John Paul Stevens 87, Ruth Bader Ginsburg 75, Steven Breyer 70, David Souter 69,

[youknowmenotdlc]

Anthony Kennedy 72.

Roberts 53, Thomas 60, Alito 58.

If you don't understand why electing a Democrat, no matter how badly you may dislike them personally, is an absolute imperative, then consider that John McCain will more than likely appoint at least 2 SCOTUS judges giving the conservatives on the court a generation to shape US law.

Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas plus one or two Mcacin appointees will guarantee that progressive ideals and causes will consistently die because of a court that seeks to impose conservative ideology by decree.

YOu hate Obama?

You hate Hillary?

Get over it.

[onehandle]

1. As many as three of them will retire in the next President's first term.

End of story. Vote Democratic!

[MindMatter]

28. 3 is probable. It could be 4-6

Just going by age, 3 seems almost certain. And in the course of 4 years a lot of other things can happen. It isn't hard to imagine a scenario where the next President appoints 5 Justices. That is probably unprecedented, but so is the first black President.

[Carrieyazel]

33. This doom and gloom is killing me. It won't be 4-6. Maybe only 1.

Stevens unfortunately is very old. Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter are not that old. They'll be there for a good while longer.

[MindMatter]

41. There's no doom at all.

Obama will win. If he doesn't win, we have bigger problems than the SCOTUS, although that is certainly a problem.

As important as SCOTUS is to our system of governance, I don't believe this can be presented to the American public as a viable campaign issue. I don't believe Obama will rely on that argument.

It can be used to motivate certain marginal groups that feel themselves more directly affected by the actions of the SCOTUS: gays, women interested in reproductive freedom, etc.

When Obama comes in, the least conservative justices will retire because they understand the risk of allowing the court to tip any further to the right. I think there is no possibility that Obama would have a single appointment.

If McCain were to win the thing, then those Justices would be taking their vitamins.

[donheld]

55. "They'll be there for a good while longer." Only a fool would bet on that

Especially on Ms Ginsburg. She's only 3 years younger than Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice O'Connor left 2 years ago. Just because they can serve for life does not mean they want to serve till the minute of their deaths. You'd better prepare yourself for at least 2 justices leaving. If McLame gets two terms then count on 3 maybe 4 to be gone.

[cali]

67. It won't be just one. Ginsburg is in frail health

and it wouldn't be at all surprising if Souter retired. It's been rumored that he'd like to.

[Carrieyazel]

31. Justice Stevens will. But Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter are showing no signs of leaving.

Stevens leaving will be the biggest thing to happen at the court since Pornoman Thomas's confirmation. If McCain is in, just one justice will tip it.

We need to look at this in the best possible light, though. We will lose one excellent justice to retirement, but unlikely to lose any others in the foreseeable future. The other 3 good ones are not that old, and hopefully can be in there for at least another decade.

[thoughtcrime1984]

53. In any event, that is Roe v Wade overturned and who knows what else

Are you going to sit this out just because you don't like Obama? I sincerely hope not.

[grannylib]

2. AMEN. That's the biggest reason of all that we MUST UNITE

and pretty damn quick and make sure that this election isn't stolen by the rePiglicans. We CANNOT afford to have McSame Old, Same Older, appointing Supremes.
CAN NOT. MUST NOT.

[youknowmenotdlc]

57. It's time to start healing

both were great candidates, the process has yielded one of them, time for all ofus to get on the bus.

[bullwinkle428]

3. Roberts will be there a good 25, maybe 30 years, trying to screw us all over -

there is no greater motivation for me to get out there this fall, phone-banking and canvassing for the Democratic Party!

[TahitiNut]

4. Well, all them "middle-aged white women" who claim they're not voting for Obama ...

... must OBVIOUSLY think there's something worse than having Roe v. Wade overturned. (Gosh! I wonder just WHAT that could be?) Is it just that once they're post-menopausal it's not as PERSONAL anymore?? Funny about that. :shrug:

All this "identity politics" ... and *I* always though being a "liberal" meant supporting the rights of EVERYONE. Go figure.

