Trump voters may be ignorant, but they proved to be smarter than Dems about one thing: the courts

[StarfishSaver]

Trump voters were at least savvy enough to know that the courts were a paramount issue, something important enough to look past a candidate's outrageous, illegal, disgusting behavior to vote for him anyway because he would give them the courts they wanted.

On the other hand, Democrats - or, at least a critical mass of us - refused to vote for the candidate who would protect the courts because she wasn't perfect enough for their tastes.

And now, here we are, watching helplessly while Trump and McConnell completely and tragically reshape the federal courts in their image for generations to come.

If you don't understand the impact they're having or think this can easily be corrected when we take back power, note this: Ronald Reagan left office in 1989, but more than 150 of the judges he appointed are still serving as active or senior status judges on the federal bench.

Lesson: If for no other reason than than the courts, VOTE, dammit!

[dhol82]

1. Trump had nothing to do with it

It has been a republican agenda since before Reagan.

[Raster]

5. You are correct. The Rethuglican* High Command realized YEARS AGO that their brand was...

...dying out and did not resonate with younger voters or minority voters. They concluded the best way to retain power was to stack our country's courts, which they have done with a vengeance. Comrade McConnell* and the Senate Rethuglicans* deliberately withheld, sidetracked or outright denied POTUS Obama's nominations to the various Federal-level courts. Since the tRump* coup, the Rethuglicans* have installed approximately 100 justices to our nation's courts, most of them grossly unqualified and all of them rabid, hard-core conservatives.

[StarfishSaver]

14. Trump had everything to do with it

If Hillary Clinton were doing the nominating, the courts would be very different right now, even with Mitch and Republicans in control of the Senate.

[dhol82]

24. She might have done better nominating but Mitch et al would have blocked everything

to their utmost abilities.
That would be while they were impeaching her with Benghazi.

[StarfishSaver]

25. He couldn't have blocked everything 64, no matter how hard he tried

And even if he did, at least the seats would have remained empty and would not be full of young racist right wing ideologues in place for life.

[LonePirate]

31. From an ideological perspective an empty judgeship is better than one filled with a far right winger

[elleng]

30. 'Thanks'

[3catwoman3]

2. Which is why I say a hearty "Fuck You"...

...to every Democratic voter who couldn't bring themselves to vote for HRC. The courts were the #1 reason this past election (if we can call it that) mattered.

[LonePirate]

33. Unless the economy is tanking like in 2008, the courts are always the #1 reason to vote blue.

[3catwoman3]

46. Damn right!

eom

[anarch]

3. I don't think anybody can accuse the GOP leadership of being stupid

Many of their number may be so, or at least willfully ignorant and/or always ready to pander to their constituents, many of whom are indeed ignorant and/or victims of calculated misinformation and propaganda.

But those at the top of the food chain aren't stupid...just evil.

[NewJeffCT]

7. agreed, but

they manage to get their base to turn out, especially for mid-terms - see 1994, 2010, 2014...

Democratic leaders may be smart as well, but the do a shitty job of getting their base out to vote for mid-terms. 2006 and 2018 were driven by anti-Bush and then anti-Trump sentiment.

[moose65]

11. Amen to this 1,000 times!

The Dems really dropped the ball in 2014 - the Senate was a bloodbath for us. All those "Democratic consultants" who told candidates to run from Obama should never be allowed to work on campaigns ever again. Case in point: Kay Hagan. I read an article written by someone who worked with the Henderson County, NC Democrats. The Hagan campaign made a stop there - at a county Democratic headquarters, mind you - and the first thing that the Hagan people did was to remove cardboard cut-outs of President and Mrs. Obama, and this was at a supposedly Democratic event! The Democratic mayor of Hendersonville introduced Hagan by saying "Kay Hagan is a conservative." SMH. Why, oh why, won't Democrats ever learn??

Our mantra should be what Alan Grayson always said: "You can't beat a Republican by trying to BE one."

[StarfishSaver]

15. I don't put the blame solely on Democratic leadership

There's only so much leadership can do to get people to vote, especially those who refuse to bite because they think they're sending done kind of "message."

At some point, the voters themselves have to take responsibility for their choices.

