Remember: Clinton & Obama voted no on whether to confirm

[Hawaii Hiker]

Roberts & Ailito (22 Democratic senators voted yes for Roberts, those who voted no listed below)....I think that they both would make GOOD appointments on the Supreme Court, as there will likely be more vacancies during the next 4 years....

Sometimes people overlook the Supreme Court, but after Bush's 2 appointments, sure as hell don't want a Republican making the next appointment(s)....

So, though I have some reservations w/HRC, I'm voting for her without heistation if she's the nominee....The future of the Supreme Court is at stake....


NO - 22 Democrats

Akaka, Hawaii

Bayh, Ind.

Biden, Del.

Boxer, Calif.

Cantwell, Wash.

Clinton, N.Y.

Corzine, N.J.

Dayton, Minn.

Durbin, Ill.

Feinstein, Calif.

Harkin, Iowa

Inouye, Hawaii

Kennedy, Mass.

Kerry, Mass.

Lautenberg, N.J.

Mikulski, Md.

Obama, Ill.

Reed, R.I.

Reid, Nev.

Sarbanes, Md.

Schumer, N.Y.

Stabenow, Mich.

[emilyg]

1. Thank you for posting.

[AtomicKitten]

2. I couldn't agree more. K&R

It is more important to me that a Democratic wins the WH than which particular Democrat wins - precisely because of the Supreme Court.

[existentialist]

3. I agree, but that's an if

Then again if South Dakota needs one more vote to carry the Democratic candidate then it will be a Democratic landslide.

But for what its worth, if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination I will support her.

Then again, if HRC wins the Democratic nomination then any financial support that I might muster (if I am not ethically prevented from making political contributions at all) will go to congressional races.

But I won't be bashing Hillary. I certainly don't love her as a candidate, but when it comes right down to it almost any Republican would be unspeakably worse.

[Debi]

4. Anyone else running for President on that list? n/t

[Hawaii Hiker]

5. Yes, Chris Dodd

voted to confirm John Roberts..And here's the Democrats who voted yes to Roberts, & shame on them, :banghead:


Democrats:

Baucus, Mont.

Bingaman, N.M.

Byrd, W.Va.

Carper, Del.

Conrad, N.D.

Dodd, Conn.

Dorgan, N.D.

Feingold, Wis.

Johnson, S.D.

Kohl, Wis.

Landrieu, La.

Leahy, Vt.

Levin, Mich.

Lieberman, Conn.

Lincoln, Ark.

Murray, Wash.

Nelson, Fla.

Nelson, Neb.

Pryor, Ark.

Rockefeller, W.Va.

Salazar, Colo.

Wyden, Ore.

Independent: Jeffords, Vt.

[Debi]

23. I meant that Joe Biden also voted no, but since he's not in the top three

in the national polls, we'll just ignore that....:eyes:

Dodd? *sigh*

[ShortnFiery]

6. self delete

[Didereaux]

7. FINALLY! someone takes note of the real PRIZE!

Thank you!
The abstraction of the Supreme Court is too many for most Americans, Democrats included. But the Supreme Court is the last bastion between the likes of what we have experienced, and the Constitution. Just one more Alito, one more Scalia, one more Thomas, or one more Roberts and you can take the Constitution and make placemats with it.

[Hawaii Hiker]

8. Your absolutely correct & you know the Republicans are going to appoint far right justices

if given the chance....

Just check out this link, it's a must read..

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=24121

"HH: Do you expect justices like Roberts and Alito to come out of a Giuliani administration?

RG: I hope. I mean, that would be my goal. I mean, they’re sort of a very high standard, and so is Justices Scalia and Thomas. That would be the kind of judges I would look for, both in terms of their background and their integrity, but also the intellectual honesty with which they interpret the law.

This should scare the hell out of anyone whose considering staying home if the candiate they don't like is the nominee...


Welcome to DU Didereaux, :woohoo:

[Milo_Bloom]

9. The real question is...

Will they be willing to stand up to a republican fillibuster of a progressive nomination OR will they give in and present a nominee who is going to be pro-business, pro-war, pro-mixing church and state, and although that nominee may not vote to OVERTURN Roe V Wade, they may be willing to allow restrictions and limitations, all the name of "compromise"?

Remember, Bush I nominated Souter and the wrong democrat may nominate a person to the court who does to the dems what Souter did to the GOP.

[William769]

10. Thats because Bush was stupid.

Nuff said.

[Milo_Bloom]

11. That doesn't even make sense.

Having Souter on the court is the one good thing we got out of the first bush administration and it came from the fact that bush was desperate to appeal to people, so he had to put up a nominee that would be non-contentious.

By the time the second nomination came around, he was fresh off the Gulf War High and feeling powerful, so he could put a wacko like Thomas in.

If you think Clinton can stand up to a GOP fillibuster and press coverage about how she is trying to "stack the court" with Liberals, you haven't followed the career of Hilary Clinton very carefully.

Clinton does not guarantee a progressive supreme court... in fact, it pretty much guarantees a pro-business, pro-compromise choice who will haunt us as the democratic Souter for years to come.

[William769]

12. What doesn't make sense?

That Bush couldn't even pick a Judge to futher his cause? Your true colors have really been showing today.

[Milo_Bloom]

17. It still doesn't make sense.

George HW Bush is/was a weak WEAK president and person. He stood for nothing except what would bring him personal glory.

Remember, he ran against Reagan as a pro-choice moderate against Trickle Down economics and then, once offered the VP spot, became an obedient lap dog.