[youknowmenotdlc]

10. This post was supposed to be about coming together again

not about being condenscending to our fellow Democrats, please edit your post if you care more about coming together then scoring gotcha points against Hillary's supporters.

[TahitiNut]

17. Scalia - 72

:shrug:

[txaslftist]

61. There's a cause for a black prayer.

[dogday]

20. Ya know maybe middle aged white woman identify with Hillary, it makes sense..

And Blacks identify with Obama as per his 90%+ black vote...

I find your post about menopause in bad taste TahiNut, and I have enjoyed reading a great deal of your post, but this one is crap... I had to hold my nose and type through it...

Does supporting Obama really change a person so much they are willing to give up their respectability and post some of the worst shit I have ever read about people in general?

I am sorry to have to say this to you....

[TahitiNut]

25. Do you NOT see a gross inconsistency ...

... in the frequent proclamation that SCOTUS is, by far, the most important reason to vote "Democratic" ... AND ... the frequent 'analysis' that indicates much of Hillary's "base" (white working class and older women) claim they CAN'T vote for Obama if he's the nominee???

Just WHAT explains a (pro-choice) white woman supporting Clinton who says she WON'T vote for Obama?? If one is to believe HALF of the crap that's posted here, we have such people on DU.

Sorry if you're offended. It's taken, not given. Read the last line in my post again.

:shrug:

P.S. I'm a "hold my nose" and vote for Obama person. I voted for Kucinich. It didn't count. So, STOP with the ad hominem bullshit about "supporting Obama" please.

[dogday]

29. I will support whoever wins the nomination and all my posts reflect that

I am supporting and voting for the Democratic Nominee, but unlike you, I am doing it without the insults, innuendos and plain shitty posts...

I will support the nominee, and that sustains me.. I don't need to play these reindeer games. However I believe we should try to rally all of our Democrats around our Nominee so we can win in the GE...

You have changed a great deal and I feel very sorry for you...

If Obama wins this, he is my choice, and I won't be holding my nose... that straight enough for you or do you want to throw your sexist insults around some more....

On edit: I am seeing both sides saying they would not vote for the Nominee if it is not their candidate, so this is not restricted to one side or the other, you can see that for yourself right?

[Hawaii Hiker]

5. Excellent post, I agree 500%...Election is too important to stay at home & pout

if your candiate is not the nominee.....Too much is at stake with the liberal/moderate justices also being the oldest...

Again, great post - multiple woo's for you, :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[crankychatter]

6. OMG.. you GOT me with this one - k/r - n/t

jeez

[NJSecularist]

7. That is the entire liberal wing...

That is scary...

[DU9598]

8. Recommended -as should everyone who reads this post

Great post!

[LucyParsons]

9. Yep. I've been saying this all along.

As the only reason I would ever vote for Hillary.

Still stands.

My candidate was Kucinich, then, reluctantly, Edwards. My natural lean is Nader.

But I voted for Obama in the primary, and I will vote for him again in the GE.

[Exilednight]

11. Here's my problem .......

Ginsburg and Breyer, both Bill Clinton appointees, are not as liberal as people seem to believe. They're just liberal enough as not to be called conservative, unless you take a very close look at their voting record. Nor do we know how they would vote on Roe v Wade, but I think it might surprise Democrats.

Here's the short version: Overturning Roe v Wade does not make abortion illegal. It returns the right back to the states decide, and I can see Ginsburg and Breyer could very well agree with that ideology. I don't see Hillary nominating anyone who will be different than her husbands appointees.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. shh... here is a little secret

we are talking of 2008, not 2016 or 2012... she is NOT becoming the nominee this year

[Exilednight]

32. I know, I'm just saying ......

that people to be informed in order to make an informed decision. I am amazed at how many people don't pay attention to who votes how on the SC, yet they all cry about SCOTUS appointments.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. Sorry but that's complete and utter nonsense

Ginsburg and Breyer dissented on Gonzales v Carhart which is a definite indicator that they would vote against overturning Roe v Wade. Ginsburg and Breyer aren't as liberal as Marshall and Blackmun were, but they are a million times better than Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts.

