HA Goodman's ridiculous Supreme Court argument

[dsc]

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/11/hillary_clinton_is_on_wrong_side_of_everything_stop_telling_me_i_have_to_vote_for_her_because_of_the_supreme_court/

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is fine and the New York Times writes that she has “no interest in retiring.” Justice Scalia isn’t stepping down from the U.S. Supreme Court soon and will only contemplate retirement when he “can’t do the job well.” Anthony Kennedy is in “no rush” to leave the Supreme Court. Justice Breyer has no plans to step down but will “eventually” retire one day.

Scalia turns 80 in March, Kennedy does so in June, Ginsburg turns 83 in March. Brennan retired in 1990 at age 84. He died in 97 at age 91. Marshall retired in 1991 at age 83 he lived until January of 1993. Brennan may have not cared what party replaced him (he was an Eisenhower appointee) but Marshall loudly and longly did care. But age caught up with him. He tried to outlast Bush but felt he couldn't and had to retire. We got Thomas.

Ginsburg has survived two bouts with pancreatic cancer. Do we really want to bet fair housing, abortion, affirmative action, right to be in a union, and a whole host of other issues on the actuarial tables not catching up with her. Now Mr. Goodman, a white, straight male who is a libertarian doesn't give a damn about the rights of others. If you do, then his arguments about the SCOTUS are absurd on its face. At the very least a GOP President will mean a restocking of conservative votes (Kennedy and Scalia won't make the mistake of not retiring). If the 83 year old Ginsburg who twice survived cancer dies before age 87 (one term) or age 91 (two terms) then the court would be 6 to 3 conservative for a generation or more. Goodman would be served by that, would you?

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. H.A. Goodman is a Libertarian Paulite Hack.

[Cosmic Kitten]

21. Smear the messenger!

Goodman is on the right side of this issue.

His support for Paul was based on
and anti-war position.

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. Who, other than Rand Paul supporters gives one shit about what this guy thinks?

Send it to FR. We should have better standards here.

[sufrommich]

3. Every Bernie supporter grasping at straws and

unskewering polls.

[MohRokTah]

4. Sanders supporters on DU care what he thinks

They post his right wing libertarian bullshit here enough. Any article even mildly critical of Hillary gets at least three highly recommended threads!

[MineralMan]

5. Goodman is yet another libertarian hero

to some who post here. The Paulist contingent is small, but prolific in their postings.

[Cosmic Kitten]

22. Smear the messenger

Ignore the message

[MineralMan]

33. I don't trust the messenger to present

a trustworthy message. You shouldn't either. Like most writers, Goodman slants the information to suit his particular point of view. I am capable of drawing my own conclusion about facts, and I find they don't align well at all with Libertarians' conclusions.

Simply writing something does not mean that what was written is correct. Goodman's biases are clear and ever-present in his writing, as is true of most people who write opinion pieces and editorials.

You're welcome to choose writers who support your opinions. Goodman is far from one of those for me.

Personally, I believe his writings should not be presented as often as they are here on Democratic Underground. I simple disregard him as a source.

[randome]

6. Wait, what does RT.com think?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[pinebox]

7. He's correct on every single point he makes.

Can you show us where Goodman is incorrect in anything he has said in that article? All you're doing is attacking "he supported Ron Paul!" Hey Hillary supported the Iraq war too, what's your point?

[dsc]

8. I asked you this before and will try again

if he and you are wrong, and Ginsburg dies during a Rubio term what right will you lose

[pinebox]

9. And if Jesus comes back we're all screwed, right?

Here's the deal, it's conjecture and an "if" scenario.
The risk is Hillary doing a peace meal approach in order to get something done with SCOTUS should someone need to be appointed (which I personally think needs a constitutional amendment to begin with, judges should be voted on and not serving a lifetime)
Is it conjecture on my part? Yup, just as much as yours.
Again though, nothing that Goodman has said is incorrect.

[dsc]

10. again what rights are you willing to give up

you seem to be perfectly content to have gays lose the right to marry, women lose the right to abortion, blacks lose the right to vote, and hispanics be mass deported.

[pinebox]

13. Again, prove Goodman wrong

instead of pontificating on a podium of sand.

[Hortensis]

11. No, he's not. Come on. The title itself is ridiculous.

BTW, Hillary and Bernie are on the same side of almost everything.

[pinebox]

14. Show us where he's wrong

[Hortensis]

15. Oh, show yourself.

[JoePhilly]

16. His response ...

... whether intentional or not, comes across as rather libertarian.

He takes no responsibility in the matter. He plans to sit on the sidelines and do nothing, make no case.

