2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFor those whom the SCOTUS is not a sufficient reason to vote for HRC in the GE
I have two questions.
1. When was the last time in our history that a justice appointed by a Republican was able to be replaced by a justice appointed by a Democrat?
2. How do you propose enacting progressive policy (such as removing money from politics), any time in the next few decades, without the replacement of a Republican-appointed justice by a Democratic-appointed justice?
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)HRC wants to keep Obama's Conservative Republican nominee, which was nothing more then an "Olive Branch" to the Republican controlled Senate.
Bernie is right, all appointments to the SCOTUS need to pass the litmus test of "Overturning Citizens United"
Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Thank you
Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)To raise our tax rate to 60% so we can be just like Denmark . Now he didn't actually say those words but he said something similar and the Media will beat us over the head with stuff like that
pinebox
(5,761 posts)The tax rate? You really want to go there? We can. Denmark is the happiest country in the world and also is constantly one of the best places in the world to live. We are not not nor have we ever been. People there don't struggle like we do and despite higher taxes, they also get 30-45 PAID vacation days a year. While you scream tax rate, it's technically cheaper because there is really no health care costs for consumers. Do you realize that people who work at McDonald's in Denmark are paid a living wage and also have a union?
Sorry but once the facts come out, people have a tendency to see the light.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)Make lots of noise but when November voting time hits and they have to go out where it's not a rally party it's just them all by themselves standing in a line in the cold waiting to vote , they dont. Or let's say then haven't.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)icecreamfan
(115 posts)The only reason Obama won was because voters under 45 aren't like the racist, sexist, wealthier majority of boomers and the voters under 45 voted for President Obama overwhelmingly. Look up the exit polls.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)of all people showed up.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Entire eligible population votes.
If under 30s made up about half the electoric, then the other half has a larger margin by which they didn't show up. The only age demo Hillary consistently wins is the 65 and over.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)of them.
But if you break it down by generation instead, millennials will make up the plurality of votes by generation in either 2016 or 2020 (ie they will overtake boomers soon).
Unless you can appeal to both Gen X and boomers or both boomers and silents in one go, politicians are going to have to start catering to millennials very, very soon.
Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)Because a tax rate of 60% would need an income of over $250k yr. For those of us who would be in the 39% area (which would include healthcare) it would be welcome.
If you make that kind of money, you and I live in vastly different worlds. You are unable to comprehend what is happening and why people are railing against the status quo.
And Bernie has been getting dragged, from the get go. When they did cover him it was to be dismissive, or ridicule him and call him crazy in a polite way. You think Trump got that "Crazy Bernie" all on his own?
moose65
(3,169 posts)of something Michael Moore said on Bill Maher's show a week or two ago. Sure, people in those Scandinavian countries pay taxes at a slightly higher rate than we do. But think of all the other things that we pay: health insurance premiums and extremely high deductibles and copayments that the Danish people don't have to worry about. We also pay sky-high prices for drugs and many of us are saddled with college loans that the Danes don't have to worry about. When all is said and done, we end up paying a LOT more than they do.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)Instant boot ...
amborin
(16,631 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)BzaDem
(11,142 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)maybe Poppy nominated him (since the guy they really wanted ended up on corruption charges)
but Biden made him a SCOTUS justice.
and Hillary hired Anita Hill's hitman.
that whole gag is so hollow.
vote for your interests, not some internet fearmongering.
why do you want to scare Democrats?
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)If a child doesn't play with matches due to fear of getting burned, is that a bad thing? All of this "don't scare people" is really saying "don't bring up true points that are inconvenient to my position."
reddread
(6,896 posts)and matches have nothing to do with it.
sorry if that question doesnt resonate.
true points?
if you insist.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)BootinUp
(47,209 posts)then I blame all the non-existent lefties who let Biden win for the Senate in the first place. No, I blame them for the whole D party Senate.
BootinUp
(47,209 posts)blm
(113,131 posts)And I have ZERO trust in anyone who claims that SCOTUS is NOT a compelling reason for them to vote for a Dem president. Fvck them and their deliberate ignorance.
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...then there's no reason to expect Hillary's choices to be any better in that area than Trump's. The SCOTUS argument for Hillary should begin and end with social issues, not economic ones.
840high
(17,196 posts)BzaDem
(11,142 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)maybe you should self delete and find the right forum?
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)HRC isn't a liberal/progressive with these 'questions' you pose
It's odd the flurry of posts with these 'which is worse' republican light or republican crazy....
That's the choice being offered... so just toss your DEM principles aside...
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Or because you will be able to say you are principled?
If the former, surely you have an answer to questions 1 and 2?
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)you're assuming that my principled stance disallows the option to 'want progressive policy to be enacted'
this is the meme pushed by HRC that she's the only DEM candidate that can 'get things done'... I disagree with that and your premise
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)(1) what bearing does that have on question #2?
