appointments not only to SCOTUS but across the federal system.

If getting critical supreme court justices APPOINTED is truly critical this election, we must ask Where in the hell is the TERROR at not having democratic control of the senate, which is essential to completing those appointments? That control would be much more valuable than just when appointment of a supreme court justice is on the line. And whyin particular is there a push to back a senate candidate like Wasserman-Schultz who will likely vote to appoint oligarch friendly judges at all levels?

The pushing of the SCOTUS crisis is the very thing we would expect if TPTB KNOWS it must be emotionally manipulative as it pushes a candidate that is fundamentally not wanted by a significant proportion of democratic leaning voters.

Open-mindedness has to be tempered with being manipulated. When confronted with this argument, voters must think critically and decide for themselves if it really is true or if once again it's just hyperbole used to manipulate us. It strongly pushes a narrowing our interests, so narrow that it acts like the tip of a scalpel dissecting us from other things we also value

[FreakinDJ]

1. Clinton propaganda is no substitute for Honest Judgment

[Autumn]

2. No I do not.nt

[EdwardBernays]

3. No

Because there's no guarantees that I'd love whoever Clinton chooses, and if her SCOTUS nominee judgement is as bad as her foreign policy judgement... Well, why would I support that?


If people really want a progressive on SCOTUS they only have one option as President... And it's not Hillary Clinton.

[HereSince1628]

5. Yes, I think that's an important feature to acknowledge when considering that argument

I've been voting in presidential elections since 1972 and I've -never- had a sense of WHO are the excellent candidates for SCOTUS.

A handful of times there have been discussions in the election cycles about whether or not a presidential nominee has a 'litmus tests' for a SCOTUS appointment

[merrily]

4. No.

http://jackpineradicals.org/content.php?150-Obama-Considers-Nominating-a-Republican-to-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States

Now, when Obama's actual nominee was a law and order "moderate" Democrat who has reportedly been on Obama's short list of potential nominees all along, I began to suspect that the Republican nominee story may have been floated to make nominating the "moderate" law and order Democrat seem like a relief. But still, the "Democratic President nominating a Republican to the SCOTUS to placate the right" bell has been rung and I don't think the right or the Third Wayers are ever going to allow it to be unrung.

[HereSince1628]

8. Yes, regardless of what we -think- we are electing we can be disappointed.

I generally think that everyone pursuing life as a justice is exposed to heavy reliance on written word and precedent and tends to develop judicial thinking that is somewhat conservative in the traditional sense of resistance to change.

Which isn't to say that some justices may really be interested in JUSTICE, and just never get cases to rule on that allow them much opportunity to apply progressive pressure.

[merrily]

17. I recommend that you read the article (mine, but it's factually accurate) to which I linked you when

you have time. AFAIK, Justices have either stayed what they have always been, like Ginsburg and Scalia, or they go left, like Stevens and Souter. If there are any (in modern times) who were left when nominated, but went right, I don't know who they are. I don't know a lot about Justices before, say FDR, though.

[HereSince1628]

18. I'm thinking of federal judges at all levels,

and I think they trend away from extremes, although there have certainly been exceptions.

Of course, SCOTUS gets to work high profile cases to resolve differences between judges at lower levels, so they do get opportunity that other justices don't.

[kracer20]

6. Maybe I'm missing something, but

I'm guessing that there are members on this board saying that we all must get behind HRC to guarantee a victory in the General election so she can pick the SC nominees.

With that logic, shouldn't they be getting behind Bernie? He is polling stronger in the general against the other Republicans, and beats them three for three?

I also feel there will be a much higher anti Clinton turnout on the R side of the aisle which will hurt the number of Senate and House members elected.

So with that logic, I absolutely think that concern for SC nominees are critical, and should be taken in to account.

[HereSince1628]

12. It's not just DU, it's also talkers on internet, television and radio

Thom Hartmann who is supposedly a smart and logical guy pushes this argument all the time. The ad he uses to attract listeners actually employs a recording of him making/applying the argument.

[merrily]

19. Why assume logic or getting someone who ran as a Dem into the Oval Office have anything to do with

it?

Since at least 2012, and probably earlier, the 2016 primary has been, for the PTB, about making sure that Hillary Clinton is the nominee. Since probably forever -- though we could debate FDR and LBJ--Democratic politics overall have been anti liberal.

I can give you many examples to support both parts of the above paragraph, but none to support the opposite of either of those propositions.

[TeddyR]

7. Of course

But if others prefer to see Trump appoint the next 2-3 justices that's their call. Short-sighted and selfish, but their call.

On edit, I prefer Bernie and don't like Hillary but will vote for her if she's the nominee.

[HereSince1628]

9. 2-3? Historically presidents get 1 per term.

