SCOTUS POTUS!

[MineralMan]

While it's not HOCUS POCUS, it's sort of magical in how the two are connected. As we consider who should be the Democratic nominee and whether or not we will vote for that nominee, keeping that semi-magical phrase in mind might be a good idea.

Among the other reasons for a huge turnout of Democrats next November, SCOTUS POTUS is one of the most convincing for me.

That's why I'll be working on GOTV, no matter who the Democratic nominee turns out to be. We must win in 2016, or we lose for the lifetimes of the next SCOTUS justices.

[MBS]

1. Yes, absolutely vital.

Whenever I get grouchy about the imperfections of individual candidates, the thought of SCOTUS gets me back on track.
There are plenty of other reasons why it's important to have a Democrat in the White House (the environment, voting rights and much much more), but, especially: SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS.
There is no way one can overstate the importance of this presidential election.

[merrily]

44. Analysis and facts trump knee jerk, though. Please see Reply 34. The reality is much more

complex than than the OP.

[DesertRat]

2. I couldn't agree more

k&r

[lark]

3. 'm with you 100% on this.

WE won't survive another 4-8 years of total repug domination. Put it this way, the country wouldn't be recognizable as one with ideals and greatness, the constitution and our rights wouldn't survive so we'd be the US in name only.

[MineralMan]

5. With control over all three branches,

the Republicans would destroy the steps toward progress we have already taken. We cannot allow that to happen.

[99Forever]

4. Same old scare tactic sermon. Verse 2

Different day.

I demand better.

[MineralMan]

6. Well, see, I don't pay a lot of attention

to demands. I will continue to write what I think is important. It's easy enough to skip my posts if you think they are irrelevant.

[merrily]

43. Sure, but sometimes you worry that the person behind you might slip on the banana peel

unless you tell people it's there.

[MineralMan]

65. Actually, I'd stop and pick up that banana peel, to

prevent someone from slipping on it. I don't just step over hazards and leave them in place. That's not my style.

[merrily]

71. As would I, especially if I had a tissue handy to try to avoid exposing myself to biohazards.

The message board equivalent, however, is trickier. I have no power to delete your OP. I can but attempt to expose its reliance on knee jerk concepts, rather than facts and analysis. I spent time doing that in Reply 34. That's the best I can on a message board to prevent the unwary from slipping on something potentially dangerous.

[libdem4life]

98. "I have no power to delete your OP" ????? Who are you, the Censor Wannabe?

My understanding of what is proper, is to Alert if you're Upset, and a thought and a suggestion that sounds less imperial...start your own thread.

Newsflash...we're not unwary or going to slip...promise.

[merrily]

107. You do have to follow the subthread before you can go into even seemingly honest faux outrage.

It was actually Mineral Man who attempted to make me seem like a less good citizen than he because he would pick up the banana and toss it, rather than simply point out its presence to potentially unwary fellow pedestrians.

BTW, kindly point out where I said I wanted to delete the OP and where I said I was upset or found something alertable about the OP. Honestly, so many seem to love replying to me based on what they imagine I posted, rather than based upon what my post actually said.

Newsflash...we're not unwary or going to slip...promise.

Yet, some on this thread apparently did. Seriously? You've never noticed a knee jerk agreement on DU? You must see a better class of +1s and K & Rs than I sometimes do.

[libdem4life]

131. No, I don't.

[MineralMan]

106. But, you would delete it if you could?

Really? How odd. I'm glad you do not have that capability.

[merrily]

110. Good grief! Please see Replies 107 and 72. I would have thought that you, of all people,

would have understood the metaphor since you're the one who brought up tossing the banana.

[NurseJackie]

7. What does this even mean?

[lark]

8. It means don't vote Dem

if the general election nominee isn't the one you want. It means this poster doesn't think that Repugs would be any worse than Clinton/Sanders, depending on their preference. It means that poster is willing to sell our country down the sewer in a fit of pique if their perfect candidate isn't the general election nominee. That's what it means.

I will vote for Bernie in the primary, but will vote for whoever the Dem candidate is in the general. That's what this poster doesn't support and considers the truth to be scare tactics.

[NurseJackie]

9. Ick!

(Thanks very much for your reply.)

[99Forever]

14. It means the same old tired bullshit isn't cutting it anymore.

How did this shit tactic work out in 2014?

