Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

still_one

(91,937 posts)
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 01:58 PM Jun 2016

We have one Supreme Court nominee that will be determined by the next President, and very likely

another their one will retire with the next President

There is no excuse for not voting Democratic for the next president for anyone who considers themselves a Democrat, liberal, or progressive

Supreme Court appointments are for decades. This applies to every race, from the President, Senate, to House

61 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
We have one Supreme Court nominee that will be determined by the next President, and very likely (Original Post) still_one Jun 2016 OP
It's a chance to totally change brer cat Jun 2016 #1
You're right. Wow still_one Jun 2016 #3
an opportunity to redefine the court and our country etherealtruth Jun 2016 #25
All D's HAVE to come together on this one HUGE issue........ a kennedy Jun 2016 #2
It really is so important still_one Jun 2016 #4
Then how about holding out an olive branch? passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #34
You're right still_one Jun 2016 #36
Queston ... What "olive branch" do you seek ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2016 #52
Have you been reading posts in GDP? passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #53
No ... I've avoided GDP since about April 20th ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2016 #55
"Hurt feelings" implies the targets are just overly-sensitive, poor babies. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #57
No ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2016 #59
"I am experiencing"? truebluegreen Jun 2016 #60
GDP is a cess pool that is best avoided. nt awoke_in_2003 Jun 2016 #61
Yes. After years of conservative courts, it's time for some balance with a more liberal court. Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2016 #23
Sorry, but screw balance, I want domination of liberal AND PROGRESSIVE Judges. a kennedy Jun 2016 #44
. Thor_MN Jun 2016 #26
this works only with a candidate who hasn't funded their entire campaign off of Citizens United MisterP Jun 2016 #5
You are correct. Nothing will change with the current economic set-up. jalan48 Jun 2016 #6
IMO, that is an inexcusably irresponsible statement. Hortensis Jun 2016 #28
I'm sure she will. jalan48 Jun 2016 #29
I have a hard time believing her. 840high Jun 2016 #45
Ok. Hortensis Jun 2016 #48
I don't know of any candidate that has funded their entire campaign off of Citizens United. George II Jun 2016 #7
Yes. How many candidates do we know who Hortensis Jun 2016 #30
Reminder. Citizens United was an attack on Hillary! yallerdawg Jun 2016 #11
Thanks. Yes, facts are important still_one Jun 2016 #13
The Candidate who says this? edhopper Jun 2016 #15
You might want to do some research on Citizens United. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #24
So it's already full-bore "But The Supreme Court!!" time?? dirtydickcheney Jun 2016 #8
That's a pretty big deal oberliner Jun 2016 #10
So I should vote for someone I feel is truly deceptive then? dirtydickcheney Jun 2016 #12
That's up to you oberliner Jun 2016 #16
The election will be a choice between Trump and Clinton. Would you prefer Trump's nominee(s)? George II Jun 2016 #31
Depends.... dirtydickcheney Jun 2016 #58
Bill Clinton selected Ruth Bader Ginsburg. woolldog Jun 2016 #50
That is scary. Decades we are talking about still_one Jun 2016 #14
Not my biggest deal - I'm 840high Jun 2016 #46
I think Trump is much more likely to get us into wars oberliner Jun 2016 #47
It is always a key issue, not just now. L. Coyote Jun 2016 #27
Supreme Court justices are an issue, but "just not now"? George II Jun 2016 #32
Not sure what you are saying. Supreme Court is an important issue at all times, of course. L. Coyote Jun 2016 #41
It's more important of an issue now woolldog Jun 2016 #51
She's not who I primaried for, but she is a hell of a lot better than Trump, dirtydick ohnoyoudidnt Jun 2016 #49
I think Democrats will get out and vote Andy823 Jun 2016 #9
Any action on the current nominee? seabeckind Jun 2016 #17
Nope, republicans in the Senate said they won't allow it. Another reason why a Senate majority is a still_one Jun 2016 #21
Didn't I say spare me the obstructionist bs? seabeckind Jun 2016 #37
Yes yes still_one Jun 2016 #38
Oh hel, violated Poe's Law. My bad. n/t seabeckind Jun 2016 #39
I didn't know, and I was just answering both questions still_one Jun 2016 #40
So republicans are blocking the nomination and it's Democrat(s) who are in the way? George II Jun 2016 #42
Needs a picture seabeckind Jun 2016 #43
The dems should do whatever they can awoke_in_2003 Jun 2016 #18
It is seriously pissing me off that Obama can't pick Scalia's replacement. Initech Jun 2016 #19
I agree still_one Jun 2016 #22
The more things change, the more they stay the same davidn3600 Jun 2016 #20
Yeah, but I want a litmus test nikto Jun 2016 #33
I'll be working hard on down ticket races. TDale313 Jun 2016 #35
heard the same thing in 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 2k, 2k4, & 2k8 krawhitham Jun 2016 #54
No it isn't the same thing. We have one appointment hanging right now, and the republicans said still_one Jun 2016 #56

