Who would you want to pick Supreme Court nominees for the next 8 years?

[FlatBaroque]

A. Hillary Clinton

B. Bernie Sanders



PS - Does Debbie Wasserman Schultz possess the necessary qualifications to serve on the SC? Just askin'

[peacebird]

1. B. Bernie Sanders, the one who *doesn't* pal around with Kissinger....

[HerbChestnut]

2. Bernie, obviously

[Hekate]

3. I want to rip all Democratic Party candidates to shreds so Ted Cruz can pick SCOTUS

Yeeeeah!

[restorefreedom]

24. just curious...

was that a howard dean "yeaaaaaah!"?

[SCantiGOP]

68. I want Clinton to pick

But this is obviously not in any way a serious post. Schultz is not a candidate for the Supreme Court. Guess you wanted to be cute but this just shows the increasing desperation of the Sanders faction here as they realize the nomination will be settled in about 3-4 weeks.

[restorefreedom]

72. i am neither desperate nor trying to be cute

its one of the fond memories i have of dean. i was basically ignoring the comment about dws since she is not qualified to do much imo.

i do agree with you that the nom will he settled sooner, although 4 weeks is a bit short. once bernie wins iowa and nh and the inevitability bubble bursts, he will have major momentum. i do think it will take a bit longer than a month, however

[SCantiGOP]

73. I was actually responding

to the OP. I was a huge Dean supporter, and that night was a real downer.

[restorefreedom]

75. i was a deaniac, too

and i felt he was given quite a bad rap by the m$m that kept making an issue of that rally and that moment to the point where it was all anyone would talk about

[NCTraveler]

4. I want to see Clinton nominate herself. Nt

[JonLeibowitz]

9. It would be consistent with her current demonstrations of understanding of the constitution.

vimeo.com/148092658

'Nuff said.

[NCTraveler]

22. #hillyes nt

[JonLeibowitz]

25. What a strangely substance-free response.

I guess there really is no defense for her words.

[NCTraveler]

51. Ohhh. I was just saying I would like for Clinton to nominate herself.

You raised a constitutional concern. I was kidding in the first place and didn't care past that.

[tazkcmo]

41. "That requires even more thinking of how to do it"

Because shredding the Constitution may not be enough. Now back to work Proles!

[JonLeibowitz]

43. All the best thinkers in the world (actual cryptographers) agree and wrote a paper explaining why...

what she (and the Republican Comey) wants is impossible.

Of course she chooses to ignore them. What other recourse does she have?

[tazkcmo]

44. Certainly not the truth.

The truth is too evasive for her to grasp.

[FlatBaroque]

60. Wow. Talking all techie about encrypted apps and what not

"what, wipe it like with a cloth?"

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Any of the Democrats that win the Democratic nomination. P.S. ...

While a Law Degree and having practiced law is not a requirement for the SCOTUS, there hasn't been a non-lawyer since Rehnquist and Warren.

[JonLeibowitz]

45. Is that due in any part to a possible decline in the number of practicing 'country lawyers'?

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. Possibly. But I would say ...

it's because the confirmation process is so Opinion driven. Without a traceable history of rulings, no one would be able to tell with the nominee applies the law or makes up stuff to justify a particular outcome.

[randys1]

6. Depends, really. I would trust both to make good choices. Problem is with the radical

insurrectionists in the House and Senate, who could get confirmed?

We have a serious problem, folks.

As long as the minority party, by a wide margin they are the minority party, manages to win elections due to gerrymandering, our government may not be allowed to function.

Electing and REelecting the Black man has made them insane.

[cali]

10. The House has nothing to do with it.

[randys1]

13. Not in confirming SC justices, but they gerrymander the states, which gives elections to

cons in the house which leads inevitably to momentum that leads to cons in the Senate.

And if you want to for instance FIX something the supremes did which was terrible, like Voting Rights Act, you cant if the house is controlled by the assholes

[restorefreedom]

26. good explanation of the ripple effect

local elections matter. we put so much emphasis on one office, but there are many important elections coming up

[randys1]

29. I know, you know, cons hate the govt now solely because of the pigmentation of Barack's skin

but will that vicious, ridiculous, childish asinine hate hold over for either Hillary or Bernie?