There are numerous cases even from this past term where Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, and Souter voted the right way and Kennedy gave the majority to Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.

[BzaDem]

44. Thank you. +1 for truth.

[Exilednight]

72. Carhart v Gonzales did not deal with the same issue as Roe v Wade........

Roe v Wade makes anti-abortion laws unconstitutional.

Carhart v Gonzales dealt with a single type of abortion, and in the dissenting piece it "assuming that Roe v Wade is Constitutional."

[Hippo_Tron]

73. You pretty much just proved my point...

Carhart v Gonzales deals with third trimester abortions, whereas Roe v Wade deals with first and second trimester abortions.

Ginsburg and Breyer would not vote to uphold the right to third trimester abortions if they weren't going to vote to uphold the right to first and second trimester ones as well. They also wouldn't assume that Roe v Wade is constitutional unless they believed it was.

You won't find a sane legal scholar out there who honestly thinks that Ginsburg and Breyer would vote against upholding Roe v Wade.

[Exilednight]

74. It's kind of telling that they put it in their dissent. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

75. Again, find me a sane legal scholar who thinks Breyer or Ginsburg would vote against Roe v Wade

[Exilednight]

76. No sane legal scholar would make an educated guess one way or another. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

77. Casey v. Planned Parenthood was the last time Roe v Wade was re-visited

And Kennedy and O'Connor both voted to uphold Roe v. Wade. They are both to the right of Ginsburg and Breyer (who were not on the court at the time). I honestly don't see how you can think Breyer and Ginsburg would not uphold Roe v. Wade. You are just making up things with no evidence.

[Exilednight]

78. O'Connor was not to the right of Ginsburg and Breyer, Kennedy might be, but .........

it depends on what metrics you use to measure them by.

[Hippo_Tron]

79. On what cases was O'Connor to the left of Breyer and Ginsburg?

I'll give you one where she wasn't... Bush v. Gore

[Exilednight]

80. Corporate law, workers rights, unions, and she also has ..........

a long history of defending women's rights.

[Hippo_Tron]

81. Specific cases please

[Seabiscuit]

12. Thank you. This board needs a daily dose of that reality.

K&R

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. Can you guarantee liberal appointees from whatever Dem wins the Oval office? Or will there

be pandering, appeasement, finding a "middle ground" and a general bending over backwards to accommodate the RW??

Other than that, you raise a very good point.

[youknowmenotdlc]

16. Why would they have to appease the RW?

We will have both houses, by a large margin by the way, so there is little they could offer or threaten us with.

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. I'll believe it when I see it.

[youknowmenotdlc]

42. You need to have more faith

one thing is for sure, even if a Dem president puts in a Ginsberg moderate it's far, far better then another Alito or scalia.

[GreenPartyVoter]

83. I ran out of faith in politics and politicians a long time ago

[jgraz]

14. Cheney needs to take Fat Tony hunting more often

[Taylor Mason Powell]

15. KICKED AND RECOMMENDED

I'm what might be called a "Hillary-hater," but if she were the nominee I'd vote for her without hesitation, FOR THIS VERY REASON.

It's so important that we get beyond our rancor and unite behind the Democrat. We won't recognize this country in 10 years if McCain wins, and that's a fact.

[Coexist]

18. ....

[Tatiana]

19. Let Stevens retire. Obama can appoint Hillary Clinton to replace him.

If we have a downticket victory like we should in 2008, we will have the votes to confirm her.

She'll bring a little balance to the increasing age of our more progressive justices. The Republicans like Roberts, Alito and Thomas will be there for a long time. We need to add some youth to the court.

[Runcible Spoon]

56. .....

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Yep, I made this point last night

It is exclusively about the United States Supreme Court

McCain gets it... I hope people write their memories of a country that ONCE had legal abortion, for example

McCain gets it... I will be so glad I don't have kids...

[Faygo Kid]

23. Give it time.

The inexorable logic of your post will take over a LONG time before November.

