After Primaries Over, Two Words We Must Never Forget, "Supreme Court" ..... #1

[Stuart G]

This is a reminder. Not the first or the last. Do we want another Scalia or Thomas?

Or, do we want another Ginsberg?. .What is it going to be? We will decide and those around us will decide.

After Primaries Over, are we going to hate each other so much, that we will get more like Scalia? or Thomas?

or will we come together to make sure there is another young bright Ginsberg to fight the good fight, and overturn Citizens United ?

This has begun and will continue for 13 more months. Keep these two words in mind, when we start to hate each other for reasons which could destroy our chances 13 months from now.....SUPREME COURT...

Reminder number one, there will be many more..

[prairierose]

1. I wish could could recommend this more than once...

since I can't, here is a kick for this important idea.

[Stuart G]

3. This is far more important than I can say.. I heard this on Thom Hartmann this week.

Last edited Sat Oct 3, 2015, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)

discuss this a couple of days ago. My stomach turns over to think about a very young idiotic type of Scalia being appointed in 2019 by one of the clowns in the car. And it can happen very easily. The clowns are backed by more money than we can imagine. Their ads will be hate filled and full of anger and vicious lies like we have seen and will be discussing here in 12 months. It will be a very ugly campaign, and we must, yes, must be together..if we are going to have a decent chance of winning.

I am not downing or making less of the arguments and points made here, but these two words, Supreme Court, are perhaps more important ..thanks for reading this..

[sabrina 1]

28. It's the reason why I am working hard to make sure we get

a nominee who will never appoint anyone for the SC who will not overturn the horrific CU nor will ever allow anyone to be nominated who will not protect the rights of women.

I think of the SC every day and am glad to have a candidate who will make the best possible decisions regarding SC appointments.

[winter is coming]

2. Every time you chant "Supreme Court" as if it were a magic incantation,

what you're really saying is, "My candidate's so unappealing no one would support them on their own merits."

[Stuart G]

4. No, that is not it. Not endorsing any here. All of our candidates are better than any of theirs.

Any one of our candidates will be fine.. Yet, there must be a coming together later for the prize... Who appoints members to the court.

Clowns and their supporters will try to destroy whoever we select. We must not hurt ourselves with our infighting , so that they will easily beat us...

[Persondem]

5. Yes. This is extremely important. The president can influence the direction of

the country for at most 8 years. The next 3 SCOTUS appointments will influence the course of this country for a generation.

I will definitely vote for the Dem nominee next November. Any Dem candidate is far better than any member of the clown car.

K & R

[LWolf]

6. To be honest,

This is repeated so often, and often at weird times, and for less than sincere purposes, that it's begun to raise the hairs on the back of my neck.

It's not like I'm not fully aware of the importance of Supreme Court nominations. Actually, I was fully aware of that more than a dozen years ago before I ever looked at DU. How could I NOT be aware, after my almost 13 years here, is something I really can't wrap my head around.

Anyway, it is not the GE. This forum is for the Democratic primaries. All the candidates will, according to your own measure, do fine with supreme court nominees.

So "reminding" me again, and threatening me with further "reminders," feels just a bit disrespectful.

In case you didn't know.

[Stuart G]

7. I have thought about this. Here is what I think

Two other posts, one from Mineral Man, and another from Blue Wave Democrat present a similar idea. We must keep our eye on the ultimate prize next year. Whether it is the Supreme Court, or the power of making decisions like weather to fight to fund Planned Parenthood, or remove funding as puke president would, or appoint an Attorney General who will ultimately end the war on drugs, or one that will increase it...ultimately we must come together for a single purpose...

It is not disrespectful to remind everyone very often, even in this primary discussion format, of what the end game is...

Note: 3 posts of 55 on one page is not overwhelming ..Look at some of the rest of posts that are rough and uneasy..I would never want to be disrespectful of a safe place where I can post what I consider the truth. And yes I might post the same idea again in a few days. It may not be here, but in another forum, and I will be back here after a while.. I think that is ok...

[oasis]

8. Continue to post what you believe to be important.

As many times as you think necessary.

You can influence more real Democrats here by posting common sense than by sitting on the sidelines and bowing to the voices of nonsense.

[LWolf]

25. You may not intend it,

but to repeatedly remind people of what they already know is to treat them like impulsive adolescents who can't manage to think and act for themselves or be trusted to remember the obvious.

It's disrespectful. No matter who is doing it.

The end game of the primary season is a nomination. Once that nomination is made, THEN the end game is the general election.