I'm not sure Trump will fulfill a single term, let alone 2.

Yes I think current age demographics of the court can be considered, but so must history. There's no way to really know which justices will leave the court when although we strongly suspect the probability increases with age.

In the longer view all justices cycle through the courts. There is always downstream opportunity for their replacements. Getting pushed by fear to take a short-term view prevents long-term thinking and strategic approaches to managing government. It puts us in a circumstance where we must always think of a tree when we should be thinking of forests.

[TeddyR]

39. You aren't paying attention

The next president probably fills Scalia's seat and 2-3 others

[HereSince1628]

40. Well -that- is a meme that's being sold, yes.

And I am not only paying attention, I'm critically thinking about it.

I hear that line of BS on progressive radio everyday pushing Thom Hartmann's show. And it's not infrequently mentioned by one mook or another on Stephanie Miller's show, when they aren't chattering about her box.

[Dragonfli]

10. No, What I find more compelling are arguments for a candidate that has left wing coattails

We need a liberal Senate and if we get a candidate with anchors rather than coattails (like Hillary) then we should focus as hard on electing a liberal Senate as we are for Sanders.

I doubt Hillary can win a GE, but even if she does, she will do it facing an avalanche of Hillary hating right wingers setting records to vote against her and a depressed and unenthusiastic young and moderate electorate, making the job much harder re the Senate, perhaps we can mobilize the part of the revolution that has no interest in voting for her the corporate servant but will vote down ticket for a liberal Senate. Then utilize it again in the midterms for the same purpose, now if the Party does not manage to steal the nomination for the destined to lose corporatist our job will be easier with the senate, but still as crucial.

My understanding is that Obama (who is to the left of Hillary in some ways) is proposing a justice that not only loves citizens united but has orgasmic beliefs regarding the power and influence corporate entities should enjoy in our governmental process.

A bad Senate, consents to Alito and Thomas type Justices and are even more responsible for who gets the position than the person trying out different nominees to put forth. JMHO. (well, you did ask)

[HereSince1628]

14. Absolutely, we must have a progressives in both houses of Congress

And there is opportunity every two years to move toward that.

However Sanders' campaign ends, with his election or not, we must have a movement in place that facilitates the election of progressives in the 2018 mid-terms

[BernieforPres2016]

15. Obama's current nominee for the Supreme Court was suggested by Orrin Hatch

Senator Hatch said just a few days before Obama's nomination that if he was serious about getting somebody approved he would nominate somebody like Merrick Garland, but he would likely nominate a liberal to score political points.

[HereSince1628]

16. Obama told us when he was running for office that he was 'more like a moderate republican'

from the 1980's.

Even so, there is also the variability that justices don't always turn out to be the type of person Presidents and confirming senates expect them to be.

[TBF]

11. Every election "close your eyes and think of the Supreme Court" -

please. I have had enough. I'd much rather have Bernie picking the Justices so I will continue with all my support for him.

We need to change the narrative. Every day it's "will you support Hillary when Bernie's out". No. We need to change that to "Hillary supporters, here is why you should support Bernie Sanders". And then we continue to make it so.

[HereSince1628]

13. Yes, I think the repetitive uses gives it a sky-is-falling feeling

of course, being an older voter, I see this while younger voters without the experience may not.

[intheflow]

20. Yes.

Look at how long we suffered under Scalia. Ginsberg is awesome but old. It's the only reason I will vote for Clinton if she's the nominee.

[HereSince1628]

21. Yes, justices can serve for life, but how many justices were appointed -after- him?

He was just 1 of nine. There indeed were other opportunities to influence the structure and balance of the court.

There always -are- future downstream appointments, and the argument as it's made never considers those, because, imo, the people who make it are trying to lock thinking into short-term.

Which isn't to say that the short-term should never be considered...braking when you see a tree limb fall in front of your car is good...

But locking us in with fear is also a way to prevent other political projects from going forward. It has aspects similar to focusing on fearing a choice in refrigerator when what's really needed is a complete kitchen remodel to deal with a bad roof and rotten windows

[mmonk]

22. Don't forget much of the radical Supreme Court

met no real resistance from the Third Way in the Senate when Democrats had the numbers. Thus they who use this reasoning themselves do nothing to stand in the way of a radical rightwing court. So it doesn't work with me anymore.

[HereSince1628]

23. No one objects when they get what they want...application of fear

should always be tested to make sure it isn't a manipulative tool others are using just to get their way.

[TIME TO PANIC]

24. It shouldn't even be an issue until after the primaries.

It's fear mongering based on the bogus argument that Clinton is more electable, even though evidence overwhelmingly suggest otherwise. It will backfire if Hillary is the nominee because people don't like having their votes held hostage.