I think they would hate Bernie less, because he looks like them.

[restorefreedom]

34. hmmm yeah the hatred towards pres o is particularly vile and tribal

they will still hate, but it will be on policies, like the dreaded socialist bogeyman, etc.

the birther bullshit will finally be put down where it belongs

[senz]

39. Cons have been hating the government for decades.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

-- Ronald Reagan, 12 August 1986

[randys1]

46. Yes and no. Cons now hate the government in areas they never did before, like

not being behind getting back prisoners of war.

And I could list a few dozen other examples of the rights hypocrisy, hopefully I dont have to.

[senz]

54. Are you referring to Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl?

Cons hate him the same way they hated "draft dodgers" back in the Sixties. Same psychology. They think President Obama is complicit and too loose with "terrorist" Muslim gitmo prisoners. They would have thought that of any Democratic president; they hate all "liberals;" they think we're insufficiently militaristic and therefore not macho, manly 'Mericans.

[randys1]

61. I disagree entirely. If W and Cheney had arranged for his release their reaction would have

been different, maybe not entirely accepting but different.

The right HATES this country right now because a Black man leads it.

They cheered when Chicago lost the Olympics.

They opposed the First Lady for saying WATER IS GOOD

I could go on, but I wont.

[senz]

83. I think you're conflating several rightwing hate objects.

They hate many things, but for our purposes, let's look at three of their favorite hatreds:

1) They hate government.

2) They hate liberals and Democrats.

3) They look down on people of color and hate AAs who achieve success and/or power (and of course the Obama family are the epitome of AA success and power in this country).

All of the above hate objects are interrelated in the rightwing pantheon of hatred and most of them have been inculcated and kept alive through rightwing media propaganda (talk radio, Fox, etc.).

1) They hate government primarily because it regulates business, but their government hatred escalated in mid-20th century desegregation, civil rights, and busing legislation and then went on steroids in the 1990s with the rise of rightwing talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, et. al.) and Bill Clinton. That is the time when the militia movement became prominent (while rightwing media told them the government was going to take away their property and especially their guns and then enslave them, etc.)

2) They've hated Democrats and liberals for many decades because they considered us socialists who were soft on communism. Add to that the youth counterculture of the 1960s/70s. After the fall of the Soviet Union, they lost a major hate object, communism, but then rightwing talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, etc.) gave them Democrats and "libruls" as a substitute, so they went after us with a vengeance.

3) Their racial arrogance and cruelty precedes the founding of our nation but got really ugly with desegregation, civil rights marches and civil rights legislation -- all of which involved government and Democrats.

So it's a big ugly ball of wax. However, you have made two claims that I don't think are justified, namely,

I know, you know, cons hate the govt now solely because of the pigmentation of Barack's skin

The right HATES this country right now because a Black man leads it.

You are claiming that the right hates the government and the country solely because the president is Black. I just showed you that their hatred for government goes way back and has several causes.

However, I completely agree with you that many of them DO hate President Obama and the First Lady solely because of their race. And I agree that it is a deep, ugly, irrational hatred. I particularly hate the things they've said about Michelle Obama. And I will agree that the AA presidency makes them even more cynical about government and their suspicion that Obama is a secret Muslim makes them distrust him on all Muslim-related issues. It's hard to imagine how miserable they must be.

[onenote]

91. inevitably may be a bit strong

Of the repubs first elected to the Senate since 2011, around half were members of the House of Representatives first (and one was the representative from Montana which only has one Congressional district)

[Punkingal]

7. Bernie, of course.

[dsc]

8. There have been four justices named by Democrats in my life time

(and one attempted) and all four were fantastic. The best of the four, Ginsburg, was named by Bill Clinton. I have zero problem with Hillary naming the next three or four justices.

[MiniMe]

11. I pick the Democrat

Whoever it ends up being.

[Starry Messenger]

12. Not a Republican.

[MeNMyVolt]

20. +1

[Eric J in MN]

14. I'd prefer Bernie Sanders

...but Hillary Clinton would nominate good ones, too.