Again...are you suggesting that some of the current crop of primary candidates, if nominated and elected, will not make appropriate Supreme Court nominations? Because one of them is going to get the nomination and move forward to run for president.

[HereSince1628]

22. SCOTUS appointments happen with regularity, it's always part of the 'deal'

Last edited Sun Oct 4, 2015, 11:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Marketing an election's importance on anxiety of such appointments largely comes down to an attempt to exploit conservative aspects of human nature already felt by the proponent of the idea. Paraphrasing the way it's used by Thom Hartman..."Things will get terribly worse terribly fast, if ..."

The struggle to control SCOTUS is an on-going dynamic, discovered anew by each generation, and reified during periods of success of the extremes.

While it's a hack on our emotions, it works because we are humans and we have anxieties. The appointments are going to happen, control of the Senate, rather than the Presidency will mold those appointments.

Being that this is really about Senate control, it's an issue that voters weight every 2 years.

[LWolf]

26. Yes.

Every 2 years, regardless of any presidential primaries or general elections.

[sabrina 1]

29. Same here, it's as if we are told AGAIN that we only have one choice, when in fact

we now a far better choice. The SC is actually is one of the main reasons why people are supporting Bernie Sanders.

And if they mean what they say, they would be supporting him also.

It turns me off even more every time they try to use these scare tactics to force people vote for their candidate.

If a candidate is a good candidate no one has to be scared into voting for them.

Maybe that's why Bernie's supporters are not running around trying to scare people into voting for him, all we have to do is talk about his long, consistent record on the issues.

[Hortensis]

9. +1000. Clarence Thomas will live on as G.W.H. Bush's legacy long after he's gone.

[oasis]

10. Kick

[reddread]

19. Joe Biden's doing. period. period.

the notion that electing someone like Biden, for instance will help prevent what BIDEN DID TO US with Thomas?

its just poppycock meant to nip sheep into line.
they can obstruct nominations if they choose and they stopped doing so.
UNDER A STOLEN ADMINISTRATION THAT USED THE SCOTUS TO GET THERE.
rubber stamps.

[Hortensis]

21. Agree Biden totally failed to hold the line, to severe detriment of our nation.

[sabrina 1]

30. That won't happen when Bernie Sanders is president. One of my reasons for supportiing him.

[Hortensis]

38. It won't happen under ANY Democrat Party candidate. That's the point.

[sabrina 1]

43. Then why is this constant 'listen up the SC!!' tactic needed? As you say, it isn't, is it? So when

we see it now, the only reason appears to be what it always was, 'vote for the establishment's choice of candidate because if you don't, your choice will lost the GE and remember the SC'.

Is there any OTHER reason for these redundant posts re the SC on a Dem forum where it is the one thing as you pointed out, everyone agrees on?

[liberal_at_heart]

11. this again. trashing thread and putting you on ignore.

No one tells me who to vote for, in the primary or in the general.

[Stuart G]

12. I am sorry. You are correct, I am asking you to vote for a democrat.

After all.., this place is .... http://www.democraticunderground.com/index.php

DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND

Vote for whoever you want to, or not vote...

...Stuart...

[sabrina 1]

31. Maybe if you named the democrats who are running and point out anyone who you think

might be someone we should avoid due to their positions on SC appointments.

Otherwise I'm reading your OP as a repeat of the years long scare tactics to vote for the status quo candidate.

I am supporting the candidate I believe will be the very best on SC appointments so I'm not sure why we are constantly getting this 'warning' since everyone here, regardless of who they are supporting, knows how important this is.

Do you think we don't? I'm asking because it seems redundant to post this over and over again on a Dem forum.

[Stuart G]

34. Ok, You got it...My position is not to avoid any Democratic Candidate.

Whoever is nominated I will support,
... Bernie, Hilary, Joe, Martin, ..yes any of the others.

[sabrina 1]

40. And now is the time to focus on who should get the nomination.

Because as you just pointed out, which was MY point, all Dem candidates AND their supporters already KNOW how important this issue is.

Which means it is not necessary to remind them on a regular basis about the one issue ALL agree on.

What we SHOULD be talking during Primary season is all the other issues that people are concerned about and where the candidates differ and who is most likely to appeal to enough voters, not just the Dem base which isn't enough to win the GE.

This almost daily 'reminder' is viewed as what it always was, 'vote for the candidate we have chosen for you or else' regardless of what your intentions might be.