Don't these "brilliant" third way corporate clowns ever learn anything from their fuckups?

[NurseJackie]

23. Not participating is participating,

... but not in the way you imagine it to be. Enjoy your tantrum for all the good it will do.

[99Forever]

48. Who the fuck said anything about "not participating?"

Besides you?

I ALWAYS "participate." I don't vote for Republicans, no matter what fucking label they hang on themselves.

If you see rational support and voting in We the People's best interests as a "tantrum," that's your problem to deal with, not mine. Bit don't kid yourself into thinking I give a flying fuck that third wayers will try to browbeat me into submission. Ain't EVER gonna fucking happen. EVER.

[NurseJackie]

52. Enjoy your tantrum.

[99Forever]

82. Whatever "nursejackie."

Since I already dealt that asinine bit of snark, I'll leave it there. Have fun doing what you and your namesake are best at.

[NurseJackie]

91. There are no shortcuts to the perfection being sought. (I doubt that "perfection" actually exists.)

There is no magical wizard that will zap people from here to there in the blink of an eye. Particle transporter beams haven't been perfected yet.

I suppose there will always be a certain segment of people who prefer to do nothing and simply cool their heels ... all the while, during the entire journey, griping and complaining that things are proceeding too slowly, and willingly allowing others do the heavy lifting for them.

Well, hang on tight ... it's going to be a bumpy ride, but we'll eventually get you closer.

[99Forever]

95. I did say a fucking thing about "perfection?'

Nope.

Fail.

Try again.

[NurseJackie]

111. It wasn't necessary. Your meaning and intentions are clear.

The repeated swearing appear to be an aggressive and emotionally-driven substitution for a realistic view and the practical steps needed to achieve (or move closer to) "perfection". I choose realism over impotent hostility. The more angry and more defiant your words become, the more I'm convinced that I'm correct.

[99Forever]

129. Well kewl, you kicked that strawman's ass!

As to beyond that?

Big 'ol bucket of fail.

Kinda boring actually.

[pinebox]

113. Maybe not

BUT why support a candidate who offers half assed ideas when so much more is available. It's like swimming the English channel, getting half way and turning back. The time has come Jackie for someone who gives a shit about the regular Joe and focuses on them, not corporations who have been allowed to get incredibly rich on the backs of the middle class and the poor. No, we don't need more of that kind of policy!

Hillary isn't fighting for a living wage! That alone should tell you she isn't for the regular person.

[SusanaMontana41]

57. "If you can't answer the question, leave the room." — anonymous

This comes in a close second to, "If you can't answer the question, change the subject." — anonymous

You see it all the time here.

[840high]

103. ...^ that

[treestar]

63. More Clarence Thomas or Scalia types

doesn't scare you! You're brave!

[PowerToThePeople]

10. Unrec.

And to the trash.

[lark]

11. I agree

however individual responses can't be liked/unliked so your reply will have to stand.

Some of us support Dems winning, some don't.

[MineralMan]

13. OK. Do whatever you wish.

[840high]

104. +1

[Dustlawyer]

12. So true, but we need more like the Notorious RBG!

I have had it with corporate Judges and lawyers being appointed! While most are better than a Scalia or Alito, they still favor corporations over individuals. Our Courts of Appeals are stacked with justices like this! Even when we win a verdict in the trial courts, the state and federal courts of appeals take it away to pay back their Donors or the Party that got them their appointment.

Bernie is much more likely to appoint another RBG than Hillary. In fact you can count on her to appoint corpratists justices, which admittedly, are still better (I hope) than who any of the clown car would appoint.

[MineralMan]

16. I agree. I hope for the best possible appointments.

I'll accept anyone who will rule against Citizens United, though.

[merrily]

42. You will accept? LOL!

[Bleacher Creature]

20. "Bernie is much more likely to appoint another RBG than Hillary."

Um, except for the fact that her husband, who was far more "centrist" than HRC, actually appointed the ORIGINAL RBG.

[Dustlawyer]

25. Would not happen today, and certainly not with Hillary. Her Donors would NEVER

EVER allow it!

[yallerdawg]

45. So this doesn't matter, of course...

Hillary Clinton’s litmus test for Supreme Court nominees: a pledge to overturn Citizens United

Hillary Clinton told a group of her top fundraisers Thursday that if she is elected president, her nominees to the Supreme Court will have to share her belief that the court's 2010 Citizens United decision must be overturned, according to people who heard her remarks.

