General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow liberal would Hillary's Supreme Court picks be?
One of the most important reasons to NOT sit out voting for Clinton if/when she is the Dem nominee is the Supreme Court. But how liberal would her picks for the court be? Honestly, I could see her choosing people who often straddle the line between the two parties. Has she spoken about this?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I won't be staying home or playing games come election day.
wheniwasincongress
(1,307 posts)I want to hear the excuses of the people who say they will sit out the election if Hillary is the candidate. Do they not care about the Supreme Court and how their decisions effect fellow Americans?!
Cha
(297,123 posts)Gothmog
(145,086 posts)Cha
(297,123 posts)I remember so many on this board were whining about Pres Obama's choices of Sotomayor and Kagan.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Probably very liberal on women's issues, but not so much on other economic issues and on unions.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I will vote for the candidate left of Hillary, whomever they may be.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)But I would literally bet my life against a bag of chips that if you vote for the "candidate left of Hillary" in the general election that candidate is surely going to lose.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Choose a loser at their peril.
I'm going with winners.
Renew Deal
(81,852 posts)The Gore voters voted for the correct person.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)change peoples' votes?
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)"Bernie" threads.
We're 3 weeks away from Bernie declaring.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Since you are throwing out insults:
I have a better chance of being the starting quarterback for the Bears than Bernie has of ever winning the Democratic nomination.
Now find another cute graphic to insult me like you insulted the other poster.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I treat people with the same contempt or respect they threat me.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I do prefer to tout my choice rather than the demean the choice of others unless the person demeans my choice.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Why can't Hillary backers just relax because you and I know she's going to destroy everyone from the left. That fact won't make us stop supporting Bernie or Elizabeth (of course, she not running).
But the fact is, 86% of Democrats support Hillary.
You know that! All Hillary supporters know that (or am I giving them too much credit).
So why all the vitriol and mocking from her camp.
Hillary will be President. Why can't her supporters chill the bleep out?
Bernie and Elizabeth write ins won't amount to 0.00001% of the 100,000,000 votes cast. Don't you guys understand that?
It's remarkable you guys clearly don't.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)In my state it doesn't matter.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I don't go in them and take a rhetorical dump...It just upsets people... I did point out that except for his IWR vote Lincoln Chafee isn't all that different than the other New England Republicans , Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and imho, is a lot less progressive than Hillary Clinton. I also pointed out that Jim Webb isn't all that progressive either...
I took exception to two things in this thread
-the suggestion that HRC is going to appoint centrist justices when her record in that area suggests anything but.
-and a third party candidate can actually be elected president
I'm sorry we got off on the wrong track but I would be less than candid if I said I didn't see the thread as a thinly veiled call out...
Wouldn't a more honest premise be that a person who voted against Alito and Roberts and implicitly voted for Breyer and Ginsburg is going to appoint liberal justices as opposed to "those that straddle the difference between the two parties"?
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)greatauntoftriplets
(175,731 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I have a better chance of defeating Wlad Klitschko for the superheavyweight title which is no chance at all...
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)do than engage in ugly, nasty behavior with you. By the way weren't you the one who said in another thread that there was a concerted effort to cow Hillary supporters. It seems to me it is the other way around. There is a concerted effort to get us Hillary critics to cow and I'm sorry but it is not going to work.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)This thread was designed to demean and demonize Secretary Of State Clinton and I responded appropriately.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)in any way demonizing? Boy we really aren't allowed to ask any questions or criticize in any way are we. We are just suppose to blindly follow in agreement. Geez.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)like that about her but I'm not sure you can deny that she does chose the middle of the road most of the time. How is that demonizing?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Her husband appointed Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
That certainly suggest she isn't going to choose people " who often straddle the line between the two parties".