[HereSince1628]

25. I agree that people who have been sensitized to being manipulated are most likely

to notice this.

In that respect, I have to admit that I am among that group.

I believe in individual variation and suspect that each us are likely to come to the conclusion we've been used at different points along the course of the manipulation.

In that respect, I think the Third Way project is doomed in a way that a name change (DLC >> Third Way) won't help.

[TIME TO PANIC]

31. I think there is a mass awakening within the democratic base.

The pro-corporate neoliberal policies promoted by the democratic establishment have run their course. The DLC/Third Way types days are numbered. Will they take the party down with them? I think will find out sooner than later.

[HereSince1628]

32. In my life, it's never been so obvious The Party establishment only cares about

the party establishment.

If I hadn't been led into that realization across the past 24 years, I probably be aghast, maybe even gobsmacked.

As it is, I see it as evidence that the establishment thinks it has nothing to fear by letting it hang out where everyone sees it.

[CentralMass]

26. No.

[onecaliberal]

27. No, they're all picking corporatists.

[HereSince1628]

28. It sorta seems that way,

which also sorta supports the notion that there is a need for a major course correction in US politics

[onecaliberal]

29. Everything points to that with every facet of power throughout the country.

[Rebkeh]

30. No, I don't find it particularly compelling

It's something to consider for sure but it does not get me out the door or off the fence. Like you said, Congress is a bigger deal.

I don't respond well to fear based manipulation, it usually has the opposite effect it intends to have, I find it repellent and revealing. No matter what is happening, the sky is not falling. A scared electorate is a malleable electorate and I'm just not going there. Level heads must prevail. It's one thing to assess risk, it's another to lose perspective because people are shouting "Danger!" in your ear all the time. Panic clouds your capacity for reason, we need more rational thinking, not less.

When parties consistently offer choices between bad and slightly less bad, and we know full well there's good available, why would we respond to fear tactics? They have overplayed their hand so many times, it's almost sad. There's no boogey-man under the bed.

[HereSince1628]

34. The need for risk assessment rather than a startle response is a good point.

It's particularly annoying to be emotionally manipulated by people who also claim their candidate is the rational choice.

I suppose there is an argument about 'covering all the bases' in there but it seems cynical.

[Baobab]

33. Hillary never saw a trade deal she didnt like. Bernie never saw one he did.

quite a contrast.

Those deals are undemocratic and they hijack policy forever. Once encted, they cannot be changed except at enormous effort and cost. they are really bad policy.

I see Hillary supporting undemocratic authoritarian regimes all around the world. Trying to prevent minimum wage increases in Haiti and Honduras.

She wont appoint good Supreme Court justices.

[dana_b]

35. No. It's a threat, blackmail, bullying, whatever you want to call it

and I'm not falling for it anymore. 32 years of voting and I'm saying "no more" to it.

And you are exactly right. Congress is just as important but we don't hear about it much from the Hillary side. I hear about Bernie supporters trying to help the more progressive Dems like Canova but that's it

[HereSince1628]

38. I've lived long enough to know life is very short. Presidential terms even more so

I don't really believe that always thinking short-term, casting all arguments in terms of less than a full four years allows for real strategic thinking.

It doesn't even seem to be the way that Bill and Hillary approached their runs at the presidency, which were the result of years, if not decades of pursuit.

If long term thinking is good for presidential candidates, maybe it's something that voters should do much more.

[Rebkeh]

36. Another point I didn't mention,

in terms of this specific election. Afaik, only Bernie has this litmus test for his choices for SCOTUS: they must support overturning Citizen's United.

It really cannot get any clearer than that. He's the best choice for choosing justices. Hands down. So, I don't understand the 'but, but... SCOTUS!' argument, especially when Bernie is more electable.

It's not just a pushing for voters to be irrational, but it's an irrational argument for their candidate.

[HereSince1628]

37. I think the argument is of the form Clinton or SCOTUS balance goes to Cruz or Trump

and that means Teahead or Know-nothing nominees.

[eridani]

41. Yes, actually. The revolution doesn't end with the campaign, no matter the outcome

It would be great to have a president on our side, but if we can get that, there is still a buttload of work to be done. If we don't get it, then conditions for moving on would be better under Clinton than under any Republican. I don't buy that old saw about things having to get worse before they get better.

[HereSince1628]

42. I agree that after Nov, wins in the 2018 midterms are the next

objective.

I'm not at all sure that Third Way can be made to change with a win, even if it was preceded by squeaking through a primary challenge, will really change happen for them?

I expect that the movement, which overtly states it wants to bring revolution-like reforms can't be seen as anything but a direct threat threat to the Dem establishment. Consequently it would never be treated as a partner in the way the DLC and Third Way have been. My guess is it will always be treated as an opposition.