a kennedy

(29,458 posts)
2. All D's HAVE to come together on this one HUGE issue........
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 02:43 PM
Jun 2016

no ands, ifs, or buts about it. Isn't there a Democratic symbol smilie??. Need one. JMo

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
34. Then how about holding out an olive branch?
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 05:17 PM
Jun 2016

You need us, so why not act like it? (not you specifically)

Yes, I'm voting for the Dem, no matter what, but maybe you should try some kinder outreach to the ones who say they aren't?

The hate is still going strong in GDP...a place I'm not wasting any more time in.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
52. Queston ... What "olive branch" do you seek ...
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 10:00 PM
Jun 2016

to NOT enable what you admit would be tragic? That makes no sense.

What good will winning the fight for universal, single-payer healthcare, a $15.00 minimum wage, free college, money out of politics, and Wall-street brought under control, when a republican appointed justice swings the court to declare each of them unconstitutional?

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
53. Have you been reading posts in GDP?
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 10:10 PM
Jun 2016

If you haven't, maybe you haven't seen it. The hate and bitterness being dished out to Bernie supporters. How do you expect to win them to your side with attitudes like that?

It's one thing to be a sore loser...but to be a sore winner, is not a winning strategy for the long haul.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
55. No ... I've avoided GDP since about April 20th ...
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 10:27 PM
Jun 2016

but from what I gather, this is all about hurt feelings ... which is bullshit. Period.

 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
57. "Hurt feelings" implies the targets are just overly-sensitive, poor babies.
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 11:13 PM
Jun 2016

I guarantee you that description does not apply to me and I am appalled by the meanness exhibited by far too many Hillary supporters. If I have the misfortune to stumble into the Hillary forum, via latest trends or similar, it really is disgusting.

Maybe you should pull your head out of the sand: you and your candidate will not win without Bernie's voters. No matter how weak an opponent Trump is, we all know the vast majority of Republicans will vote for him anyway. Party/tribe over all, including country, is their creed.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
59. No ...
Sun Jun 19, 2016, 08:57 AM
Jun 2016

Having one's feelings hurt isn't about being overly-sensitive, or immaturity ... it has to do with seeing an investment, emotional or otherwise, not pay off.

Maybe you should pull your head out of the sand: you and your candidate will not win without Bernie's voters.


And, stuff has nothing to do with having head in the sand; but rather, you are feeling the flip side of what DUers that did not support Sanders enthusiastically enough, experienced ... but more, you are experiencing what happens when people take you for your word ... when you tell people how absolutely disgusted you are with the not mine candidate and how there is no way on god's good green earth you would even consider lowering yourself to vote for the vile not mine candidate ... people will sooner or later believe you.
 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
60. "I am experiencing"?
Sun Jun 19, 2016, 10:44 AM
Jun 2016

"lowering myself to vote for the vile not-mine candidate"?

You are assuming I am a Bernie-or-Buster, that I feel this loss deeply, that I actually care.

I don't, on several levels. I no longer live in the US. I find the atmosphere toxic and I am lucky enough not to have to return. Obama gave me much hope but proved to be a disappointment in his appointments and policies, even before the insane opposition ramped up. Bernie was also a ray of hope, even though I recognized him as an extreme long-shot, and late to the party/Party. I say that because I think it is much too late to try to repair our (your) political system, and outside realities are coming to bear that threaten our entire planet, let alone the US.

A Republic, if we could keep it...in my view we didn't. The selection of Bush in 2000; the oddly-inaccurate exit polls in 2004; un-counted, un-countable and unaccountable votes; voter suppression laws....the facts become more obvious by the day. We've lost this battle, nationally, globally, and will go on to lose the climate battle as well (already have: the target set by the Paris accords has already been reached). That's really game over.

So why do I bother reading and commenting on a political forum? I don't know, habit I guess, pretty much broken now. There's still some interesting stories and news here, but wading through the crap is increasingly difficult. You bailed on GD-P in April; I trashed it the day it opened.

