Senator Clinton would appoint the same types of SC Justices that Kucinich would

[ruggerson]

For those of you making the argument that somehow a more progressive candidate than Hillary will translate into more liberal judges, that proposition is pure bunk.

A President Clinton or a President Obama or a President Edwards or a President Kucinich would ALL have to get their choices past the senate. Even a Republican minority (as we have repeatedly seen) can demonize and scream loudly enough to sink a very liberal choice. All of our potential nominees would, as President, be choosing from roughly the exact same pool of extremely well qualified, CONFIRMABLE, progressive candidates (mostly existing Judges.) President Dennis Kucinich is not going to be choosing a Justice with any degree of difference from a President Clinton. They will both choose progressive Judges. Use Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer as a template.

The REAL difference is between whom a Democratic President would choose and whom a Republican President would choose. That gulf is like night and day.

There are valid policy reasons to oppose Senator Clinton's candidacy.

Her potential judiciary picks is not one of them.

[MethuenProgressive]

1. Yeah, but you miss the point.

You have to be elected President to make those nominations.
And that's a valid reason to support Senator Clinton's candidacy.

[radiclib]

2. No, the point is that all the Dem candidates would make similar nominations

so SCOTUS is really a non-issue until the general election. There are plently of other reasons to oppose Hillary.

[MethuenProgressive]

3. No, no, no, no. SCOTUS is so important we need to nominate a winner.

This isn't the time to play Nader, or to nominate Dukakis again.

[radiclib]

9. So the Iraq war isn't so important, so we don't necessarily need to nominate a winner?

Of COURSE SCOTUS is important. You're just assuming your candidate has the best chance to win. Some of us disagree.

[depakid]

4. Oh please

Look at Bill Clinton's nominees. Not exactly Lawrence Tribe type jurists.

Better than the extremists, incompetents and fundies that Republicans manage to get on the Court- but in many ways coproratists just the same.

All one has to do is look at some of their decisions to see that.

I mean, John Paul Stevens ( a Gerald Ford Centrist) now looks damn liberal!

[ruggerson]

5. There are only, essentially, TWO ways to vote on any given case before the SC

Laurence Tribe would have voted EXACTLY the same way Ruth Ginsburg has voted on almost every case over the last fifteen years.

His opinions may have drawn on different constitutional foundations, but the OUTCOMES would have been virtually identical.

You really do not have a valid argument here.

[depakid]

6. Even if I would grant you Ginsburg

which depending on the decision- might be a stretch, but you can't say the same about Breyer.

I'd prefer not to go down a list of cases- which are particularly telling in the economic/corporate area, but I surely can.

I don't think it's necessary though- it's simple enough to recognize that Kucinich would appoint jurists who've shown that they will stabd up for ordinary people- the little guy, whereas Clinton will pick "centrists" who will more often look to protecting the interests of corporations or governments.

Again- not to say they wouldn't be a HUGE improvement over the Republican extremists that the Dems keep approving.

[ruggerson]

8. Breyer has been a disappointment

in First Amendment cases. Kennedy has been a surprise in human rights cases. The old bromide is true - a President cannot necessarily predict how his/her nominees will vote on any given issue. Just look at Souter.

But the premise of the OP remains - a President Kucinich's confirmable appointments to the SC (stress confirmable) would not be appreciably different than a President Clinton's appointments.

[depakid]

10. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

With the polarized (and political) nature of the Court these days- distinctions can all to easily become obscured. Very sad, actually. When I grew up- the Court actually cared about how it was perceived. It strived as an institution, for lack of better words- to be honorable.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. True, but Look at the Senate they had to be confirmed by

Clinton would have appointed Lawrence Tribe if he thought the man could be confirmed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Exactly

Ginsburg and Breyer were liberal jurists who would be easily confirmed...

[depakid]

12. They're NOT liberal

No matter what the corporate media calls them. They're centrists at best (sometimes, not even that).

Also- curious:

Why is it that extremists and incompetents get confirmed by Democrats- when the man who wrote one of the nation's premier casebooks on Con Law wouldn't get by Republicans.

That's assuming it's true- which I don't necessarily believe. At any rate, he was (and is) deserving- perhaps more than anyone around and SHOULD have been nominated.

A person with convictions sure would have tried.