He is, of course, the nominee - but I understand that's not the point here.

[JerseygirlCT]

26. Yes indeed. Very important, very! nt

[Guava Jelly]

27. Fucking thank you!!!

eom

[Capt. America]

30. Amen! All of you Dems saying you will vote for McSame can go....

...hold your nose, go to the polls, and vote Democratic. Don't ruin the country for the rest of us.

[Carrieyazel]

34. If McVain does get in, and we have 56+ Senators, we can reject another Alito

couldn't we? Just throwing that out there. Reid won't let another Roberts/Alito go through if we have enough numbers.

[youknowmenotdlc]

35. We can only vote for whoever the President puts in front of us.

Thus McCain can and will send a succesion of righty judges up until we "compromise" on one we think is A-ok.

Like Roberts.

[Hippo_Tron]

40. A Democratic Senate will get us another Kennedy and MAYBE another O'Connor if we're lucky

I would much rather have another Breyer, Ginsburg, or Stevens.

[Diana Prince]

36. Thank you!

This is exactly why I will always vote for a Dem, no matter who the nominee is. Ginsberg is just waiting for a Dem President, she has been ill for a long time.

[Upton]

37. Actually Justice Stevens just turned 88 last month

I have complete confidence that once Obama is officially the nominee all true Democrats will come together and elect him in Nov.

[Raven]

39. Wonderful post! Says it all. Before some of us pick up our bat and ball

and the bases and go home. This is the ballgame and you have framed it perfectly. Thank you and welcome!

[TragedyandHope]

43. Decades of past and future legal decisions hang in the balance

:kick:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

45. Yup. McCain would appoint an 18 year old if he could.

[ShortnFiery]

46. If the superdelegates overturn the will of the pledged delegates, we have NO Democratic Party

therefore, SCOTUS doesn't matter because HRC will triangulate to a "strict constructionist." :thumbsdown:

[kwenu]

47. It'll effect more than a generation my friend, try a few generations.

[DeepModem Mom]

48. K&R

[musicblind]

49. Oh I totally agree! I plan to vote for Obama if he is the nominee and wont even have to hold my nose

because I like him, I think he'll be a great candidate. I honestly, really, truly believe that Hillary would have been a bit better and had an easier time getting elected, but Obama has many swell qualities and we NEED a dem in the White House. I just hope that Obama works every bit as hard as Hillary would have for Health Care. We may just have to take a different strategy, and concede that we are not going to be winning states like Ohio, Florida, or Michigan now. Instead we need to focus on trying to win states like North Carolina. That is where I hope lies. The we CAN'T win Ohio, Florida, Michigan with Obama but NC, SC, etc... these places might just be our saving grace. (I hope/fingers crossed) If we do win those states, the republicans will have NEVER seen it coming, which could be a plus because they wont be campaigning there as hard as Obama.

[samsingh]

50. what if we made the retirement age for these justices

50.

formed a new bench.

then moved it back up to 90?

[Jed Dilligan]

51. It's in the Constitution. They serve for life.

Of course, back then, life was shorter, especially one's productive life, and history moved more slowly.

[Fearless]

68. FDR tried that... at 70 I believe... it almost screwed him.

[Zachstar]

52. Bingo!!

[donheld]

54. This thread should be kept kicked through November.

[Vinca]

58. This posting should be on DU's front page until the election.

The way McCain could change the Supremes would destroy the country.

[DaDooRonRon]

59. Not again!!!

Alito.

Roberts.

Who do NOTHING to stop them??

Answer: Democrats.

You ride on this high horse thinking YOUR party will stop the conservative bent, when it was/is YOUR party that allowed it.

You think a conservative court that bends over backwards to support corporate rights is not the goal of BOTH parties?

And that abortion actually matters to them?

It's the ultimate strawman.

Get over it.

[youknowmenotdlc]

89. Again.

The Dems were faced with Alito or Roberts because a Repuke president put them forth, despite your wishes and mine it would have been political suicide at the time for Dems to categorically reject any and all of the Residents noiminees in hopes he would somehow put a liberal judge up for consideration. It just doesn't work that way.