[NewJeffCT]

17. Not soley, no

but, they need to do a better job getting the base inspired to turn out in off year elections, or when the candidate is not the most inspiring (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, Carter, etc)

[StarfishSaver]

21. I don't have much patience for the "Leaders must inspire us if they want us to vote" argument

Maybe people should stop waiting to be "inspired" by strangers and go out and make change themselves
I came of voting age in the 1980s and the last thing I was looking for or expecting was to be "inspired" by politicians. In fact, I thought that was no longer possible, that that sort of feeling had died with Bobby Kennedy. But that didn't stop me from getting involved, trying to make a difference in my community, and working as hard as I could to try to elect people whom I thought would be best for us, even if they didn't send a tingle up or down my leg.

When Bill Clinton came along, he DID inspire me and I saw that as a wonderful, unexpected bonus. It was thrilling to feel that way and I have often since felt that way with other politicians, such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Paul Wellstone, John Edwards, and plenty of others at the national, state and local levels, etc. But I still see that as a "nice to have" not a "must have." I believe that it's my responsibility to work for change - and that includes being directly engaged in the political process and voting like my life depends on it in every election - regardless whether the people running or in office give me warm fuzzy feelings. And I truly believe that if inspiration must be had, it's on ME to be that inspiration.

I really wish people were less concerned about being inspired - and stopped threatening to or actually sit it out unless and until someone tickles their fancies - and actually put their shoulders to the wheel to work for change and be inspirations themselves.

Hey, y'all. It's not about you. It's about we. And we need all of you to get engaged and VOTE and we don't care whether you want to invite the candidate to your next cookout.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=94566

If the consequences of not voting aren't enough to "inspire" them, nothing a politician says is going to do it.

And it's not like it was a big secret that if the Senate and White House went Republican, we'd get a lot of Republican judges appointed for life. People just didn't care or were trying to make some other point so that's on them.

People need to take some responsibility for their lives and stop expecting to be given tingles up their legs before they'll vote.

[NewJeffCT]

22. You may not like it, but it's a fact of life in the modern era

2016 - Trump was able to "inspire" his base more than Clinton
2012 - Obama was able to inspire his base more than out of touch elitist Romney
2008 - Young and charimatic Obama was able to inspire people to GOTV for him versus angry old McCain
2004 - "regular guy" Bush was able to get his base to vote and flip-flopping elitist Kerry was not
2000 - "regular guy" Bush was able to "beat" bland and out of touch Al Gore
1996 - Bill Clinton was young, smart and charismatic and Bob Dole was old and grouchy
1992 - young and charismatic Bill Clinton was able to beat out-of-touch elitist George H.W. Bush
1988 - OK, Bush Sr was not charismatic, but Mike Dukakis took blandness to epic levels
1984 - smooth orator Reagan beat bland and out of touch Mondale
1980 - charismatic Reagan beat boring and indecisive Jimmy Carter
1976 - clean cut, younger and smarter Jimmy Carter beat clumsy Gerald Ford, tarnished by Watergate

[StarfishSaver]

23. You're talking about "charsima" of presidential candidates

But surely you don't think that Mitch McConnell and the Republicans took over the Senate in 2014 and kept it in 2018 because their sexy was just too much for the Democratic candidates to overcome - unless you think that Ted Cruz was so much younger and more "inspiring" than Beto?

Sorry, but I just don't buy it. An electorate that won't go out and protect their interests and communities because they don't think the candidates are exciting enough deserves the government they get. The problem is that the rest of us have to suffer from their self-centered laziness.

[LonePirate]

34. Repub turnout in 2014 was nothing special. Dem turnout fell off a cliff in 2014 which was disastrous

[abqtommy]

4. Yawn...I have no idea why you're going on about

"On the other hand, Democrats - or, at least a critical mass of us - refused to vote for the candidate who would protect the courts because she wasn't perfect enough for their tastes."

Aren't you aware that Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million votes, and that she'd now be the sitting president if not for widespread corruption in the voting/tabulating process?

GET OFF MY BACK WITH THIS BLAME DIRECTED AT DEMOCRATS, who when all is said and done DID deliver!

[malaise]

6. The Con's supporters are not smarter than Democrats

That is all

[sinkingfeeling]

8. The voters don't have a clue. It's the Republican think tanks that

mapped out how to take over the judicary.

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. Exactly.