He had no princples he believed in, no real agenda except to try and stay popular so he could win a second term.

Souter was a result of THAT. He didn't want a Bork, he wasn't popular enough to handle a big supreme court fight, so he found a compromise candidate who would be acceptable to everyone.

Once he thought he had popularity, after the Gulf War, along came Thomas, an arch-conservative who he could force through based on race and his own current popularity as a winning war time president.

The only "true colors" I see is those who refuse to understand some very simple facts of reality.

[William769]

18. I know reality for your side sucks right now, but you will get used to it.

[Milo_Bloom]

20. What side is that exactly?

The one that wants real progressives in office instead of faux ones who will offer compromises that wind up causing more long term harm to the country and the party?

[William769]

22. One who bashes a democrat using freeper tactics.

[Milo_Bloom]

26. The only freeper tactics I see are those by the ones who ignore facts.

Freepers love to fool themselves into believing anything by ignoring actual facts. They can close their mind to history at any moment, cover their ears and "LALALALALALALAL I Can't Hear Youuuuuuu" "It is safe in my little bubble and I believe everyone will do exactly what I want, even though they have let us all down over and over and over and over again in the past, the future will be totally different because I will it... LALALALALALALAL"

Let put this in terms you can understand.

There is no evidence that Clinton or Edwards can stand up to the GOP machine. In fact, the evidence is EXACTLY the opposite as they have ultimately given the GOP everything they wanted.

Did Clinton lead the charge for a Fillibuster against Alito because the Supreme Court was on the line or did she just vote a weak no in a GOP controlled senate?

Did Obama speak out FOR or AGAINST Fillibuster against this right wing wacko?

When Edwards was in office, how many times did he put his career on the line for something he really believed in, or did he give in on votes for the Bankrupcy Bill, Energy Policy, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Limiting Liability for Nukes and of course, the IWR?

Show me where one of these people risked it all and STOOD UP for what they believed in.

Show me the Howard Dean moment, where they signed the Civil Unions bill at 35% in the polls, 6 months before an election.

Show me the Russ Fiengold Moment where they voted against something called the PATRIOT act because it was bad law.

Show me the friggen Lincoln Chafee moment where they became the ONLY member of their party in the Senate to vote against a war they knew was wrong.

Show me some time in politics they took an unpopular stand and took on the machine and I will back off.

Until you show me THAT moment... It is you using "freeper tactics" because you are living in a bubble believing only what you want to believe no matter how many facts show otherwise.

[Hawaii Hiker]

13. Well, if Democrats win the WH next year, & if

we pick up several more Senate seats (as expected), they won't have to worry about comprosmising, & nor should they..Bush sure as hell put 2 far-righties on the court & didn't compromise with Democrats....

[Milo_Bloom]

19. Will all democrats do the same?

History says no.

Remember, the GOP STILL controls the airwaves and even when they controlled the senate, bush was able to get the IWR resolution through with majority support.

If you think the GOP won't fillibuster a REAL progressive nominee AND use their power of the media to fight, you've got to be fooling yourself.

And if you think the likes of Clinton or Edwards are capable of standing up to that type of onslaught, you are living in fairy land, where the past tells us nothing about the future.

[Hawaii Hiker]

21. If Clinton, Obama, or Edwards is POTUS & ,

we have say, 57+ Democratic senators, there is not a DAMN thing the Republicans will be able to do....Fuck them & FUCK Faux News..Who cares how much noise they make...Turnabout is fair play, they put 2 far-righties on the court w/Roberts & Ailito & the Democrats would love nothing more than the payback....

[Milo_Bloom]

24. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Because they weren't able to get a blank check for war when the democrats were in control of the Senate.

And they didn't manipulate Clinton to continually bomb and speak out against Iraq in 1997, which they used as cover to lay the ground work for their attacks in 2003

The GOP hasn't been experts at using a democratic majority and control of the media to their advantage.

Wow, that is some interesting fantasy land you live in.

[William769]

25. What fantasyland do you live in?

[Milo_Bloom]

27. A crazy place where FACTS rule.

[William769]

28. Only if you believe your facts to be true.

[Milo_Bloom]

30. Oh, Clinton Voted against the IWR and led the fillisbuster against Alito?

Please direct me to the link that proves those facts.

Thank you.

[Hawaii Hiker]

29. Well, I'm on your side to, but you can keep bashing me

if it makes you feel good....

Look, I do NOT think any Democrat will cave in on a Supreme Court nominee(s)....An unpopular a president as GW was able to put 2 far, far right crackpots on the court without any difficulty....A GOOD portion of this country does NOT agree with those appointments...So I'm not buying your argument that HRC (or whoever) will cave in & a have to come up with some compromise nominee....This country is not as conservative as the Washington Times & Faux Noise wants you to believe.....

[Milo_Bloom]

31. You just made the point for me.

The democrats caved into bush when the country was on their side. Why? Because the media (owned by the right) keeps selling that story so that the people on capital hill are completely disconnected with reality.

The GOP has learned that they can stand up and win, because the democrats will cave, over and over and over again.

Why didn't Clinton lead a fillibuster against Alito?

[depakid]

14. Obama criticized the filibuster

when he should have been showing some leadership.

And, oh yeah- where was Hillary? Last I heard, she was a lawyer, too.

Any person with a law degree who wasn't out there in front rallying the troops is suspect in my book.

[jillan]

15. you fail to mention Biden voted no for both.

And he even did it in style

[ToeBot]

16. In case anyone missed it, Alito was the tipping point. 9-0, 7-2, 5-4, they mean the same thing. nt