So instead of hating on past actions that were ultimately unavoidable, how about concentrating on what we CAN do now, which is ensure that John Mcain doesn't have the chance to add another two Alitos or scalias or Thomases to the court.

Of course we can all continue to whine about our nominee not making it through the process, (mine was Kuch)

I wonder how Kuchinich or Edwards or Biden or Hillary feel about another two Cons on the bench?

I'm guessing they know it would be disastrous.

[psychopomp]

60. Unite to defeat the reich

[autorank]

62. k*r Great point - but Roberts and Alito must be impeached

They were appointed by an unelected president, 2004, and the other two as well, stolen election 2000.

Nothing much gets done if these clowns are on the court. They are the enemies of the people.

[Texas Hill Country]

64. Obama wanted to vote for Roberts!!!

[autorank]

65. Lard!

I'm still pushing for Henry Wallace;)

My guy is long gone.

Roberts needs to be impeached immediately for the "missing" evidence from his hearing and
for strategising the theft of 2000. A top priority.

[Texas Hill Country]

63. OBAMA ALMOST VOTED FOR ROBERTS BEFORE A STAFFER TOLD HIM NOT TO!!!

and this is the guy you trust???


WTFever

[youknowmenotdlc]

66. .Almost Voting for and nominating are two different things

You aren't proposing that Obama would put someone like Roberts forward as his nomination are you?

We discussed the process on this board ad nauseum, Bush was able to put anybody he chose up, he started with Miers who got shot down and then put up Roberts who no Democrat would put up for consideration but who our leaders were forced to consider.

[Auntie Bush]

69. I hope Obamites are reading this and now realize how important it

is to stop bashing/criticizing Hillary's every move and statement and just maybe some of the hatred between Democrats can be soothed over...otherwise Rove wins...we lose!

I frankly don't understand why Obamaites don't recognize they need Clintonites to win this election....yet they keep on bashing. :puke:
How can we vote the way such a hateful group of people want us to vote?
The Hillary bashing has got to stop! Get off of DU-P for the sake of our party if you can't control yourself! Defend your candidate and stop bashing Hillary if you want our vote and you want Obama ans Dems to win! Think about it! Absorb it! Use some self control...it's all in your hands.
I will NOT vote for Obama if the bashing continues and I speak for many Dems. You want conservative SCJ's? Fine...so do I... but it's up to you...not me! So stop the bashing if you want Hillary's supporters.

[a la izquierda]

85. oh, the generalizations continue...n/t

[grace0418]

70. I actually had a DUer claim that the likelihood of a SCOTUS change wasn't very high so

they didn't feel the need to vote for the Dem nominee if they couldn't have their nominee of choice. Can you believe that?

[ToeBot]

71. So what, if 4 moderates are replaced with 4 moderates, nothing changes.

Maybe you should have offered up your sage wisdom to the Senate Democrats when they were allowing the actual right-wing shift to happen! (Actually, "allow" isn't really the right word for it - there were a hell of a lot of 'yea' votes from the Dem side of the aisle.) Only a fool would consent to blackmail when the victim is already Dead. This is a non-issue.

[youknowmenotdlc]

84. So what? How about 4 moderates replaced with 4 Alitos

Thats the point and unless we close ranks thats what we will get.

[JoFerret]

82. Keep it in mind folks

Crucial stuff - lasts longer than personal pique and/or four years of disappointment.

[jeffrey_X]

86. Thank you! This is what we REALLY need to rally behind.

eom

[youknowmenotdlc]

87. Anything else is selfish and

childishly idiotic.

McCain is the enemy, not two Dems who are basically 99% identical when it comes to policy.

[laughingharder]

88. stevens is old

That's the #1 reason why we should elect Obama.

[youknowmenotdlc]

90. Mcain will turn back the clock to the 1920s.

We don't have the luxury of being snippy about our candidate especially when he is a progressive constitutional lawyer and especially on the heels of an administration that has tried to undermine the constitution.