The next President will probably appoint at least 2 Supreme Court Justices.

[pnwmom]

This will make all the difference between retaining civil liberties, or losing them. Maybe forever.

Anyone who thinks that ANY of our candidates is Bush-lite can't be thinking this through. Every state has the potential to be a swing state this time around. Please don't even consider wasting your vote if you're not happy with the eventual nominee!

[antigop]

1. The Senate has to confirm them. And we should have a larger Dem majority in the Senate.

<edit to add> The Senate has to confirm the nominees regardless of the party that controls the White House.

[Nite Owl]

5. We can't depend on the Senate

even if they were to reach 60 seats, there are too many still that would vote to confirm. If a repuke wins they will only see it as this is what the country wants and move even further to the right.

[pnwmom]

6. I wouldn't trust anybody nominated by Ghouli, Mitt, or Freddie, no matter

how they were prepped to appear at any nomination hearings. But, from a historical viewpoint, the Senate usually approves nominees, unless they're blatantly bad.

[antigop]

9. See post #8. n/t

[Cirque du So-What]

2. Hang on Stevens, Stevens hang on!

Many of us have been holding our collective breath that Justice John Paul Stevens would resist the temptation to retire before Chimpolini is unceremoniously relegated to the dustbin of history. The court is dangerously tipped toward the regressives, and I couldn't abide another loss.

[Ninja Jordan]

7. That isn't a concern. Even if Stevens were to retire/die right now, the Dem Senate would stall any

appointment until Bush leaves office.

[JerseygirlCT]

71. You'd think, wouldn't you? I'm not so sure anymore, though. nt

[pnwmom]

10. I know. I think Stevens is trying, though. And the longer he can wait,

the more likely it is that the Senate will hold off on approving a Bush appointee.

[Ninja Jordan]

26. The key is whether Scalia can survive another 4-8 years under a Dem president.

Replacing Scalia with a reliable liberal would swing the court back solidly to the middle-left IMO, with Breyer, Souter, (Stevens replacement), (Ginsburg's replacement), (Scalia's replacement) serving as the middle-left block, with (a rapidly aging) Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts serving as the middle-right block. In many ways, Souter might be the new O'Connor/swing vote; but he is much more progressive than O'Connor ever was.

[Devlzown]

3. The ideal is to have a Democratic President and

a Democratic Congress (or at least the Senate in this case). If we do have a Republican President, God forbid, a Democratic Senate will make it difficult for him to get some right wing anti abortion scum appointed to the Court. If we have the wrong Democratic President and a Republican Senate, I fear that that President might cave and pick a nominee more palatable to the Republican Senate. That's why it's important that we all get out and vote in the primaries. The time for apathy is over.

[Lerkfish]

4. a more progressive democratic president would have the same option

I guess I fault the "vote for our centrist candidate or vote republican". There is another choice: support progressive dems when possible.
in other words, its a false dichotomy

and the power structure has no bearing on whether someone is avocating Bush policies or not., that's a specious argument.

[antigop]

13. Thank you. n/t

[antigop]

Deleted. My browser went funky on me. n/t

[antigop]

14. Deleted -- my browser went funky on me. n/t

[antigop]

15. Deleted -- n/t

[antigop]

16. Deleted n/t

[pnwmom]

18. I'm not saying not to support progressive dems. Obviously, they will

appoint good people to the Court. IF they are elected.

I'm talking about either not voting at all or voting 3rd party if you're not happy with the Dem nominee. Anyone who makes one of those choices is helping the Rethugs take over the S.C.

[antigop]

19. No, the people who are helping the Rethugs are the ones who support corporate-loving candidates n.t

[antigop]

deleted, duplicate post n/t

[antigop]

20. No, the people who are helping the Rethugs are the ones who support corporate-loving candidates n.t

[antigop]

21. No, the people who are helping the Rethugs are the ones who support corporate-loving candidates n.t

[Lerkfish]

44. well, I was unclear on that

when you say: "Anyone who thinks that ANY of our candidates is Bush-lite can't be thinking this through."
I read that as "support nonprogressive democratic candidates or else".

sorry for misreading you there.

[Hydra]

23. You get tired of having to point this out, too?

[pnwmom]

27. Anti-gop isn't. She or he is happy to point it out, over and over and over.

Too bad about the browser. Hope it gets fixed.

[antigop]

33. Hydra was responding to Lerkfish. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

34. Once the economy tanks, I doubt anyone will be watching Supreme Court decisions, debating them here.

But Hillary is such a genius she can find a way out of that mess, too, I suppose.