(2) 'decades'? why not get the other branch DEM controlled with liberal/progressives that will legislate the change now?
You're focused on one branch, again you admit HRC isn't a liberal/progressive with these 'questions' you pose and badgering about getting a response to these same 'questions'
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Like all the campaign finance regulation, that (newsflash) was LEGISLATED, and then completely struck down by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision of Citizens United?
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)Congress can act much quicker than SCOTUS, it take political will to get politicians to do the bidding of an engaged public
I'm not waiting on HRC to do the 'right thing' she's too immersed within wall street and special interests, she'd act too slowly, I'll take this 'fight' to the congress and roll the dice there
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)You seem to be operating under a misunderstanding. I am not talking about having the SCOTUS actively pass policies, and comparing that to Congress. Courts don't actively pass policies. They rule on cases, some of which strike down legislation.
Congress could pass a bill banning corporate expenditures in elections tomorrow. Someone would go to court immediately, and get a stay, because that would clearly violate citizens united. Who cares about how quick a problem can be "solved" by Congress if their law is struck down?
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)If President Obama does not succeed in replacing Scalia, that is it. We will never have a Dem selection again. Never.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)In Ohio we got the same sad choice that does not look hopeful. We have districts that are so convoluted that a dem would be lucky to win. Chances are slim and hard to see.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Senators are elected statewide. Republicans are defending several seats they could only win in the 2010 midterm wave. There is a reasonably good chance we will take the Senate.
And frankly, if you actually want progressive policy enacted, it is a bit ridiculous to argue that the President doesn't matter if there is any chance of taking the Senate (since winning both is a prerequisite to a liberal USSC, and therefore any hope of progressive policy in the future).
peace13
(11,076 posts)He was already defeated once! We could actually have picked someone with a chance to succeed and help gain majority. As far as the SCOTUS goes. If the rules are followed the President can appoint a temporary judge at a minimum. In my opinion this should be done. The entire situation makes the President and the Dems look weak and totally inept.
My original point was that if we do not follow what the law directs the ability of the next president to implement the law as written becomes even more difficult. Sorry if I was not clear.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)isn't scarey.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Because I have been told by many millennial voters...how much do you think the USSC will matter once climate change enters, and it will current trends, the point of no return? Some in tje science community believe we already did by the way
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)One week before Scalia died, he was the 5th vote to stay all of the Obama administration's climate policies that are required by the Paris agreement. The stay will only expire after the Supreme Court decides the underlying issue next year. If Scalia is replaced by a like minded justice, it is game over for the climate.
That by no means is saying that the USSC is a SUFFICIENT condition to addressing the issue. But it is an absolutely necessary condition.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)given who is going to be elected. You think a neoliberal will appoint true liberal judges in the mold of the Warren court?
For the record, I do not expect Trump do to that either.
But I expect NEITHER to appoint people who will help in that account. As I said, the kids see this. They are quite bright. They do not think highly of either of them. And do not trump me. It ain't gonna work.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Because you are plainly wrong here. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Bill Clinton's appointees are not in the mold of the Warren court. Did any of them vote to suspend Obama's entire climate policy? For that matter, has any Democratic appointee ever?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Neoliberal policies are not pro regulations. Sorry charlie
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)It isn't me. I'm not the one arguing about "neoliberal policies" and other completely unrelated topics in a conversation about whose appointees are more likely to strike down progressive legislation as unconstitutional.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)actually...
Fully
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)sorry charlie
I know you probably do not know what that term means, but the revolt against that philosophy is ongoing, Americans will be the last ones to know though
peace13
(11,076 posts)....make the decision that leads to many good ones to follow. With Clinton there is the if and the hope. With Sanders the country is back on path. The better question is why would you vote for someone who will not get you where you want to be?
CrispyQ
(36,553 posts)A scare tactic to get you to vote for them.
I'm not confident that someone who came up with the Hillary Victory Fund & how to buy off superdelegates is going to overturn CU.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)If you actually care about Roe v. Wade (or Citizens United, or Bush v. Gore redux, or the EPA's clean power plan, or anything else where all Democratic appointees vote the same way and are outnumbered), then isn't it a GOOD thing to point out how not voting for HRC is throwing that all away? Why would you want to suppress that information?
More generally, if there is something to be feared, what could possibly the a problem with pointing that out? Obviously if you don't care about any of these things, you might not want the subject brought up. But if you actually do care about it, what is wrong with bringing it up?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but they are starting to lose their shine
CrispyQ
(36,553 posts)I'm not confident that someone who came up with the Hillary Victory Fund & how to buy off superdelegates is going to appoint the type of justice who will vote to overturn CU.