Clinton's emphatic opposition to the ruling, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums on independent political activity, garnered the strongest applause of the afternoon from the more than 200 party financiers gathered in Brooklyn for a closed-door briefing from the Democratic candidate and her senior aides, according to some of those present.

"She got major applause when she said would not name anybody to the Supreme Court unless she has assurances that they would overturn" the decision, said one attendee, who, like others, requested anonymity to describe the private session.

If the make-up of the court does not change by 2017, four of the justices will be 78 years of age or older by the time the next president is inaugurated.

More at article.

[Bleacher Creature]

59. You and your silly little facts!

If you keep posting stuff like this, you'll violate the rule that all posts need to perpetuate the insulting myth that HRC is nothing more than a corporate stooge, without any opinions of her own and without the benefit of more than three decades of experiences in public policy.

[yallerdawg]

69. You know how fond Hillary is of 'Citizens United.'

From wiki:

In the case the conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA&quot .[2] Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions.

Of course, in our upside down world, Hillary will benefit most from unlimited, undisclosed Republican campaign financing.

'Cause, you know, it's Hillary.

[merrily]

117. Speaking of myths...Hillary's alleged hatred of Citizens doesn't seem to extend much beyond the fact

that an insulting film about her was the case that resulted in that decision. She seems to be fine with anonymous Super Pac donors, fine with her Super Pac smearing Sanders (much as the film smeared her), fine corporations (even streets) being people (and she sure doesn't want them to go unrepresented on her watch, either) and fine with spending billions on trying to get herself elected--and that's hard money alone.

[MineralMan]

67. Ding!

[merrily]

114. Hmm. Of course, only one candidate is living his opposition to Citizens and has made the same

promise as the candidate who has been trying to out PAC and out spend every other candidate on the horizon.

Politician, Heal Thyself.

[yallerdawg]

125. If money influences elections...

Democrats are in deep trouble.

[merrily]

126. You're trying to have it both ways:

If money doesn't influence elections, why bother to raise billions of dollars while dissing Citizens from the other side of one's mouth?

Besides, I seem to remember the election of 2008, Obama vs. McCain. And Hillary sure has been doing her best to outraise everyone she can. The old stereotypes don't necessarily hold up these days.

[yallerdawg]

127. This chart is the soft, dark money.

The conservative Supreme Court did not rule in favor of Citizens United to help Democrats - not even Hillary.

[merrily]

130. Even straw peeps deserve this day off: I didn't say the SCOTUS decided Citizens to help Hillary.

[Major Hogwash]

140. Sometimes you just have to give up trying to explain it to them.

I have.

My forehead got bruised from trying to explain things like this to peeps like him.

<--- This is what I am talking about. Multiple times a day, in multiple threads.

[Dustlawyer]

139. Citizens United is not all of the problem.

She MIGHT get rid of it, but we would still have our politicians being bribed with campaign donations. She doesn't want to be a game changer in this area. So you are right about one thing, it doesn't change things for me.

Bernie supports Publicly Funded Elections, something I am passionate about. People forget that TPTB were able to buy politicians before Citizens United.

[handmade34]

15. important...

if we all were of this mind in 2010 John Boehner would possibly have not been Speaker of the House and there would be a much better outcome today...

I remember well in 2010 when people here were bitching and all I kept reminding them of was "John Boehner, Speaker of the House"

President, Speaker of the House, Supreme Court Justice... just one little change and we go backwards....

[MineralMan]

17. And in 2014, as well.

In two mid-term elections, we turned control of Congress over to the Republicans through our inaction. Disappointing, to say the least.

[handmade34]

27. people ask me

"If you love Bernie's ideas and politics, why are you supporting Hillary?" I have become a pragmatist... sure there is still a lot of idealism there but I am wiser through age, experience and study...

I love Bernie, I want to live in his world rather than the one we have, but I often live in the real world as well, a world that has beat down a lot of people. A world that has made a lot of people complacent and/or hardened. I support Revolution, I support protest and while I do support these things and take part in these actions, I know what I see around me...

until we have the shear numbers of people willing to stand, fight, protest, boycott, demand, refuse to accept.... we must take the smaller steps available to us... Bernie Sanders will be successful only if supporters keep growing exponentially and are willing to sacrifice everything for that change...