[antigop]

39. "scare tactics to vote for the status quo candidate". Yep. I call it the "SCOTUS boogeyman". nt

[restorefreedom]

13. you might have very sincere concerns about scotus

but every time i have seen a variation of this thread, it has been from a hillary supporter and is something resembling a loyalty oath, or we can't let a repub win, or what about scotus, or blah blah. it has basically been a request/demand/intimidation that when the primary is over, we all better get on board and vote for the nom, which of course hillary supporters assume will be hillary.

you will pardon some of us for being jaded and tired of being told we "have to" vote for the democrat no matter what.

as someone pointed out upthread, asking to vote because of scotus is asking us to vote for a weak candidate who doesn't warrant a vote based on their own record. it is a vote based on fear imo. and a vote based on fear does not advance democracy. it is what people do in countries that do not have democracy. it is everyone "voting" for saddam because they have no other choice. we have choices in this country. i will vote my conscience, with all things considered. and that might mean not voting for a dem in some elections.

[DanTex]

14. K&R. This is absolutely correct, and obviously so.

And yet, Bernie supporters decide to chime in and complain about it. How bizarre. Why would it be that supporters of Bernie are so insistent on denying the importance of SCOTUS?

[oasis]

17. No remedy for a permanently ultra-conservative Supreme Court.

The office of the president can be improved over time.

[sabrina 1]

32. Do you think it is necessary to 'warn' ANY Democrat over and over again about this?

Who, on this forum, do you think needs this lecture? I am supporting the Dem Candidate for the WH who I believe will be the very best when it comes to the SC.

In fact it is one of my main reasons for supporting him because as a Dem no one has to remind me of the importance of the SC.

Are there Dems here who don't realize this?

[DanTex]

46. Apparently, since a lot of people here have expressed the intention to abstain from the GE if

Hillary is the nominee. I wouldn't have imagined, but, yeah, in light of that, it is necessary.

[Stuart G]

47. I think it is necessary for a very similar reason too..not exactly

I have said I will support whoever wins and I will.. I am positive of that ..this is not a call out that you must do this or that.. But some Bernie supporters have also expressed similar intentions. Although quite unlikely, I suspect many would take the same position on Jim Webb. Too conservative might be said. If you want to abstain, it is a your right to do so. I am not telling anyone to vote for anyone. But we must think of the consequences and discuss them way ahead of time. Loud and clear. Thank You Dan Tex for your insight.

[reformist2]

15. True. But this time around, teaching the dictatorial big money Dems a lesson may be more important.

They'll say: Vote for Hillary or else you'll be sorry!

And many of us will say: Don't shove your pre-selected candidate down our throats, or you'll be sorry!

[99Forever]

16. Then I highly recommend that you make damn sure...

... to strongly back We the Peoples candidate and prove just how important this actually is to you.


Thanks.

[Stuart G]

18. How important are votes?..Does it make a difference in an emergency? Well Yes..

John Kennedy's response in the Cuban Missile Crises signifies how votes count..proof?. OK..

Kennedy won Illinois by a few thousand votes...nine thousand to be more accurate

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1960&fips=17&f=0&off=0&elect=0

2,377,000...Kennedy..49.98%

2, 369,000..Nixon......49.80%

Now, Nixon it seems, as history later shows, liked to keep war going..(that is another discussion for a different time)..Kennedy on the other hand, wanted to prevent war. So, he gave Nikita Khrushchev enough wiggle room to pull the missiles out of Cuba. Hard to imagine Nixon doing the same thing..unlikely.. So those 9000 votes out of 4,744,000 did indeed make a difference. Just like those votes that were stolen in Florida made a difference in another much more negative way. A few votes do make a difference. It is not just the Supreme Court, but life and death in other ways too. The republicans want only their people to vote, so that is what they try to make laws around that idea..

We need to vote to save us and our families. It is very important, but nobody makes you vote. Think it over..

[99Forever]

20. So your real intent is to...

... elicit Loyalty Oaths. Got it.

I knew John F Kennedy, and Hillary Goldman Sachs Clinton is no John F Kennedy. Not even close.

No candidate gets my vote by default. NONE. Earn it or do without it.

[Stuart G]

23. No, my real intent is NOT to elicit "Loyalty Oaths" Real intent is something else.

My real intent is to have a discussion about what is important after the primaries.

I am not the "loyalty oath police" and, I am not the "voting police" nor am I the so called, "democratic police"

,, Let us see if any candidate earns your vote..I am not in charge of anything.

