It's the Supreme Court, stupid.

[Cyrano]

People who don't yet understand that the next president will get to decide the makeup of the Supreme Court, are not only imbeciles, they're suicidal.

Another Scalia, Thomas, or Rhenquist on the Supreme Court could well turn this country into an unbelievable nightmare that could make Nazi Germany look benevolent.

What does it take to wake people up to the fact that this country, (with the most powerful arsenal in the history of the world), has, under BushCo, become the greatest threat to life on this planet?

With a compliant Supreme Court, another four years of BushCo would lead to a new dark age that could well last a millennium. Assuming the ecological balance of planet earth would last that long.

What the hell is it going to take to wake up brain-dead Bush voters that they're lemmings?

[acmavm]

1. We ALL understand that. It's the other side that isn't quite up to snuff

on this subject.

But at least their boy Fat Tony is into group sex/orgies.

[Cyrano]

2. I don't get it. Please explain.

[acmavm]

9. Was it the part about Scalia and the group sex that you didn't get?

Anyway, if that's it, here's what I meant.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2825865

Some non-judicious comments — for a Supreme Court justice


<snip>

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, known for his biting humor, raised eyebrows at Harvard University this week with comments about the number of people needed for group sex and the jest that "sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged." In a speech Sept. 20 at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, he made the point that while judges can have personal moral judgments, it is not their role to impose them on citizens. "Let me make it clear that the problem I am addressing is not the social evil of the judicial dispositions I have described. I accept, for the sake of argument, for example, that sexual orgies eliminate social tension and ought to be encouraged," Scalia, 68, said with a smile.

-MORE-

[Cyrano]

10. Okay, I get it. But my concern is the future of freedom of planet earth.

The power of the Supreme Court is the final word. These are the people who appointed George Bush as the president in 2000. My confusion about your initial comment aside, do we really want a majority of these people to be appointed by Bush or Kerry?

One will lead to, hopefully, a more civilized world. The other will lead to a catastrophe that would make Torquemada look benevolent.

(And for those of you who don't know who Torquemada was, Google
The Inquisition.)

[acmavm]

11. So do I. That's why I'm here. Because I don't want any more repub

appointments to an already way-to-far-right leaning, fuck the Constitution and civil rights, and screw the public's right to know court.

Not many (none that I've seen) do either. And it's pretty apparent that a bush* appointment would be the end of this country as we know (knew) it.

And as for Torquemada, being raised Catholic and very familiar with all the skeletons in the closet, I got that one covered.

[Cyrano]

12. Okay, thanks for the specifics. Now if we could only get the

majority of voters in this country to get their heads out of their asses. What really frightens me is that the igonorance of these people is going to lead to the mass destruction of life on planet Earth.

[bloom]

3. I don't know what it will take...

but I was talking with some people yesterday, and at least one person said that she is a registered Republican and she HATES Bush*.


So that made my day.

:)

[wildflower]

4. This should absolutely be getting more coverage.

It is one of my greatest concerns as well, particularly for women. I wonder how many of them are still planning not to vote this year. We need to reach them.

I'm sure NOW, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and others are on this (?) Or should be. Maybe we can contact the media, hand out flyers, and point to info pages on the Internet.

-wildflower

[tedoll78]

5. YES YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES!

If Bush loses the GOP, will have gone at least an entire 18 years without naming someone to the high court (1991-2009). And with demographic changes making Democratic dominance in the Electoral College inevitable, the GOP knows that this could be their last chance to stack the court in a looong time. That's the source of the Religious Reich's desperation.

The powers that the court holds is incredible. And the checks that other branches of govt hold over it are sooooo weak.

If anything remotely controversial passes in Congress, it ends-up before the US Supreme Court. If an executive order is controversial, it ends-up before the USSC. If an election hinges on an interpretation of the law, the USSC ends-up having to make a call on it. Environmental laws. Human rights. Police powers. War powers. Environmental policy. Educational policy. Budget policy. Economic policy. Privacy rights. The pursuit of happiness. Equal protection. The court's power is awesome and cannot be understated.

As it stands now, I'm looking at 3 or 4 possible retirements:
1) Stevens - liberal. The court's oldest member. Serving since 1976. Wife's been begging him to retire.
2) O'Connor - retirement rumors abound. Swing vote.
3) Rehnquist - also in his 80's. Served since 1973. Conservative.
4) Ginsburg - liberal. History of cancer; recurrence concerns hover overhead.

If those four retire, the court would have this makeup left over:
Conservative (2): Thomas & Scalia
Swing (1): Kennedy
Liberal (2): Breyer & Souter

If Bush gets 3 of the 4 replacement appointees to be Scalia clones, we're looking at a 5-2-2 Fascist court.

If Kerry gets 3 of the 4 replacement appointees to be Souter clones, we're looking at a 5-2-2 Liberal court.

As far as I'm concerned, this is THE biggest issue by far in this election. It's a shame that more folks aren't giving it a more thorough look.

[wildflower]

6. Posting to add a link to this article posted at LBN...

Mentions Supreme Court.

"Added Sharpton: "Everything we have fought for, marched for, gone to jail for — some died for — could be reversed if the wrong people are put on the Supreme Court."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x895889

[napi21]

7. Maybe that's exactly what some voters want.

Don't assume that every voter even thinks about the SCOTUS. I mentioned this to a friend when she called after Wed debate. She's a very interested voter, and detests shrub, but when I mentioned that 4 of the justices are over 80 and will probably retire within the next 4 years, she said "Oh, I never though of that!"

There are other voters who really WANT the SCOTUS stacked.

[cmd]

8. This is my number one issue

Unfortunately, most people including Democrats, do not get it. A Bush* election would indeed lead to another dark age.

[Cyrano]

13. Yep. But how do you get the media, and the public , to pay attention?

Beats me. And beating my head against the wall isn't going to change a damn thing.

And saying, "I told you so," sure as hell isn't going to bring about any satisfaction. Damn, damn, damn.

Sigh.

[Lex]

14. If Kerry wins the election, I will literally weep with relief

.
for my country and not because the President is a Democrat, but because Kerry will probably place at least 2 new members of the US Supreme Court, and Bush will NOT be the guy picking anyone for the SCOTUS.