Naw, I ain't counting on her at all.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. The economy did tank in 1929...

And in 1932 we elected a president to enact programs to help lift people out of poverty. Trouble was, that the Supreme Court declared many of these programs unconstitutional.

It is naive to think that the Supreme Court doesn't have an impact on the economy.

[Major Hogwash]

69. Stock market watch today - down 366 points.

Don't think we'll make it to the next 2 SC appointments soon enough or that Hillary will choose the right ones.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. What do you mean choose the right ones?

Every Democratic President since FDR has appointed liberal justices to the Supreme Court. Why would Hillary be any different?

[antigop]

8. And I will explain this one more time...

People whose lives have been destroyed because of job loss due to outsourcing and H1-b visas are not going to vote for a candidate who supports the very policies that led to their job loss.

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

The ONLY thing they will have is their vote. That's about it because their lives have been DESTROYED.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs

[pnwmom]

22. Not everyone is a one issue voter.

And you can only speak for yourself, not everyone in your position.

[antigop]

30. Try talking to the tech community. n/t

[pnwmom]

46. I'm surrounded by the tech community. n/t

[antigop]

53. Did you show them the video? n/t

[pnwmom]

61. I'm not exactly feeling very warm about your cause at the moment.

I don't like feeling bullied.

Maybe later.

[antigop]

66. Nope, not bullying. I asked a simple question. Maybe if you showed them the video you would know

what I'm talking about.

[Hydra]

25. If people didn't vote against their self interest

Bush wouldn't have gotten 35% of the vote in 2000

[antigop]

31. The people who vote against their self-interest are the ones who vote for corporate-loving

candidates. n/t

[Hydra]

32. Bingo! And there are far too many of them, IMO n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

35. If Ginsburg and Stevens are replaced under a Republican President

The court will be more right wing than any court we've seen since the 1930's.

Anyone who doesn't think that there's anything left to lose is naive. There is still plenty.

[antigop]

37. The Senate still has to confirm and we should have an even larger Dem majority. n.t

[antigop]

38. And your response shows your lack of understanding of people whose lives have already been

destroyed by outsourcing and h1-b visas.

<edit> Fixed title-- duplicate word

[Ninja Jordan]

40. huh?

[antigop]

41. their lives are already destroyed n/t

[Ninja Jordan]

42. What does this have to do with judicial nominations?

[antigop]

43. Read the rest of the thread. n/t

[Ninja Jordan]

45. I still don't get your point.

Are you saying judicial nominations are moot because Dems won't attain the WH due to their free trade policies? The GOP's positions on those issues aren't any better, so doesn't it end up being a wash politically? I'm not even sure what you mean.

[pnwmom]

49. He or she shouldn't have to read the whole thread to figure out what

you're saying. This is about the issue of Supreme Court justices, and you're trying to make it about something else completely. And you're talking about something important that does deserve discussion -- in its own thread, where people can see it and not just accidentally bump into it.

[antigop]

54. There is no reason to repeat what's already been posted.

My point is perfectly relevant to the OP, despite your claiming it isn't.

[pnwmom]

57. No, it's a single-issue threat -- "vote for a candidate who supports

my issue -- or else!"

I'm in total sympathy with you on your issue -- and I have posted about it myself. But I don't think that making threats is a good way to get supporters for your ideas.

[antigop]

67. Nope, I'm not making any threats--just stating what will happen.

<edit to add> but my, my, how interesting that you would consider my posts a "threat".

[Ninja Jordan]

68. You're hijacking the thread with vague, irrelevant gibberish.

[antigop]

70. Uh, no. I've explained why some people will not care about S.C.justices n/t

[pnwmom]

48. Why don't you start a thread about outsourcing and h1-b visas?

Instead of trying to take over this one?

I agree that people need to be educated about that, but not necessarily here.

[antigop]

52. Nope, just posting the truth about why people will not worry about S.C. justices n/t

[LoZoccolo]

11. I think they know this, which is another reason why Naderism is terrorism.

Naderists are implicitly holding our civil liberties hostage.

[Ninja Jordan]

12. My hope is Scalia leaves us

and a Dem can replace his seat sometime over the next 4-8 years.

[pnwmom]

28. Yes, it would be good to see him go. But then who

will write the opinions for Justice Thomas to sign?

[Ninja Jordan]

17. Should the next Dem president follow a "born in the 1960's" requirement for vacant SCOTUS seats?

Bill Clinton made a mistake, for example, with nominating Ginsburg in '95, who was in her mid 60s then. She is now near the end of her life due to poor health and her spot will have to be replaced soon. She and Stevens will retire pretty quickly should a Dem win next fall. That will be 2 seats immediately.