[MineralMan]

40. Thanks for adding your thoughts.

So far, in my 70 years of life, I have seen no President with whom I agree on everything. I do not expect to see one in my remaining years, either. I'm just one voter in a nation that is divided politically. I hope for the best, and do what I can to encourage better choices in elections. On the bottom line, though, we get who we elect. I always hope the better of the two candidates wins. That's our system: Flawed but still functioning.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

46. So you've already given up. Sad.

[handmade34]

50. So

you're assuming things. Sad.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

56. I can read.

[merrily]

41. No, our inaction was the culprit. The culprit was the problem Truman identified in 1948, GOP Lite.

And we've been doublong down on that since 1994.

[Gothmog]

18. Control of the SCOTUS is critical

This is one of my key issues for the 2016 cycle

[MineralMan]

19. It is always a key issue.

Even more so in 2016. There will be vacancies in the SCOTUS during the next President's first term. Of that I'm certain.

[yallerdawg]

21. Reagan and George Bush 1.0 selected SC justices.

Bush's son took the election years later.

The Supreme Court is often the lasting legacy of a presidency.

It's not just about winning. Losing matters, too.

[MineralMan]

22. There is much to lose. SCOTUS is just one of those things.

We could lose on many grounds following next year's election. I hope everyone recognizes that and helps in the campaigns.

[merrily]

39. Reagan selected one of the most liberal Justices ever to sit on that bench. See Reply 34.

[yallerdawg]

49. You never know, right?

As long as it is not Hillary, the Supreme Court should be just fine!

[merrily]

51. That's far from what Reply 34 says. However, I think I am far likelier to be

comfortable with Sanders nominating Justices than I am with any New Democrat nominating them. We're already seeing Breyer and Kagan siding with Republican Justices on parts of ACA, of all things. So.....

[stupidicus]

24. which is one of the reasons 3rdway types are resented so

naked exploitation of having nowhere else to go but to their rightwingnut cousins

that this is the primary reason so many make the lesser of two evils choice is a bit obvious, eh?

sure it is

[MineralMan]

26. That really doesn't make a lot of sense,

stupidicus. Sorry.

[stupidicus]

31. that's not my fault

the transmitter is fine

the reciever obviously needs some work

as one who's long used the SCOTUS appointments as the determining factor (as do many) in the lesser of two evils choice we non-3rdway types are compelled to make, your effort here either signifies your obliviousness to or apathy over our having to make that choice

and it's almost like you think this is a bit of trail blazing or something, a new thing that had never occurred to us lessers...

what would we do without you eh

[MineralMan]

33. "what would we do without you eh"

Fortunately, you won't have to deal with that question. I'll be here, I promise.

[merrily]

38. Actually, it makes much more sense than your OP.

[whereisjustice]

28. Bullshit Corporate Threats, "vote for Hillary or the Supreme Court gets it...".

Corporate Democrats front a toxic, corporate-conservative, job killing, Wall Street front person and then they tell us that if we don't vote for them, the supreme court gets it.

Just fucking disgusting.

Republicans are trying to keep people away from the polls.

And by fronting such a transparently corporate controlled candidate, so are Democrats.

Maybe it's time to start calling this shit what it is and fight back.

And on matters of economic justice, we have no reason to believe Hillary would appoint anything other than a Wall Street shill who agrees with her "Wall Street First" political history.

[MineralMan]

30. I see. Well...

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

[stupidicus]

35. but but that makes no SENSE!!!!!

to the 3rdway types

they simply can't grasp the many and varied reasons why they are increasingly loathed/despised, even the one with the very largest and long/wide-reaching ramifications like the SCOTUS appointments

[merrily]

36. +1. Please see Reply 34.

[MissDeeds]

53. Well said

I am no more comfortable with Hillary's Supreme Court appointment than I am with her as president.

[SCantiGOP]

29. I have been "SCOTUS" voting

In every Presidential election since Robert Bork. Especially critical we keep the White House this time.

[MineralMan]

32. Thanks!

[merrily]

34. Terrorist politicking is what I call that tactic.

Given that Cass Sunstein has been my personal nightmare for the last several years, the SCOTUS card works less well on me that it used to.