Anyway. I wish you joy in your candidate and I hope you win, although if the Rs dump Trump it will become more difficult and you may wish your cohorts had been kinder, justified or not. And before you again complain that Bernie's supporters are just as bad, or worse, do recall what our parents taught us, about 2 wrongs not making right. Good luck.

a kennedy

(29,458 posts)
44. Sorry, but screw balance, I want domination of liberal AND PROGRESSIVE Judges.
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 08:09 PM
Jun 2016

Total Domination........ like that would EVER happen. I'll be happy with a huge swing left.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
28. IMO, that is an inexcusably irresponsible statement.
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 05:04 PM
Jun 2016

Hillary has said many times that she will do her best to get Citizens United repealed, exactly as Sanders has. She has said, exactly as Sanders has, that she will appoint justices who oppose the legal reasoning on which CU and similar laws are based.

She has said that if the composition of the Supreme Court she is faced with won't do that, she, exactly as Sanders has, would endorse a constitutional amendment making it unconstitutional.

Hillary has also called for public funding of U.S. House and Senate candidacies

Btw, did you know that for 6 years the Republican-controlled Congress has refused to pass legislation to fulfill a section of CU that requires immediate disclosure of corporate political spending? While possibly waiting for the SCOTUS majority she needs, she wants to do something about this too.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
30. Yes. How many candidates do we know who
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 05:07 PM
Jun 2016

have run for president since 2010 anyway? CU and subsequent laws created Super-PACs and increased the cost to elect a president to the better part of a billion dollars. Can't repeal if you can't get into office.

What Sanders and his supporters did was wonderful, but he would not have been running a viable GE campaign on $27 donations. If he had won and tried, the GOP leadership would have wept with joy and relief. But he wouldn't have.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
11. Reminder. Citizens United was an attack on Hillary!
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 03:29 PM
Jun 2016

Separating fact from fantasy...

From wiki:

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that...BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".

edhopper

(33,164 posts)
15. The Candidate who says this?
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 03:39 PM
Jun 2016
And let’s remember, Citizens United, one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in our country’s history, was actually a case about a right-wing attack on me and my campaign. A right-wing organization took aim at me and ended up damaging our entire democracy. So, yes, you're not going to find anybody more committed to aggressive campaign finance reform than me.

TwilightZone

(25,342 posts)
24. You might want to do some research on Citizens United.
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 04:49 PM
Jun 2016

Specifically, what it was about and who the target was.

 

dirtydickcheney

(242 posts)
8. So it's already full-bore "But The Supreme Court!!" time??
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 03:20 PM
Jun 2016

"Forget about any nominees relationship w Big Money and poor decisions, THE SUPREME COURT! !!!"

Suddenly it's all that matters

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
10. That's a pretty big deal
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 03:22 PM
Jun 2016

Having the Republicans nominate the next few justices would really change America for a long time to come.

 

dirtydickcheney

(242 posts)
12. So I should vote for someone I feel is truly deceptive then?
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 03:31 PM
Jun 2016

I'm not so comfortable with someone thay aligns themselves with right-wing operatives like David Brock and receives a ton of super-pac money though.

Plus, any nominees is likely to be some pro-corporate judge who is a moderate on civil issues.

Is anyone expecting Louis Brandeis as nominee from this person?

 

dirtydickcheney

(242 posts)
58. Depends....
Sun Jun 19, 2016, 12:59 AM
Jun 2016

I don't know trumps nominee any more than I know Clintons nominee.

Everything i see from both I expect to be poor. If either nomination is Edwin chemerinsky I will eat my words.

And in all honesty, I don't know what to expect from Trump , he has more upside and downside than HRC

I do expect a ton of right-wing ideology from clinton. Unfortunately, that I'm pretty certain of.

 

woolldog

(8,791 posts)
50. Bill Clinton selected Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 09:36 PM
Jun 2016

Who has been a liberal stalwart for a long time on the Court. I suppose you'd prefer Trump's nominee? Quit the pontificating and wake up to what's at stake in this election.

 

840high

(17,196 posts)
46. Not my biggest deal - I'm
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 08:59 PM
Jun 2016

more worried about wars that Hillary will get us into. I'm worried about affording college, health care, veteran care, elder care and jobs being outsourced.
 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
47. I think Trump is much more likely to get us into wars
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 09:01 PM
Jun 2016

The thought of him as President of the United States is terrifying in that regard.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
27. It is always a key issue, not just now.
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 04:55 PM
Jun 2016

And other issues matter. People can handle discussing one issue and caring about more than one. Why soo much histrionics?