Her husband gave us Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

[Vattel]

86. Not a big fan of Breyer. Ginsburg has been good though.

[elleng]

15. MARTIN O'MALLEY,

if you don't mind.

[jwirr]

27. He actually might make a damned good nominee for the job.

Does he have the qualifications for the SCOTUS?

[elleng]

28. Yes he has,

whatever those are. Law degree is NOT required, but he is an attorney.

[jwirr]

48. Thank you.

[FlatBaroque]

58. No, I don't mind, I should have included a choice for him.

I do not click with O'M but from what he has said on the campaign trail I would probably be supportive of his SCOTUS choices. However, his law and order record in Baltimore is what disqualified him in my assessment.

[TM99]

16. Well Trump would be the best bet silly!

[CharlotteVale]

17. B. The one who isn't cozy with Wall St.

[MohRokTah]

18. Hillary is much better equipped to nominate judges and justices.

She'll actually be able to get them confirmed. I doubt if Sanders would ever have a nominee survive confirmation.

[uppityperson]

19. Either of those would be fine with me

[emulatorloo]

21. Either one. None of the Republicans

[MeNMyVolt]

37. There are some clear and concise replies in this thread.

Your's being one of them.

[jwirr]

23. Bernie, DWS is not qualified to run the DNC let alone set in

the SCOTUS.

[restorefreedom]

32. she isn't qualified to run the dnc bake sale. nt

[jwirr]

63. LOL

[senz]

30. No more Wall St. friendly justices on the Court! Bernie Sanders is the ONLY choice.

[restorefreedom]

31. c. trump

bernie and OM would pick the best imo. clinton's picks would likely be better than republicans but too corporate friendly for my taste

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

35. How have Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer done? n/m

[restorefreedom]

56. mostly pretty good

but that doesn't mean because he appointed good ones that she will. i really worry about monsanto and big ag friendly judges coming from her. i also worry about trade issues and the dp

she will protect choice but that is the only thing i am confident of, honestly.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

33. Did you have a problem with Bill Clinton's selections?

Why don't you compare and contrast who Bill selected to say, George W Bush?

This should be fun.

[bvf]

40. What does Bill Clinton have to do with anything?

Unless you think he'd have anything more to say of influence about the issue? Or welfare "reform." Or LGBT rights. Or...

[tazkcmo]

42. Bill = Hillary

Except when he doesn't.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

55. And for you, it's the same.

If you have any critiques of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I'd love to hear them.

[bvf]

64. Fun's that-away.

No, it's not the same, but you want "fun."

Did I mention Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

No. But again, fun's over there.

Sigh. They don't learn.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

65. Whatever you say n/m

[bvf]

66. Don't go away. Seriously, what made you think

I had a problem with Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

You implied that I did, and I'd appreciate an explanation for the insulting, transparent, and deliberate misdirection.

Fun, huh?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

69. The subject was Supreme Court justices

Clearly, if you think Hillary is going to make some poor SCOTUS choices, you must have some reason for thinking that. Maybe Bill Clinton's weren't good enough for you? It's a quite logical thought process.

[bvf]

70. I never once said Hillary Clinton

would make poor choices wrt the SCOTUS, so quit with the childish insinuations, will you?

I'd trust Sanders to make far better ones.

And again: WTHF does Bill Clinton have to do with anything?

Go ahead: argue for his potential WH influence. To whatever extent you choose to do that, be prepared to defend his record on already cited issues, and to defend your apparent confusion regarding who's actually running for office this year.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

71. Why did you even reply to me in the first place?

Sheesh. I didn't ask you. My post wasn't a reply to you. I didn't project any anti-Clinton sentiment on you. Only you have done that by replying to me in such a defensive fashion. If you think my point is dumb, fucking ignore me.

Have a good night.

[bvf]

74. "This should be fun."

Remember that?

All full-of-piss-and-vinegar-like, you invited a response.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

84. You're damn right I'm full of piss and vinegar

Clinton's nominees were fantastic and not just because Bush's stunk the joint out and destroyed our nation like the flotsam Rubio, tRump, Cruz, et al would propose.

Both Bernie and Hillary's choices I'm sure would be fantastic. I don't see this as a strong point of difference between the two of them.