In other words, what Nadin said.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Because they already voted to overturn CU.
icecreamfan
(115 posts)Also, I'm not impressed with republican-lite Garland types Hillary is ok with appointing.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)The SCOTUS issue hasn't been this clear cut in decades.
icecreamfan
(115 posts)nichomachus
(12,754 posts)What in Hillary's past experience or current group of friends and advisers leads any sane person to believe she will appoint a progressive to the court?
Hillary takes advice from and praises war criminals, corporate fraudsters, neoliberal warmongers, and an assortment of shady characters. When she encounters a true progressive, she finds some way to put them down.
Frankly, I can't see the Crown Princess of Wall Street appointing anyone but corporatists to the court.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Given her past, the chances of her appointing progressives to the court is low. Given her unpopularity, even if she wins the GE, the repubs will control the Senate. She'll be boxed into selecting other conservaDems to the court. I could even see her offering up a "moderate" republican as an olive branch to the right.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayer, Elena Kagan, or Merrick Garland.
There is no reason to believe that she will have a different approach than Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.
Besides, where would she even get these judges from? Most of her nominees will come from Democrats on the lower court, all of whom have been placed there by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)already voted to overturn Citizens United.
To be clear, I don't agree with anything you said about Hillary. But even if I did, there is a huge practical difference between a judge and a politician. In terms of economic issues, Democratic appointees defer widely to government regulators. There is no history in the modern (last half century) democratic party of a Democrat appointing a justice who is anti-campaign-finance, anti-abortion, or anti-regulation.
There is no indication that Hillary would appoint people to the right of the justices that Bill appointed (which have been very liberal).
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)So it isn't at all unusual for that to happen. What is unusual is for the Republican-controlled Senate to refuse to even consider holding hearings on an appointee.
We need better judges on the Supreme Court to protect our rights and interpret the Constitution.
What we need to enact progressive policy is a House of Representatives controlled by Democrats.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)not only a liberal justice, but one who specifically waited to retire until a Democrat was elected President.
That is not very analogous to a conservative appointee leaving office under a Democrat, unless you believe that a conservative president will appoint liberal justices in the future.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)replaced by a liberal justice?"
I guess 1993 is the best answer, when Byron White, a JFK appointee, was replaced by Ruth Bader Ginsnsberg. White wasn't strictly conservative, but he was a supporter of Roe vs. Wade.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)They can't even go near it. They just stick their heads in the sand.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Ford appointed John Paul Stevens. Eisenhower appointed William Brennan. Harry Blackmun was appointed by Nixon.
Republican nominees aren't always bad, just usually. Certainly all three are more progressive than Obama's most recent appointee.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)replacing Stevens.
However, considering the entire Republican institutional appointment apparatus is set up to avoid another David Souter, I'm not sure we can stake all hopes of progressive policy on throwing the election to Trump in the hopes he will appoint another Souter (or Stevens, or Blackmun, or Brennan). They were all not only liberal justices, but they were sufficiently liberal that they timed their retirements under a Democratic president. Perhaps I should have used conservative and liberal (though I was trying to keep the question free of ambiguous terms).
The answer I was looking for was justice Byron White, who was appointed in 1962 by JFK (replacing Charles Whittaker, an Eisenhower appointee). You could also argue that because Byron White was more conservative on some issues, that Ginsburg's replacement of White should count. Though that again isn't super analogous, because White is well known to have deliberately waited until a Democrat to replace him (as he considered himself a Democrat, and did not fit neatly in the left-right divide).
So ultimately, even if you count Ginsburg replacing White, that happened 22 years ago. (White replacing Whittaker happened 54 years ago.) In other words, if you want to change the balance of the court by replacing a partisan Republican determined to wait until a Republican is in office to retire, you are talking about waiting decades. My overall point was that the idea that it furthers progressive policy in any way to pass up a once-in-several-decades opportunity is ludicrous.
But congratulations on being the first (out of many responses) to actually answer one of the questions.
LonePirate
(13,437 posts)If their insistence on purity is so strong that they are willing to overlook or ignore every other aspect of the race, then they are beyond hope. It's a waste of time and effort. Cut them loose and look elsewhere for support.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)1) in FDR and Truman times, because we didn't lose midterm elections back then. Which had something to do with the absence of Third Way and the absence of "Who else are ya gonna vote for you complacent millennial lusting for racist and sexist Berniebros?" and other DWS hits.
2) first and foremost: we can enact progressive policies by not nominating someone who has 70% of the voters to her left, has more friends on Wall Street than her hedge fund son-in-law, and is loathed by 57% of the voters, thus spelling downticket disaster in the GE. That way we'd have the senate votes to confirm an actual Democrat / progressive to the Supreme Court.