George II

(67,782 posts)
32. Supreme Court justices are an issue, but "just not now"?
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 05:15 PM
Jun 2016

We already have one opening. There are probably two who will be resigning in the next couple of years. Do you want to wait until those justices that will resign after Trump's two or three nominees are confirmed?

"Just now now"???

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
41. Not sure what you are saying. Supreme Court is an important issue at all times, of course.
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 07:19 PM
Jun 2016

Kinda premature to talk Trump nominees, don't you think. At least wait for a nomination. Possible Republican nominees works, but i like impossible better.

 

woolldog

(8,791 posts)
51. It's more important of an issue now
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 09:37 PM
Jun 2016

given that there is one immediate vacancy on the Court now and likely two others in the new President's first term. I can't remember that ever happening before, do you?

Andy823

(11,495 posts)
9. I think Democrats will get out and vote
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 03:21 PM
Jun 2016

Some may have fallen for the right wing BS during the primaries, but not that many. Those who continue to tell us here on DU how they will "NEVER" vote for Hillary, in most cases never voted for a Democrat in their life, and never will. They had one goal here, to divide the board and get as many Democrats here as they could to NOT vote in November. Here on DU we have had a group of posters who since day one of president Obama's time in office, have done nothing but trash and bash him, along with the Democratic party, and any politician that didn't agree with their "unique" way of seeing things.

There are a lot of reasons to vote for the Democratic nominee, but the Supreme Court nominations are number one, in my opinion. This is a once in a lifetime chance to actually make a difference on the SC, and to get a majority of more liberal judges than what we have had in the past. The only people who would NOT vote in order to secure this would NOT be real Democrats, Liberals, or Progressives.

The right wind is trying to do everything they can to sucker Democrats into buying into their BS and to encourage them to stay home. We can't let that happen. There is way to much at stake. Those who want to keep Bernie's revolution going should really stop and think about how far back Trump would push that movement. Maybe you don't like Hillary, but she would do more to keep things going down the road towards that goal than Trump would. Trump would take us back years from what president Obama has accomplished, and if you thought Bush did a terrible job, Trump would make what Bush did look like child's play.

Don't let the trolls fool you, not voting only helps the GOP and Trump.

seabeckind

(1,957 posts)
17. Any action on the current nominee?
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 04:14 PM
Jun 2016

Or is the senate keeping its powder dry waiting for a twofer?

Spare me the obstructionist bs. If something isn't moving, you can't be in its way.

George II

(67,782 posts)
42. So republicans are blocking the nomination and it's Democrat(s) who are in the way?
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 07:42 PM
Jun 2016

Hmmmmm. Very interesting.

 

awoke_in_2003

(34,582 posts)
18. The dems should do whatever they can
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 04:25 PM
Jun 2016

to shut down the Senate and force a vote for the president's nominee. He may not be the perfect choice, but the level of disrespect being shown by the republican senators is appalling.

on edit: It just irks my that the pukes said "we won't even consider an Obama nominee" and the dems basically said "oh, alright" after some low keyed complaining.

Initech

(99,909 posts)
19. It is seriously pissing me off that Obama can't pick Scalia's replacement.
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 04:30 PM
Jun 2016

The republicans have overstepped their boundaries on this one.

TDale313

(7,820 posts)
35. I'll be working hard on down ticket races.
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 05:27 PM
Jun 2016

I'm excited about Kamala Harris for Senate. There will be lots of issues on the ballot. Have a long time Democratic Congresswoman who I'll be happy to vote for.

That said- as a Sanders supporter in California- my vote for President? Purely symbolic. Hillary will get California's electoral votes. If my vote makes a difference, if she's in trouble here- she's already lost in a landslide.

That being the case, my vote is solely to send one of two messages:

1) She's better than Trump (she is)

Or

2) We deserve better than these two options (we do)

*Not advocating anyone vote third party. Just stating a sad reality for those of us in "safely blue" or "safely red" states. There's no running up the score with the electoral college and winner takes all. So all the "You must vote Hillary or else" talk- it'll be up to the swing staters to save us on this one.

still_one

(91,937 posts)
56. No it isn't the same thing. We have one appointment hanging right now, and the republicans said
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 11:09 PM
Jun 2016

they refuse a vote to occur under president Obama. That appointment is a replacement for Scalia

Scalia. This is not hypothetical, the next president will appoint Scalias replacement

Those that do not believe there is a difference between Democratic appointments verses republicans appointments, all they need to do is look at alito, Thomas, Roberts, and Scalia

That is a fact, and saying it doesn't matter is willful ignorance

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We have one Supreme Court...