The first half of the SCOTUS opinion on ACA has been widely mischaracterized as liberal. It is, but only if you think using the federal taxing power to force you to buy stuff from private parties is a liberal concept.

LIASSON: And, you know, there's another factor here, which is the business community. And we have seen in so many cases, whether it's laws about gay marriage, whether it's the Confederate flag, when the business community weighs in on something, it is a big thumb on the scale of Republican thinking and conservative thinking. And the business community, the health care industry, the health insurance industry, did not want this law unraveled.
TOTENBERG: And all of the big conservative business groups that were joined in the initial attack on Obamacare were not there this time. The chamber of commerce was not there. It was on the sidelines.

http://www.npr.org/2015/06/25/417435290/breaking-down-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-obamacare-subsidies


The second half of the ACA opinion has been widely ignored. The second half of that decision just about turned the first half of the same decision on its head by holding that the federal government could not use its spending power to "persuade" states to expand Medicaid.

The biggest loss in the ruling was to Medicaid, and it has mostly slipped under the radar but will greatly effect America’s poorest 7%.

http://obamacarefacts.com/supreme-court-obamacare/

In my view, both halves of that opinion were a conservative wet dream, even though the result was good--meaning that having more people covered by health insurance is a good result. However, the precedents set to reach that result were, in my opinion, horrific for Americans in general. Among those joining Roberts in the second half of his opinion were Justice Breyer, a corporatist appointee of Clinton and, to my surprise, Justice Kagan, a relatively conservative nominee of President Obama. I don't often pray, but, when I do, it's for the health and stamina of Justice Ginsburg because I fear what will happen to coalition of Democratic-nominated Justices when she is no longer there.

Two of the most liberal Justices who ever sat on that Court were Justice Warren, a former California AG (implemented the Japanese internment program and ran for Republican VP), a nominee of Eisenhower and Justice John Paul Stevens (genuflects), a nominee of Ford. Currently helping sanity hold a line from time to time against the fake channeling of the Founders by seance medium huckster Tony Scalia is Justice Kennedy, a Roman Catholic and a nominee of Reagan.

So, yeah, SCOTUS POTUS doesn't do it for me.

[MineralMan]

37. OK. Call it what you like.

I disagree with your assessment.

[MBS]

61. " " " "

plus, the Republican presidents cited in #34 - Eisenhower, Ford (OK, Reagan is maybe an exception, since his election marked the rise of the ultra-conservative Republican party, and the onset of the general rightward march of the country, alas) - were much more moderate than the current crop of Republican candidates, as was the Senate at the time (if memory serves, there was a Dem majority in the Senate for at least part of their respective administrations, too)..

The combination of a far-right President (all of the current Republican candidates are far right- though some present a more superficially acceptable social veneer than others, which actually makes them even more dangerous) combined with a combative and far-right majority in the Senate, is basically a nightmare for the judicial system, as well as everything else. If you think that any of those Republican presidential candidates would break character and nominate reasonable judges, well, it's just not happening. Although I am not a huge fan of HRC, one thing I do have absolute confidence in: that she would nominate very good SCOTUS candidates

Ah, and also don't forget the OTHER federal judges.
This is why we have to work very hard to retake the Senate and to keep the White House.

Plus merrily does not emphasize enough the vital importance of the four reliable liberals currently on the bench (Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan): ALL of them appointed by Democratic presidents.

[MineralMan]

64. Thanks. I tend to agree with you.

[merrily]

78. At least you supported your post with something, so kudos for that. However, I must disagree with

this statement:

Plus merrily does not emphasize enough the vital importance of the four reliable liberals currently on the bench (Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan)

All four of those Justices are NOT liberal. Breyer is not and neither is Kagan. My post covered their ACA betrayal quite accurately. Sotomayor has been pleasantly surprising me time and again, which is more consistent with her time on the bench than with her corporate leanings in the private sector. Then again, that's where legal jobs tend to be, so I understand the dichotomy. And I stressed that I practically worship Ginsburg.

[merrily]

73. I did call it what I like and saying "I disagree" without more does not impress me much.

I laid out my facts and reasoning. You OP contained neither. Your Reply 37 does neither as well.

[MineralMan]

75. Frankly, my goal here on DU is not to "impress" you.

Such a thing would never enter my mind. I simply posted my opinion.

