2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWould President Hillary Clinton choose Supreme Court Justices
That would overturn Citizens United?
10 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes. | |
6 (60%) |
|
No. | |
4 (40%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)But you never know what justices will do when they get there.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)She kind of enjoys all the big dollars....
l'm not sure what you're saying.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 18, 2015, 12:56 PM - Edit history (1)
Justices' decisions, but especially liberal justices', do often change over time in some areas of law but tend to remain within a general range of what is expected of them over most of their careers. For instance, Ruth Bader Ginsberg votes liberal about 60% of the time, consistent with expectations for her moderately left ideology. (The constitution and established law do not allow anyone to just run all left or all right. Even extremely conservative Scalia votes conservative only about 70% of the time.)
HOWEVER, more conservatives have moved left than liberals have moved right in general, and the major movements have been conservative and moderate justices moving definitely left over their years on the bench on CIVIL RIGHTS issues, to the bitter anger of citizens who have not.
Plus, the expectations of many strong conservatives are often unrealistic; their views on any issue may simply not be compatible with the constitution and context, or, extremely often, badly misinformed by the propaganda some people prefer to solid information.
In any case, again, we on the left really don't need to worry that a Democrat president's appointees would be handing us the kind of nasty surprises the right keeps getting traumatized by.
riversedge
(70,189 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)What is your point?
YabaDabaNoDinoNo
(460 posts)Wall Street will get what they paid for
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Same would be said for the picks of any of our candidates. It seems that there are many people getting into politics that haven't had much experience. That is wonderful.
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Second term, (assuming there is one) still unlikely but less so.
The power structure she is part of depends on big money and the CU donors are a big part of it. I don't see her turning on them, but I could be wrong.
The only spark of hope would be that her legacy desires outweigh her loyalty to the power structure she is part of.
No way to know, but it is not worth the risk. We know where Bernie is on this and that can't be said of Hillary.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)something very interesting happens before next spring, of course; and with this cards-in-the-air season I'm not betting anything on that. O'Malley's interesting.
The prospect of a GOP president is very scary. ALL of them are strong right, and several are extreme right, including Rubio according to RedState.
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)Her husband selected one of the strongest liberals we have with Ruth Bater Ginsburg.
Blasphemer
(3,261 posts)Though the party is firmly center-right, Dem presidents have been pretty reliable when it comes to selecting supreme court justices. It's one thing I never worry about when they lead the executive branch.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)dsc
(52,155 posts)justices nominated by Democratic Presidents in my lifetime (I will be 48 in December). All four are still in the bench. Two of them voted against Citizens United. Both appointed by Bill Clinton. The other two are on record in a later case and their nomination hearings as being against it.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Anyone who is not a right wing brain dead ideologue would vote to over turn it, so yes.