[bvf]

94. You keep citing Bill Clinton's record

on SCOTUS, as if he were the candidate, then you object to being questioned about it by asking "what do you have against Ruth Bader Ginsburg?"

Thats a ridiculous response.

If you only expect replies from the user you're addressing, then feel free not to respond to anyone else. No one twisted your arm here.

[bvf]

36. Sanders, obviously.

Give me a candidate whose criteria will be more discriminating in favor of individual rights.

Does Clinton still advocate limitations on an open internet, btw?

[hack89]

38. Either would make good choices. nt

[MeNMyVolt]

47. Your "PS" just shows that you're here to stir shit.

A simple survey would have sufficed, but noooo.

[anigbrowl]

49. Actually, there are not qualifications to serve on the SC

You don't even have to be an American citizen, or a lawyer, or old enough to vote. Of course, good luck convincing the Senate to ratify your appointment in any of those cases, but the Constitution gives the President a free hand in this regard.

I would lean towards Hillary for SC picks since she's an attorney and thus better able to evaluate the quality of legal analysis from potential candidates. If elected, I would not be surprised to see her nominate on from among Erwin Chereminsky, Goodwin Liu, Lawrence Tribe or Cass Sunstein...but I don't keep up with who the viable candidates are. I'd be glad if we got a 4th or even 5th female justice.

[Ed Suspicious]

52. B.

[DrDan]

53. we have quite a few here who seem to have no problem with the GOP doing the pick(s)

[FlatBaroque]

59. I see what you did there

[ejbr]

57. Personally,

I would not have any concerns about any of the choices either would choose. Wow! Thanks for the question! I didn't think there was anything that I could not hand wring over.

[Autumn]

62. B.B.B.B.B.B.B.B.B. or

B.B.B.B.B.B. IMHO Debbie Wasserman Schultz does not possess the necessary qualifications to serve as dog catcher.

[CTyankee]

67. Sanders...

next question?

[underthematrix]

76. HRC

[Renew Deal]

77. Either

I am completely confident in both of them to make good choices for Supreme Court.

[Vogon_Glory]

78. Either A or B or even MO'M

But NONE of the Republicans or their mad-hatter Tea Party rivals.

[cherokeeprogressive]

79. Bernie.

[Metric System]

80. #ImWithHer

[seamonkey58]

81. There's an obvious candidate

If he wants it, Barack Obama is an obviously great candidate for the Supreme Court, assuming a dem is president. It would be very hard for republicans to block him, and he is very qualified, having taught constitutional law at Harvard, in addition to his knowledge of how the government works. And he's young enough to have a long tenure.

[onenote]

92. It wouldn't be hard at all for the repubs to block his nomination

And given that the overwhelming majority of recent SCOTUS Justices have some judicial and/or Supreme Court litigation experience, he's not really "very" qualified.

He wouldn't want it. And no repub Senator that wants to get re-elected would vote to confirm him, so it's not going to happen. Ever.

Finally, one other note: Obama graduated from Harvard Law. He taught at the Univ. of Chicago Law School (a pretty fine school itself).

[wildeyed]

82. C. not a Republican

But if I have to choose, both Dems would make a good pick, so it's more about getting the nominee confirmed. Who do I think has more experience in hand-to-hand political combat? Hillary Clinton, of course. So she is the obvious choice.

[Laffy Kat]

85. Warren. nt

[Vattel]

87. Not Clinton. She supported unconstitutional warmaking in Libya

and unconstitutional NSA data collection, and illegal spying on allies, to mention a few ways in which she cannot be trusted to respect individual liberties and Congress's war powers.

[bigwillq]

88. A or B works for me (nt)

[TeamPooka]

89. Like a Republican Senate is going to confirm any elected Democrat's court nominees. nt

[vkkv]

90. "Does Debbie Wasserman Schultz possess the necessary qualifications to serve on the SC?" Um.. NO !!!

Why did you have to ruin a perfectly decent question with that?

[onenote]

93. I doubt there would be much difference in their likely choices.

They'd both be motivated in large part by a desire to find someone who has a shot at getting confirmed, which means overcoming either a repub majority in the Senate or a repub filibuster if the Democrats recapture the Senate.