Actually, the last Democratic president who appointed someone to the Supreme Court "who often straddled the line between the two parties" was John Kennedy when he appointed his buddy, Byron "Wheezer" White.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)states. Now she says it should be a federal constitutionally protected right. I'm not sure I trust her sudden change of heart, but it isn't even the social issues that worry me about her. I want Supreme Court picks that will protect people's economic equality and I don't trust her to pick judges that will do that.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Someone who voted against Alito and Roberts and was instrumental in nominating Breyer and Ginsburg isn't going to appoint justices antithetical to progressive interests...
As to glbtq rights her record is impeccable and if she did come to supporting marriage equality late which I dispute it's one whole election cycle later than President Obama and Vice President Biden.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)disagreeing. You want to hammer it in until I agree with you and I'm sorry but it's just not going to happen.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I demonstrated there is nothing in her record that suggests she would appoint "centrist" justices. That demonstration should and would convince anybody who entered this conversation with an open mind.
I regret I was unable to convince you and some others.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)We may disagree but I truly hope you have a good weekend. Namaste.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)woolldog
(8,791 posts)I can't believe anyone is seriously considering Bernie Sanders. What a joke. If he is the nominee might as well hand the Republicans the keys to the white house at the convention.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)But the suggestion that HRC can't be trusted to appoint liberal justices is not supported by the facts.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)1) Gore ran a terrible campaign and picked someone to the right of Bush to be his running mate.
2) Florida had been steadily disenfranchising as many voters as it possibly could right up to election day.
3) On election day, over two hundred thousand Florida democrats voted for George W. Bush
4) Following the election, we know damn well the machines were tampered with, hacked, and manipulated.
5) We know that a very large number of votes were simply thrown out for having stray pencil marks in the margins, someone checkign "Al Gore" and writing in "Al Gore" etc.
5) we also know that the Florida Republicans and their hired goons conspired to freeze the vote counting.
6) A partisan court finally appointed Bush the winner.
7) We now know from counts after that SCOTUS decision, that Gore actually won by several thousand votes in Florida. Despite all that stuff above, there were still more votes for Gore at the end.
But it's Nader's fault.
Ah huh.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)That voted for him. It's amazing that the Naderites still feel the need to pretend that voting for Nader didn't help put Bush/Cheney into office.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But you know... that's me, I guess.
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)Two more GOP appointed justices will guarantee the demise of Roe v. Wade
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)These two justices were bad but any attempt to filibuster them would have triggered a nuclear option by the GOP
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)It's hard to derail a SCOTUS pick or Cabinet choice because of the presumption it is the president's prerogative because he or she won.
I have absolute confidence she will appoint forward thinking justices should she win.
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)Abe Fortas was stopped but that was due to LBJ's unpopularity and timing. Nixon had two really unqualified justices who were blocked but Nixon found acceptable replacements. Bork was blocked but that was due to his extreme ideology. Harriet Miers were killed by the GOP. Normally, it is very difficult to stop a SCOTUS nominee
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)The Republicants are sure being dilatory with Loretta Lynch's nomination...
But the presumption that a president gets to pick his Cabinet and SCOTUS has validity. That's why winning is important. (DUH)
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)Tower was a complete drunk and an ass. Women could not ride in the same elevator with him without drawing his "attention"
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)He ended up resigning a few months into Nixon's first term due to questions about his ethics.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Why don't you and pal please tell the rest of us of how a third party candidate is going to beat the Republican and Democratic candidate to secure enough to votes to earn a plurality or majority of votes in enough states to get 270 electoral votes in 2016?
And, again, I couldn't care less how some random internet poster is going to vote than his or her prediction of who is going to win the NBA Finals.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I base my vote on who will fight for economic equality.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Choose a loser at their peril.
I'm going with winners.
I want to know how this works.
FSogol
(45,472 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I just find the proposition that a third party candidate who runs to the left of Hillary can win the general election patently absurd.
