Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

wheniwasincongress

(1,307 posts)
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:44 PM Apr 2015

How 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?

90 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How liberal would Hillary's Supreme Court picks be? (Original Post) wheniwasincongress Apr 2015 OP
Light years more liberal than any fucking Republican's PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #1
Yup. Agschmid Apr 2015 #2
Exactly. beam me up scottie Apr 2015 #5
Yep wheniwasincongress Apr 2015 #30
And, they would be voting with SCJ Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Cha Apr 2015 #64
Here are the ages of the current SCOTUS justices Gothmog Apr 2015 #72
Thank you, Gothmog. There's no question we need a Dem President for so many reasons.. 'course Cha Apr 2015 #83
You got that right! /nt workinclasszero Apr 2015 #89
Good question. JDPriestly Apr 2015 #3
Not very liberal on economic issues. I'm not taking any chances to find out. NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #4
I don't give a rat's derriere who anybody votes for DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #7
When the winner of the primary loses the general, it's the fault of her supporters for choosing her. NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #8
Nader voters in Florida (and in general) deserve blame for what happened to Gore Renew Deal Apr 2015 #11
oh, here we go with the same old insults. Do you really think these intimidation tactics liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #12
This thread... WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2015 #18
You know, it won't be long before Hillary's Angry Army starts to... WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2015 #26
Since you are throwing out insults DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #31
The LOUDEST Hillary backers here are so nasty but have the thinnest skin WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2015 #36
Don't expect me to be your pinata. DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #38
Here's my new graphic! Like it? WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2015 #43
It's okay... DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #46
I haven't gotten an answer to this. Will you try? WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2015 #50
Ask a purple state person. Agschmid Apr 2015 #53
People start threads touting Warren and Sanders... DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #57
good post! WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2015 #79
I love you graphic! NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #76
Hey! I "found" (wink wink) one more graphic. Like it? WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2015 #54
... DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #62
You might actually win a game for the Bears! greatauntoftriplets Apr 2015 #56
Your interlocutor thinks a Nader can actually win... DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #14
You are an angry person aren't you? You go ahead and insult me all you want. I have better things to liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #17
If you are going to insult somebody it's really nasty to use a passive aggressive approach to do so. DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #19
The OP asked a very simple, straight forward question. How in God's name was this simple question liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #20
Does this sound like a question or a premise? DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #21
Hillary is a pretty central kind a Democrat. Some people like that about her. Personally I don't liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #22
She voted against the nominations of Samuel Alito and John Roberts. DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #24
Just last year she was quoted as saying she thinks marriage equality issues should be left to the liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #28
Way to ignore everything I wrote DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #37
This is where we simply disagree which I'm okay with. I'm not sure you can be okay with just liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #40
I demonstrated there is nothing in her record that suggests she would appoint "centrist" justices DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #42
Wow. That was almost not insulting. Good try though. liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #44
TY. You as well./NT DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #48
Good point about Ginsburg woolldog Apr 2015 #85
I really have no interest in trashing Bernie. I appreciate his sincerity and passion. DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #86
So let's be sure here. Scootaloo Apr 2015 #61
Not Nader's fault. It's partly the fault of those redstateblues Apr 2015 #80
I'd be more worried about the two hundred thousand Democrats who went for Bush Scootaloo Apr 2015 #87
Alito and Roberts gave us Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act Gothmog Apr 2015 #70
HRC voted against Their nominations: DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #73
I know Gothmog Apr 2015 #74
It's hard to derail a SCOTUS pick or Cabinet choice because of the presumption ... DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #75
You are correct-it is hard to kill a SCOTUS nominee Gothmog Apr 2015 #78
John Tower's DOD nomination was killed... DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #81
There are some stories about John Tower that explains why his nomination was killed Gothmog Apr 2015 #82
Yes./NT DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #84
Abe Fortas was actually on the Court when he was nominated by LBJ for Chief Justice in 1968 Art_from_Ark Apr 2015 #90
It sure sounds like you give a rat's derriere who anybody votes for. liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #10
why don't you and pal please tell the rest of us DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #13
My candidate may not win the primary or the general. I do not base my vote on who will win. liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #15
Your pal said this mythical third party candidate will win in 2016. DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #16
Translation: I usually flush my vote down the toilet from my high horse. FSogol Apr 2015 #23
Folks should be able to vote for whomever they want... DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #27
Completely Agree. Wanting America to turn into a liberal paradise overnight is FSogol Apr 2015 #29
Yeah DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #6
I could see her asking Scalia to retire just so she can nominate him again Renew Deal Apr 2015 #9
Democratic Primary is Labor vs Banksters and Wall Street WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2015 #25
Well, yeah, but... tularetom Apr 2015 #32
It's not that economic issues trump everything. It's that you cannot separate economic liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #35
pretty much the same as any democrat: as liberal as the senate would allow. unblock Apr 2015 #33
Whoever they are, they'll need to be confirmed. Warren DeMontague Apr 2015 #34
Russ Feingold is my dreamy SCOTUS pick. PeaceNikki Apr 2015 #41
Our party needs people like him, absolutely Warren DeMontague Apr 2015 #45
much better than Cruz, Rubio, Walker, Ryan, Huckabee, or any of the other idiots demtenjeep Apr 2015 #39
she sits about the same place as obama. he made a couple excellent choices. nt seabeyond Apr 2015 #47
She should appoint Anita Hill./NT DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #49
wouldnt that be a slap across a face. nt seabeyond Apr 2015 #51
Perhaps but a deserved one. In my book she is a heroine./NT DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #58
i agree and i agree. nt seabeyond Apr 2015 #59
I would stand up and shout for joy over this! leftofcool Apr 2015 #88
A lot more liberal than any Republican's pick Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2015 #52
I dunno Scootaloo Apr 2015 #55
gosh that man is so unhealthy, one would think. then i think about cheney. how? nt seabeyond Apr 2015 #60
Hate is a surprisingly strong motivator, it seems. Scootaloo Apr 2015 #65
Here is why this election is so important Gothmog Apr 2015 #71
I know they would be voting with SCJ Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Cha Apr 2015 #63
It will probably depend how deep the Senate is in Democrats. There is a need to have sixty votes Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #66
How corporate friendly would Hillary's SamKnause Apr 2015 #67
One thing is for absolute sure... longship Apr 2015 #68
Any justices selected by HRC would be far better than a justice selected by Jeb or Scott Walker Gothmog Apr 2015 #69
Problem is many here don't give a shit... Historic NY Apr 2015 #77