Its exactly the way a libertarian would act. Whatever happens to the Supreme Court happens. Meh.

Very Libertarian.

[Hortensis]

25. Interesting take and may be right on. His dismissal of court

composition and contempt for the Democratic candidates completely contradict his claim to be liberal. Frankly, his profound dishonesty make him difficult for me to figure out without a lot more effort than I care to take, except that liberal is off the list. He's lying about that too. Left wing extremist or left-wing anti-liberal also seems possible, given his hostility, and would have a lot in common with, say, a rather anarchistic left libertarian?

[pinebox]

17. lol Well I guess I won that one XD

[Hortensis]

24. Sure, consider it won.

[MohRokTah]

12. No, he's not

In all likelihood at least four SCOTUS Associate Justices will be replaced in the next eight years given longevities of prior justices.

It is also quite possible should one of the two right wing Justices leave the court, Roberts may decide h does not wish to preside over a more liberal court.

No election in our lifetime has ever been or ever will be as critical as 2016 given the stakes. Human rights hinge upon a Democrat winning, else we will slip into theocracy.

[MohRokTah]

18. So it looks like I proved the point since pinebox refuses to refute me.

HA Goodman is wrong and I proved it.

[BooScout]

19. Yes you did....

Nicely done!

[CajunBlazer]

20. Some posts here are the definition of prejudice

I read this article without paying any attention to who wrote it found nothing with which I could disagree. It is difficult to disagree with point I myself made on my blog. http://www.cajunscomments.com/the-supreme-co…ns-

Isn't judging an article based on who wrote it the very definition of prejudice?

Edit: The above was based on the text the OP included in the original post. Then I went back and read the linked article and found it completely different - what gives?

[dsc]

27. The text I supplied was cut and paste from his article

It isn't my fault you apparently can't read worth crap, you shouldn't call posters liars when they aren't.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is fine and the New York Times writes that she has “no interest in retiring.” Justice Scalia isn’t stepping down from the U.S. Supreme Court soon and will only contemplate retirement when he “can’t do the job well.” Anthony Kennedy is in “no rush” to leave the Supreme Court. Justice Breyer has no plans to step down but will “eventually” retire one day.

[CajunBlazer]

31. Sometimes we can be deceptive by being selective about what we cut and post

The text you posted was the only thing I agree with in the entire article. In their minds Supreme Court Justices may want to serve forever, but their bodies may well dictate otherwise. With four Justices over 80 it is highly likely that one or two Justices will die or be forced to retire during the next President's first term.

Only one of the last four Presidents served a single term so it is quite possible that the next President will serve for 8 years. The chances that all four of those Justices will still be on the court nine years from now are probably slim and none. I would expect at least one or two will be gone and there is at least a possibility all four have died or retired.

It is extremely important that the Democratic nominee be elected because the next President will be able to stack the court with Justices friendly to the conservative or liberal agenda for perhaps the next 20 years.

[dsc]

32. that is my precise point

[Cosmic Kitten]

23. Hillary supporters are swarming!

Goodman must be getting to close to the truth for comfort.

If we can't create FUD about the Supreme Court
how will Hillary convince people that their
rights to abortion will be taken away if they
don't vote for her!

SCOTUS!!!!11!111!11!1

[pinebox]

30. Isn't that the truth lol

[MADem]

26. The Sanders Group at Reddit has banned this guy's screeds because they know he's a Paulbot who

spouts unrealistic bullshit.

[Agnosticsherbet]

28. HA Goodman and the Paul's, Rand and Ron, would be happy to see a conservative court.

So I will not take his prejudiced right wing word on anything.

Off to Free Republican with this article.

[pinebox]

29. Prove Goodman wrong

in anything he says in the article otherwise you're accusing him of the same exact thing you're doing; prejudice.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=802957

[Agnosticsherbet]

34. I carry a well earned prjudice against libertarian and right wing ideology that is antithetical

to my world view that leads me to question the motives known right wing operatives, especially when they say something with which I might agree.

Guilty.

Due to his history I question his agenda, which has been shown to be no different than Republican Congressmen who spent 5 million dollars of tax payer finds in a Government approved witch hunt to hurt Hillary Clinton while calling it oversight.

I think that we should question the things people say that we like with equal diligence we use to question the things people say that we oppose.

[pinebox]

35. It's smart to question

but the best tactic is education and knowledge. Know thy enemy.

However, everything in the article Goodman says is spot on.
I don't care where sources come from because in the end, facts are facts. If it's a fact, it is what it is.

[Agnosticsherbet]

36. He wants a Conservative Republican to appoint her replacement.

He is dead wrong, but you are welcome to agree with him.