The reason it is critically important that Democrats retain the Senate

[scheming daemons]

Scalia, age 74




Kennedy, age 74




Ginsberg, age 77




Breyer, age 71




In the next 6+ years, Obama could have a few more court appointments. With a GOP-controlled Senate and GOP-controlled Judiciary Committee, it is unlikely than any judge left of center would make it through the confirmation process.

Sotomayor and Kagan are strong liberals.... but if the Judiciary Committee is controlled by Republicans, judges like them will never make it through confirmation. They'll get reverse-Borked.



I want to maintain control of the House, because the last thing we want is Darryl Issa having subpoena power.

But maintaining control of the Senate has much more long-term implications.

[mike_c]

1. personally, I'd rather see LIBERALS in control of the senate...

...no matter what party they belong to. And the current crop of dems ain't them, for the most part.

[scheming daemons]

2. There's no such thing as a Republican Liberal anymore

All the liberals that ARE in the Senate are Democrats.

[DevonRex]

5. Yawn. Another Dems aren't liberals post. And another thread hijack, too. nt

[vi5]

3. "strong liberals"

I have no problem with Sotomayor, and not much problem with Kagan but they are not "strong liberals" they are moderate liberals.

If they were "strong liberals" to fully counteract the "strong conservative" pull of the Scalia and Thomas and Roberts and Alito then I'd buy this argument. And I'm under no illusion that we'd get anything other than firebrand republican hardcore conservatives from a republican administration. Which is why I'll likely continue to vote democratic through clenched teeth. But please, PLEASE do not try to pass off anything that has been done over the past two years to be "strong liberal" anything. "Better than what republicans would have done or would do"? Sure. No doubt. But "strong liberal"? In no way, shape or form.

[DevonRex]

4. Good grief. He's talking about Supreme Court nominations.

Nothing about the last 2 years. Nothing at all. Don't hijack the thread.

[Fumesucker]

6. Kagan and Sotomayor are not SCOTUS nominees?

It's really amazing the things you can learn on DU these days..

:eyes:

[vi5]

7. As was I....

He said we should offer our support and votes, etc. because then we'll continue to get "strong liberals" like Kagan and Sontomayor on the court. I didn't say they weren't better than the alternatives, but he urged our support by describing them as "strong liberals". That is what I took issue with.

[joeybee12]

8. I'm pretty tried of this Shock Doctrine Approach...scare us so much about how bad it COULD be

so we're grateful that it's ONLY this bad.

[asdjrocky]

9. LOL!

The people that still are fooled by this stuff crack me up.

[scheming daemons]

10. Still fooled? Really?

You're going to make the intellectual argument that there's no difference between Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas?


Have at it.


This I have to read.

[yowzayowzayowza]

11. LOL

The people who fail to understand this stuff crack me up.