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

Yeeeeah!

was that a howard dean "yeaaaaaah!"?

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.

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

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

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

'Nuff said.

I guess there really is no defense for her words.

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

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

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

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

The truth is too evasive for her to grasp.

"what, wipe it like with a cloth?"

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

"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

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.

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.

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.

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,





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.

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)

(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.

Whoever it ends up being.

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

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

if you don't mind.

Does he have the qualifications for the SCOTUS?

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

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.

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

Your's being one of them.

the SCOTUS.

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

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.

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

This should be fun.

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

Except when he doesn't.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Remember that?

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

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.

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.

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?

A simple survey would have sufficed, but noooo.

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.

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.

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

next question?

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

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.