[merrily]

79. Since you've succeeded in not impressing me by not providing facts or analysis, I guess you've

fulfilled your goal. BTW, we all post our opinions. Some of us support them, some of us don't. Some of us are also more honest about that than others.

[George II]

68. You'd prefer that Donald Trump appoint the next few Supreme Court Justices since....

...your analysis seems to say that the more "liberal" justices were appointed by republicans and the more "conservative" justices were appointed by Democrats.

I can't say I'm surprised.

[merrily]

72. It's so flattering to me when you have to twist my post that much to put a hole in it. Thanks!

[MaggieD]

70. Huh? Your argument makes no sense to me

THIS is your reason you don't care if a Democrat is elected so that we can get a liberal majority USSC?

So women's reproductive rights are meaningless? LGBT rights are meaningless? Overturning CU us not important? Racial gerrymandering and voter rights are not important?

Unbelievable.

[merrily]

74. If you agreed with me, I'd feel honor bound to triple check my facts.

See also Reply 72.

[MaggieD]

81. I don't care if we agree - I'm just here to point out....

The absolute folly of your argument. Your reasoning is mind bogglingly bad. IMO.

[merrily]

83. LOL! If my reasoning were so bad, neither you nor George would have to work so hard to pretend I

posted something other than what I actually did post.

Just to show the vastness of my holiday spirit this week, I'll give you some great advice: Never bet big in a pro poker game, MaggieD. You have way too many tells.

[MaggieD]

86. Wrong again

Nobody is pretending anything. You are simply failing to understand the folly of your conclusions. It's as simple as that.

Call Ralph Nader. I'm sure he will agree with you.

[merrily]

87. Soooo very ungrateful and it's only the morning after Thanksgiving, too! nt

[MaggieD]

89. Don't deflect

This has everything to do with a foolish argument and nothing whatsoever to do with a holiday.

[merrily]

92. Deflect from what now? Isn't your having even a small point a precondition for my deflection?

Here's another piece of free advice: Spewing baseless personal insults at me in a fruitless attempt to make yourself seem to have a point doesn't amount to a subject from which I or anyone needs to deflect.

My refusal to dignify your flailing today by refusing to engage with you at that level is not deflection. It is merely a comment on how low I do or do not wish to go this fine morning. Enjoy your own bile. You'll not get any of mine today. Not being stingy. It's just that you seem to have enough of your own.

[NurseJackie]

85. Many feel obligated to reject anything that does not comport to their idea of perfection.

They're on a fool's errand, guided only by a cult-like fervor of raw emotion. (Note to Jury: "cult-like fervor" refers to the single-minded narrow-focus emotionally-driven behavior that prevents rational observation and realistic understanding of the political panorama. It does not imply that Bernie is a cult-leader or that his fans are cultists.)

The perfection they seek cannot be achieved, and the "well, then I-give-up, just kill-me-now" type of defeatism suggests to me a weakness of spirit and perpetual victimhood. It's how many of them deal with an extremely emotional situation and it provides them with a comforting illusion that they have regained control.

I'm willing to "settle" for a more perfect union, because, by definition "more perfect" is closer to "perfect", and if you think about it*, it's infinitely better than giving up and pissing in the punchbowl simply because the temperature wasn't perfect.




*Emotionally-driven people appear to not do this very well.

[MaggieD]

88. I agree - but rarely have I heard such a foolish reason

.... For convincing oneself that it's fine to let a rethug be elected if Hillary is the nominee. Mind bogglingly foolish, IMO.

[7962]

93. I think ginsberg will retire after a Democrat win in '16.

If the GOP won, which is unlikely to me, I'm sure she would stay. But I dont know how long she could hang in there

[merrily]

94. If she were going to retire after a Dem win in 2016, I think she would have done so by now, giving

Obama a chance to replace her. She would not take even a small chance on the 2016 election.

I think she loves her job and will stay in it as long as she thinks she's able to perform it. I also think she understands very well that she is keeping that foursome yoked together (most of the time) right now in a way no one but her is able to manage.

Of course, we could both be wrong, but that is my take on one of my flesh and blood idols (certainly she does not have much flesh. I so hope she has plenty of good blood.)

[7962]

99. Thats very true. And i guess its too late in the term to do it now.

I think she must be pretty confident in a democrat win next year or maybe she would have already retired!