wheniwasincongress

(1,307 posts)
30. Yep
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:48 PM
Apr 2015

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)
83. Thank you, Gothmog. There's no question we need a Dem President for so many reasons.. 'course
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:51 PM
Apr 2015

I remember so many on this board were whining about Pres Obama's choices of Sotomayor and Kagan.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
3. Good question.
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:47 PM
Apr 2015

Probably very liberal on women's issues, but not so much on other economic issues and on unions.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
4. Not very liberal on economic issues. I'm not taking any chances to find out.
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:51 PM
Apr 2015

I will vote for the candidate left of Hillary, whomever they may be.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
7. I don't give a rat's derriere who anybody votes for
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:02 PM
Apr 2015

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)
8. When the winner of the primary loses the general, it's the fault of her supporters for choosing her.
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:05 PM
Apr 2015

Choose a loser at their peril.

I'm going with winners.

Renew Deal

(81,852 posts)
11. Nader voters in Florida (and in general) deserve blame for what happened to Gore
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:10 PM
Apr 2015

The Gore voters voted for the correct person.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
12. oh, here we go with the same old insults. Do you really think these intimidation tactics
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:13 PM
Apr 2015

change peoples' votes?

 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
26. You know, it won't be long before Hillary's Angry Army starts to...
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:40 PM
Apr 2015

"Bernie" threads.

We're 3 weeks away from Bernie declaring.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
31. Since you are throwing out insults
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:48 PM
Apr 2015

Since you are throwing out insults:


Hillary's Angry Army



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.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
46. It's okay...
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 08:10 PM
Apr 2015

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)
50. I haven't gotten an answer to this. Will you try?
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 08:22 PM
Apr 2015

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.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
57. People start threads touting Warren and Sanders...
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 08:41 PM
Apr 2015

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"?


DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
14. Your interlocutor thinks a Nader can actually win...
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:16 PM
Apr 2015

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)
17. You are an angry person aren't you? You go ahead and insult me all you want. I have better things to
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:20 PM
Apr 2015

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)
19. If you are going to insult somebody it's really nasty to use a passive aggressive approach to do so.
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:24 PM
Apr 2015

This thread was designed to demean and demonize Secretary Of State Clinton and I responded appropriately.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
20. The OP asked a very simple, straight forward question. How in God's name was this simple question
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:27 PM
Apr 2015

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)
21. Does this sound like a question or a premise?
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:29 PM
Apr 2015
"I could see her choosing people who often straddle the line between the two parties..."