[spanone]

10. His voters have nothing to do with the courts...that's the tried and true trump fuck.

[LonePirate]

35. Wrong. The evangelicals have been obsessed with the courts. It's their prime motivator.

[Rambling Man]

12. Bless your heart

[Fresh_Start]

13. Wrong, democratic voters never lost sight of the courts

it was the BOBs and the 3rd party voters and non-voters who lost sight of the courts.

[JI7]

20. exactly and those types don't really care for many liberal issues

like civil rights

[Hortensis]

29. Yes, and PRINCIPLED courts were already manifestations

of the mostly liberal principles of our liberal democracy. Democrats of course couldn't and wouldn't take them over to corrupt their purpose. I don't know how to explain to anyone who imagines not corrupting them was stupid, as if we should have thought of it first.

[onenote]

16. To put the number in perspective

Of those Reagan judges, fewer than 20 are still on active service. On the other hand, around 90 of Bill Clinton's judicial appointees are still on active service (and another 170 are on senior status).

And for what its worth, of the 12 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, 7 still have a majority of active judges appointed by Democrats, four have a majority of judges appointed by repubs, and one is evenly split.

But to be clear --- Trump's election has had a negative impact on the courts and if Trump were to gain a second term, the impact on the courts would be completely disastrous.

[StarfishSaver]

26. Senior status judges still hear and decide cases

Don't discount them.

[onenote]

38. some do. And a lot more of the ones appointed by Clinton are still hearing cases

than the ones appointed by Reagan.

[StarfishSaver]

42. Of course more Clinton judges are serving the Reagan judges

Clinton appointed his judges much later. That's not my point. My point is that 30 years later Reagan judges are still on the bench, which is a reminder of the longevity and impact judicial nominations have. A president's influence on the federal judiciary long out lasts his or her tenure in the White House

[IcyPeas]

18. but the media is too busy reporting on this clowns every tweet

and they are not actually informing the people of what's going on behind all the stupid shitshow rallies and tweets and before ya know it....... they have more right wing extremists in the courts.

Media should do their friggen jobs. Stop reporting on this buffoons every word.

[StarfishSaver]

19. True

[beachbum bob]

27. not like many of us didn't warn DU about consequences in 2016

too bad ideology trumps commonsense, no pun intended

[BeyondGeography]

28. Guess how many times Barack Obama mentioned Merrick Garland at the 2016 convention

in his endorsement speech for Hillary Clinton.

[StarfishSaver]

36. You're right. If only that Obama had mentioned Garland in his speech

(not a nominating speech, btw), uninspired Democrats across the country would have suddenly seen the light, felt the passion, and risen up in numbers so astounding that Hillary Clinton would have flown straight to the White House as if on the wings of angels

[BeyondGeography]

37. Keep blaming the voters and letting leaders off the hook

There’s long-term security in that job.

For the record:

At the Democratic Convention in July 2016, Obama spoke eloquently on Hillary Clinton’s behalf, but did he mention Garland’s stalled nomination? “Not a word,” says the activist. “Not one word.” If a Republican president had been denied his Supreme Court pick by a Democratic Senate, there would have been hell to pay. Obama kept hoping reason would prevail.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/will-obama-ever-fess-up-to-his-merrick-garland-mess

[StarfishSaver]

40. I will indeed blame voters for the leaders they put in or allow to be put in

when they refuse to vote or vote without bothering to do their homework.

[Kurt V.]

32. Racists voted for a racist. this post gives trump voters credit for something that isn't true. so

now trump voters are smarter than dems. ok.

[Blue_Tires]

39. Obama warned us

and I warned us...

But something something Hillary, something something e-mails, something something Wall Street, something something establishment...

[StarfishSaver]

41. "She didn't make me feel better about myself, so she didn't deserve my vote"

[John Fante]

43. Hillary recieved THREE MILLION more votes than Trump.

Keep that mind the next time you shit on democratic voters with your thread titles.

[StarfishSaver]

44. Yes, she did. But, obviously, that wasn't enough to keep Trump judges off the courts

And while my OP focused on the last presidential election, my point also applies to the mid-terms, maybe more so

[Brawndo]

45. This maladministration is shredding the rule of law

at an exponential pace, without it, is there a difference between a Judge and a Janitor?