FSogol
(45,472 posts)a nice dream, but at the end of the day you need to pull the lever for someone who can win. The person with the D after their name thinks the Free Lunch Program for poor school kids is a good idea. The person who with the R thinks giving a free lunch is an evil government intrusion. Vote Democratic.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Like Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg...Oh, she's not her husband, that's right...She voted against the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Renew Deal
(81,852 posts)Because she's clever like that.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Bernie will run as a Dem, so the title reads Bernie (Labor) vs Hillary (Banksters and Wall Street)
Now this will be interesting!!!
The key question here is: If Hillary can't beat Bernie in the primary, will the raging, Hillary Army "drop out". You know, the Army that screams bloody murder that since you're not supporting Hillary now, you're obviously going to vote for a Republican.
So if the Democratic Party supports Labor over Banksters and Wall Street, what will Hillary's Angry and Despondent Army do?
I'm with those who say good on social issues, bad on economic issues.
*Punchline: Americans don't pay attention to the issues. They have no idea what Hillary stands for and who she stands with. They love or hate her, but most Democrats will vote for her because they won't pay attention to the opposition within the party. Hillary's money will drown out other voices, and Joe blurts out funny things, and Bernie looks like the nutty professor.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Economic issues trumps everything ya know.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)and social issues. Democrats have made this nice tidy little bow for themselves. They separate economic issues from social issues and as long as they are good on social issues they can completely ignore economic issues. Well you cannot separate the two. You cannot have social justice without economic justice. The poverty stricken single mothers, the educationally disenfranchised African Americans, the disabled. Economic justice is social justice.
unblock
(52,185 posts)if someone like warren were president, she'd have be able to drive a pretty liberal agenda and certainly could steer the executive branch in a very liberal direction. but getting a liberal nominee past the senate, even if just a republican filibuster, is another matter.
on that score, i don't think there's much difference between any potential democratic president. the best any of them can do is nominate the most liberal person that can get through the senate process.
which, sadly, isn't anywhere liberal enough for me. but that only means we need to fix the senate.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I mean, I'd like to see JP Barlow on the SCOTUS, but I wont hold my breath.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)But I'm super excited that we might get him back in the Senate and right the terrible wrong we made a few years ago.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)demtenjeep
(31,997 posts)much better.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,881 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But unless Scalia finally chokes on one of his own asscheeks, the next seat to open will be one of the "liberal" ones. So, would we get a Sotamoyer, or a Kennedy?
The answer to that question depends on whether you think Clinton will actually take a stand, or will "compromise for bipratisanship."
Me, I'm holding out hope for Scalia choking on his own asscheeks. It's overdue.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)of course, being able to loot the poor to buy spare body parts probably helps too.
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)Kennedy should also be circled
Cha
(297,123 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)To prevent a filibuster by the GOP. I am sure whoever it may be it will be someone with great character, maybe even Obama.
SamKnause
(13,091 posts)Supreme Court picks be ???
How Wall Street friendly would Hillary's
Supreme Court picks be ???
9 people should not be deciding ANYTHING that affects 317+ million people.
They entire system stinks.
Science and biology were totally ignored in the Hobby Lobby case.
Religious considerations took precedence or facts, science, and biology.
longship
(40,416 posts)If she gets the nomination and is elected, Hillary's appointments will be far, far better than adding more theocrats to SCOTUS, no matter who they are.
The extent that those who profess to dislike Hillary do not comprehend this, is the extent to which the Democratic Party is utterly screwn.
Note: I support nobody at this time, mainly because it is almost 19 months until the fucking election! and nobody knows who will be the nominee of either party.
But one things is absolutely true. Any Democratic nominee will be an easy choice over the theocratic, lunatic clown car that the GOP puts forward (so to speak).
I will work for any progressive in the running. But Hillary Clinton will be okay with me, if no other Democratic candidate is competitive.
Hillary would be a very easy choice, no matter what her previous Senate votes were.
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)Until the Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate, it will be difficult to get another Ruth Bader Ginsburg confirmed but a Sotomayor or a Kagan is far better than an Alito or Roberts
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)they even say it..........its oligarchy this and oligarchy that.