[merrily]

112. Or, it may be that she views this as serving for life, just as the Constitution specifies.

And, as I said, I think she loves her job. Supposedly, she and Scalia have a great relationship. If that is so, she can make the best of anything.

[7962]

121. I remember when Congress used to be like that.

Fight like dogs in the chamber, but go out to dinner afterwards. Which is what i always thought separated us from so many other countries where they actually try to KILL the opposition, not just the bill!

[merrily]

123. Now, they only pretend to fight in the chamber and they don't go out to dinner afterward.

Maybe there's a correlation there somewhere.

I have also noticed that blatant public demonization and disrespect has increased markedly. Seems as though they closer their ideology gets, the more they have to pretend it's very different. Meanwhile, voters of all stripes are getting royally scrod--and I don't mean Massachusetts's emblematic fish.

[7962]

124. Ha!

[NurseJackie]

47. I'm having trouble recalling a time when NOT voting proved to be SUCCESSFUL…

… in getting the non-voter's preferred candidate into office.

It seems to me that this (non) tactic is a very empty and impotent way of protesting. Kind of a "lazy-man's" political activism. Well, even "activism" isn't the correct word ... "passive-ism" perhaps?

At first glance, it would be easy for me to imagine such passionate individuals as being the ones who were most likely (not least likely) to understand how not voting does nothing to advance (or protect) the things that they obviously hold so dear.

It seems to be a bit self-destructive and reminds me of a little bit of this behavior as a way of handling stress, disappointment and feeling out of control.

Sad. But what can ya do?

I suppose that the best solution is that reasonable people will just have to work harder to take up the slack. That's my plan.

The only "or-bust" mantra that works for me begins with the word "Democrats".

[MineralMan]

54. Yup. I agree.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

55. Be afraid! Be VERY AFRAID!!

Bernie has AT LEAST as good a chance to defeat any republican as Hillary does. Most polls I've seen show him doing better. I think Bernie's nominees will be much better for the country. So keep using the republican fear card. No one is buying it that isn't a Hillary Hypnotee.

[katsy]

58. When I read your subject line...

I thought "brilliant!"

Before I read your thread I thought you were suggesting next prez nominate Obama for scotus!



Yes, I agree. It's critical to keep scotus from decay.

[MineralMan]

60. President Obama would make a fine SCOTUS justice,

but I doubt he will be named as one. I suspect he plans a career as an elder statesman. I don't know that he'd accept a nomination for SCOTUS justice. I have no way of knowing, though.

[NurseJackie]

62. Brilliant indeed! What a fascinating idea!

I can't think of any constitutional reason that would prevent it. (But it's unlikely that FLOTUS would allow a POTUS SCOTUS.)

[katsy]

76. Maybe then a flotus scotus?

I know I know. Just post holiday silliness but potus scotus would be fascinating.

[7962]

96. Nothing legal preventing it.

And nothing legal even says you have to be a judge or even a lawyer.
But these days, I doubt he could get confirmed with only a tiny bit of legal experience under his belt

[NurseJackie]

102. And nobody likes scholars.

[antigop]

66. Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn't seem to be worried. nt

[Hekate]

77. Kick, and good luck

[rhett o rick]

80. Choosing the SCOTUS is important but so is feeding the 50 million Americans currently living

in poverty. Their numbers will continue to grow if we elect a president that is beholden to big corporations that don't give a crap about poverty. In fact they view poverty as inversely proportional to their gain in wealth. We must vote for a progressive candidate that will work to reestablish our broken democracy and government. We are headed in a bad direction and we need more help that just a favorable SCOTUS. The status is killing the 99%, in some cases for real. We must fight for our freedoms and liberties.

[yallerdawg]

84. You are exactly right!

It is just like Senator Sanders (I-VT) said:

"Yes, we do agree on a number of issues, and by the way, on her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and President than the Republican candidate on his best day."

We can't allow another Republican presidency based on not voting for our Democratic nominee! Whoever it is!

[NurseJackie]

100. Quixotic.

[rhett o rick]

133. Sad that you rationalize the acceptance of 50 million Americans in poverty. I guess that's what one

does when they support the 1%.