[pnwmom]

24. She's the other one I had in mind.

And Obama's age is clearly one more factor in his favor.

[bain_sidhe]

29. Not a mistake, a compromise.

The Publicans were in the majority, and they had already signaled that they wouldn't confirm a young, firebreathing liberal. Spector was the one who suggested Ginsburg, who not quite a firebrand, but reliably liberal--and old.

[Ninja Jordan]

39. It was pure capitulation.

You can't tell me there weren't scores of other, younger federal appeals judges/scholars who could have been vetted and survived a nomination fight. Bush forced through Thomas, we could have forced through one of our guys.

[pnwmom]

47. I hope "one of our guys" was an unfortunate slip of the tongue. I like HER. n/t

[CK_John]

50. I think 4 is more likely. n/t

[depakid]

51. Actually- it likely won't make any difference per se

It'll either preserve the current right wing status quo- or on the other hand- throw it even farther off of the deep end.

The Dem "leadership already had their chance to stop Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito- and they dropped the ball (to put it very politely)- condemning most of us to the decisions of this court for the rest of our adult lives.

[ruggerson]

56. If you think it won't make any difference

you're living in an alternate reality. You're simply not paying attention to the facts.

[depakid]

60. No- I'm living with the reality of this court

and there are already 5 members likely to vote far right on most major issues (likely Roe v. Wade, too). And they're likely to be there for 10-20 years.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

edit for age estimates.

[ruggerson]

64. Factually, you are incorrect

Kennedy is somewhat of a swing vote, albeit not as much as O'Connor.

Kennedy wrote the majority decision in Lawrence V Texas, which was decided 6-3, not 5-4, so it STILL has a majority on the current court, since 5 of the people who voted the right way are still on the court.

Kennedy also voted the correct way in Romer and wrote the majority decision.

These are the two most seminal gay rights cases decided in the last fifteen years.

To say that losing this majority "doesn't matter," is an insult to the millions of people whose lives were directly affected by these decisions.

[depakid]

65. Have you looked at the rationale of Lawrence?

That's actually a SCARY case.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102

"The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

That's the rational relationship test!

Statutes (discriminatory or otherwise) are almost ALWAYS upheld under that standard- because there's no heightened scrutiny. What it means is that there's very little in the way of a constitutionally protectable right to sexual privacy. It merely says Texas was acting irrationally.

(curious about the substance due process argument- kind of a stretch- and perhaps a worrysome one, as there are folks on the federal bench who advocate a return the Lochner Era.

Romer's an interesting case- that one's quite a bit clearer, though it has to be viewed in the context of intergovernmental relationships involved- what they permitted and prohibited.

Still, I grant you that's a "good case" that could have come out differently had Kennedy been a Scalia.

It'll be interesting is the court takes any of the illegal alien cases that have been mucking about in the federal courts- they tend to raise different issues (preemption) but they could be decided on equal protection grounds.

[pnwmom]

58. Not true. If we were able to appoint people like Obama and RFKennedy, Jr.

and perhaps get a third appointment too, it would make a huge difference to the court.

And, as a part of either the minority or a bare majority, the Dem leadership didn't have enough votes to stop the appointments you referred to -- all they could do was delay the inevitable.

[depakid]

62. It would take very good fortune

But it could happen. Look at how quickly the Warren Court was dismantled (although those were different times- back when the Court and Congress had a good deal more integrity). That's no longer true.

[lastliberalintexas]

55. So maybe those CENTRIST Senate Dems should have

blocked Alito and Roberts when they had the chance instead of joining the Flock of Fourteen, eh? Oh no, let's certainly blame the current state of the USSC on liberals, since we all know that liberals have had soooo much power in the last few years. :eyes:

[pnwmom]

59. I'm not blaming anything on liberals, except the ones who would

help the Rethugs stay in power, rather than ever agree to compromise with other Dems.

We didn't have the votes to block Alito and Roberts permanently, with a bare majority in the Senate, one of them being Lieberman. All we could do was temporarily delay them.

[lastliberalintexas]

63. Perhaps not you, but others are

I've seen posts claiming that "Naderism is terrorism" and such other BS. I'm not even a Nader fan, and I find that disgusting.


As to Alito and Roberts, we did have the votes to block them, since we had more than the 40 votes required for filibuster. Anyone who hates the right wing Court we have now and will have for sometime need look no further than the "moderate" and "centrist" wing of our party, the Bayhs, Liebermans, and Nelsons of our world. And yes, I AM blaming the "moderates" for our Court.