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
22. Hillary is a pretty central kind a Democrat. Some people like that about her. Personally I don't
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:30 PM
Apr 2015

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)
24. She voted against the nominations of Samuel Alito and John Roberts.
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:37 PM
Apr 2015

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)
28. Just last year she was quoted as saying she thinks marriage equality issues should be left to the
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:44 PM
Apr 2015

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)
37. Way to ignore everything I wrote
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:53 PM
Apr 2015

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)
40. This is where we simply disagree which I'm okay with. I'm not sure you can be okay with just
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:56 PM
Apr 2015

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)
42. I demonstrated there is nothing in her record that suggests she would appoint "centrist" justices
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 08:04 PM
Apr 2015

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)
44. Wow. That was almost not insulting. Good try though.
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 08:08 PM
Apr 2015

We may disagree but I truly hope you have a good weekend. Namaste.

 

woolldog

(8,791 posts)
85. Good point about Ginsburg
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:30 PM
Apr 2015

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)
86. I really have no interest in trashing Bernie. I appreciate his sincerity and passion.
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:35 PM
Apr 2015


But the suggestion that HRC can't be trusted to appoint liberal justices is not supported by the facts.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
61. So let's be sure here.
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 08:49 PM
Apr 2015

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)
80. Not Nader's fault. It's partly the fault of those
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:40 PM
Apr 2015

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)
87. I'd be more worried about the two hundred thousand Democrats who went for Bush
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 10:36 PM
Apr 2015

But you know... that's me, I guess.

Gothmog

(145,086 posts)
70. Alito and Roberts gave us Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:15 PM
Apr 2015

Two more GOP appointed justices will guarantee the demise of Roe v. Wade

Gothmog

(145,086 posts)
74. I know
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:26 PM
Apr 2015

These two justices were bad but any attempt to filibuster them would have triggered a nuclear option by the GOP

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
75. It's hard to derail a SCOTUS pick or Cabinet choice because of the presumption ...
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:29 PM
Apr 2015

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)
78. You are correct-it is hard to kill a SCOTUS nominee
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:35 PM
Apr 2015

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)
81. John Tower's DOD nomination was killed...
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:42 PM
Apr 2015

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)
82. There are some stories about John Tower that explains why his nomination was killed
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:46 PM
Apr 2015

Tower was a complete drunk and an ass. Women could not ride in the same elevator with him without drawing his "attention"

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
90. Abe Fortas was actually on the Court when he was nominated by LBJ for Chief Justice in 1968
Sun Apr 19, 2015, 04:32 AM
Apr 2015

He ended up resigning a few months into Nixon's first term due to questions about his ethics.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
13. why don't you and pal please tell the rest of us
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:14 PM
Apr 2015

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)
15. My candidate may not win the primary or the general. I do not base my vote on who will win.
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:18 PM
Apr 2015

I base my vote on who will fight for economic equality.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
16. Your pal said this mythical third party candidate will win in 2016.
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:20 PM
Apr 2015
When the winner of the primary loses the general, it's the fault of her supporters for choosing her.

Choose a loser at their peril.

I'm going with winners.



I want to know how this works.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
27. Folks should be able to vote for whomever they want...
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:41 PM
Apr 2015

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)
29. Completely Agree. Wanting America to turn into a liberal paradise overnight is
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:45 PM
Apr 2015

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)
6. Yeah
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:56 PM
Apr 2015


I could see her choosing people who often straddle the line between the two parties. Has she spoken about this?







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.


 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
25. Democratic Primary is Labor vs Banksters and Wall Street
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:37 PM
Apr 2015

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.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
35. It's not that economic issues trump everything. It's that you cannot separate economic
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:52 PM
Apr 2015

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)
33. pretty much the same as any democrat: as liberal as the senate would allow.
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:49 PM
Apr 2015

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)
34. Whoever they are, they'll need to be confirmed.
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:50 PM
Apr 2015

I mean, I'd like to see JP Barlow on the SCOTUS, but I wont hold my breath.

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
41. Russ Feingold is my dreamy SCOTUS pick.
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:57 PM
Apr 2015

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.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
55. I dunno
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 08:39 PM
Apr 2015

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.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
65. Hate is a surprisingly strong motivator, it seems.
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 08:53 PM
Apr 2015

of course, being able to loot the poor to buy spare body parts probably helps too.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
66. It will probably depend how deep the Senate is in Democrats. There is a need to have sixty votes
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 08:58 PM
Apr 2015

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)
67. How corporate friendly would Hillary's
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 08:59 PM
Apr 2015

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)
68. One thing is for absolute sure...
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:05 PM
Apr 2015

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)
69. Any justices selected by HRC would be far better than a justice selected by Jeb or Scott Walker
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:12 PM
Apr 2015

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

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How liberal would Hillary...