I started a discussion that is still going on about what could happen after the primaries. I like these kinds of discussions, if they don't get too heated. If they do, I go on to another one, or turn the computer off. Then, those discussions are over and there are many other venues for discussion and...listening...which I am trying to do as much as possible..(here, we call it reading other peoples ideas, and pausing a moment to consider each one, if we care to..

[99Forever]

24. You asked, I answered with my position.

Having been targeted for phony guilt trips so many times by establishment apologists, my hackles may indeed come up rather easily.

Bottom line for me, the if the corporate Democratic Party nominates Clinton, it does so at it's own risk.

IMO, our nation and our planet has run out of time to make the changes it HAS to, to survive. As such, I will not settle for more of the same.

[sabrina 1]

36. Well, I think it's time to start this, yes very important discussion from a different perspective.

We are all aware of the use of the SC to scare Dems in the primaries. If we have to use scare tactics, then may we need different candidates.

This issue isn't an issue Dems need constant lectures about.

It's why we supported Obama eg, and throughout the Bush even supported candidates we were not overly enthusiastic about, only to lose. So maybe it's time we elected people who can WIN, not people who have already LOST.

You can't force people to vote for people who do not represent them, even if every person on THIS forum does so, in the scheme of things that won't make a bit of difference if the voters who are not on these forums, are dissatisfied with the candidates they feel are being forced on them, will it?

So the best way to make sure we get a president who will make the best SC appointments is to LISTEN TO THE VOTERS.

Not just the few who post on forums like this. ALL the voters because you can't win with just the base of the party, everyone knows that.

Which is why I am supporting the candidate with the most crossover appeal so we don't lose the GE.

[reddread]

48. more likely collecting refuseniks

what value does an online loyalty oath have?
they just need to know who wont play along.

[Lil Missy]

51. "We the Peoples" candidate might not be the same as YOUR candidate. Just Sayin '

[99Forever]

52. And you would be wrong.

Just Sayin'

[in_cog_ni_to]

27. Before Primaries Over, four Words We Must Never Forget,

Iraq War Resolution Vote

Before Primaries Over, One Word We Must Never Forget

Fracking

Before Primaries Over, Three Words We Must Never Forget

Trans-Pacific Partnership

Before Primaries Over, Three Words We Must Never Forget

Prisons for Profits

Before Primaries Over, Three Words We Must Never Forget

Wall Street thieves

Before Primaries Over, Three Words We Must Never Forget

Corporate Tax Loopholes

Before Primaries Over, Three Words We Must Never Forget

Genetically Modified Organisms

Before Primaries Over, Four Words We Must Never Forget

Exorbitantly Expensive State Universities

Before Primaries Over, six Words We Must Never Forget

Wars, wars, wars and more wars

Before Primaries Over, two Words We Must Never Forget

Citizens United

[Blus4u]

33. Your post should be re-posted as it's own thread.

IMO.

Peace

[99Forever]

44. I will remember them both before and after the primaries.

I will not settle ever again.

[in_cog_ni_to]

45. Many, many people feel the same way.

The DNC has made a huge mistake backing the establishment candidate. Talk about tone-deaf. DWS needs to open her eyes and ears and see the Revolution staring her in the face - before it's too late. This election is THE game changer for her party. She best heed the warning signs. Progressives will leave the party in droves. This is the last straw.

We now know the Democratic Party isn't interested in representingy WE THE PEOPLE. Corporations are their bread and butter.

[mucifer]

35. I believe Bernie himself agrees with the OP

From what he has said in the past he is going to support her if he doesn't get the nomination.

[Stuart G]

37. Yes, I think you are correct, Also, I honestly believe if Bernie is the nominee, then

Hilary will support him too... and I also believe all the candidates will support each other if he/she does not win. I may be wrong, but that is what I honestly believe. (and I will too)

[sabrina 1]

41. Has she said that? Bernie has, but I don't recall her ever saying so.

[oasis]

50. Of course Bernie will support Hillary. Too much at stake.

He will energize the Dem convention.

[GummyBearz]

42. Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Doesn't think its that important. Otherwise the 82 year old would be stepping down now and let Obama nominate a replacement. When asked why she wouldn't take this course some months back, I believe her quote was a long the lines of "no one else will do a good job, so whats the point?"

If you like RBG, then according to her, it doesn't matter if Hillary or a -R appoints the next supreme court judge

[oasis]

49. The grim reaper may have a say in how many of the present

Justices remain. Hope for the best but, prepare for the worst.