[NurseJackie]

135. That was a comment on the rational likelihood of success ...

... not the worthiness of the idealistic goal. What's sad is that in the impossible quest for perfection less is actually accomplished. If you're gonna fail, might as well fail big, eh?

[rhett o rick]

136. Where would we be today if our founders had that attitude. The fight for freedom is going to be

tough, but that's not a reason to settle for more of the same. Your rationalization has been killing the 99% for 40 years. It's time to stand and fight. Fight for the 16 million children living in poverty. Vote for Goldman-Sachs and you are abandoning those of us less fortunate. Goldman-Sachs doesn't love you.

[NurseJackie]

137. My world view is panoramic and three dimensional...

... and not clouded by anger. Do as you will.

[MineralMan]

109. It is not a zero sum thing in any way.

I'm disappointed that you seem to think it is.

[rhett o rick]

132. I am disappointed that you think that mentioning your disappointment would have any

effect on me. In many ways wealth is zero sum. All of the wealth of Baine Capital, for example, was stolen from others. The didn't manufacture any of it. Banks made hundreds of millions off the repossession of people's homes. In the last 40 years wealth has been transferred from the 99% to the 1%. And once again you are defending the 1%.

[MisterP]

90. the Dem faction that gave us Thomas has no business lecturing us about SCOTUS, not since 1991

[TryLogic]

97. That's a potent zinger!

I suggest control of the congress, both houses with two-thirds reliable progressives, is more important than the Supreme Court, if we had to choose between them -- because congress deals with many more issues. I also suggest that Bernie will turn out more Dem voters, thus having stronger coat tales and increasing the chances of more good Dems in congress.

[MisterP]

122. this same faction interferes in primaries even when the challenger's ahead, endorsed a third party

(CT 2006), and was relieved when they lost the Supermajority because the pressure to pass laws was over and the could go back to cashing their checks and blaming the voters for giving them Republican opponents

as if this weren't enough, they constantly lecture everyone else on how Tinkerbell's dying because we're not clapping hard enough: this has generated a lot of bad blood that's coming to the surface with a strong voice for everyone to the left of Francisco Franco pulling ahead

[restorefreedom]

101. our safety net is the senate

if we get it back, no matter who is in the wh, the senate will not confirm a rw loon. if the gop wants to play obstructionist games, wait till they nominate a tea party idiot to be scotus

[MineralMan]

105. All the more reason to GOTV.

Neither of my Senators will be on the ballot in 2016. Every House member will be, though. We can gain some ground there if we turn out Democrats in massive numbers. There's always a reason to GOTV. Always.

[restorefreedom]

108. most definitely. many people are focused on presidency,

but there are SO many crucial races that in some districts, could be more important than the wh. seats will be critical else big trouble awaits.

[pinebox]

115. SCOTUS is important & I'm not interested in supporting pro-Citizen United stances

and that is what we'd get with Hillary, judges who are for Citizens United and won't overturn campaign finance laws.
No thank you.

[MineralMan]

116. Hillary Clinton has stated that opposition to CU would be

a requirement for any SCOTUS justices she appointed. She is very clear about that. Look it up:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/14/hillary_clinton_says_she_d_want_to_overturn_citizens_united_her_super_pac.html

[pinebox]

118. She's "clear"about a lot of things

Like calling people "illegal". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-vows-to-stop-calling-undocumented-immigrants-illegal_5654ad25e4b0879a5b0ca7f9
She was very clear in her book calling the TPP the "gold standard" more than 40 times too.

Nope.

[MineralMan]

119. Yes, she is. I'm done with this subthread.

[pinebox]

120. Have fun! :)

[kristopher]

128. Here is to Chief Justice Obama. nt

[Ken Burch]

134. OK. I agree on that much. n/t.

[Motown_Johnny]

138. Hocus Pocus: by Focus...

While I agree that 2016 is important, I also believe that 2020 is even more important. I have a real problem with nominating a neo-liberal that may turn out to be such an unpopular President that we get killed in 2020.

That is our next best chance to undo some of the damage the gerrymandering of 2010 has done. If we screw up 2020 then 2030 will be an off year election where the (R)s traditionally have the advantage. We will need to wait until 2040 to have the same opportunity that we will have in 2020. At my age, I could very well be dead by then. I really do not want to live the rest of my life under a House controlled by (R)s simply because we chose the wrong nominee in 2016.