We need to prepare for the next Supreme Court vacany!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ignacio Upton]

Stevens and Ginsberg are the next likely to retire. Stevens is almost 86, and Ginsberg has a history of cancer. Who is to say that neither of them will retire or die in 2006 or 2007 or 2008? We need to cut our losses on the Alito issue. Purging and running primary challengers against Robert Byrd or Maria Cantwell will only help to shrink our caucus and make us without the filibuster at all! If we continue to vote for Democrats, then we will get a larger caucus by this time next year, which will make it easier for us to sustain a filibuster with dissenters in our party. In the mean time, we need to start funding liberal judicial organizations and start pre-emptive ads against the right to stop whoever replaces Stevens or Ginsberg. We should also do some research into the groups behind the ads supporting Roberts and Alito and dig up some dirt on the people behind them (running ads against these groups themselves would be a good idea, something that we should do periodically when the issue of a Supremem Court vacancy isn't a priority, so we can destroy the credibility of those that seeka more conservative Supreme Court.)

[Ron Mexico]

1. We need some gains in the midterms, especially in the Senate.

The key is to make sure we can filibuster if necessary. Fuck what the Repugs think about the filibuster.

[merwin]

2. If Byrd and Cantwell suck, why not run people against them in the

primaries? That has NOTHING to do with who you support after the primaries. If there is a better qualified candidate running, why vote for the incumbent just because they're the incumbent?

[Ignacio Upton]

6. Is there anyone else in West Virginia that could win that state?

Like it or not, West Virginia is a socially-conservative state. Even Byrd knows this, and many of you here that attack Byrd for voting for Alito should remember that historically he has been a socially-conservative Democrat, even if he is WITH us on Iraq! With the exception of Lieberman (because the CT GOP is in shitty condition) I don't see how challenging any of our Senators up for re-election will help us. If anyone here is directly or indirectly responsible for reducing our caucus even further because of your Naderite spat of running primary challenges or third party candidates, then I hope that you get what's coming to you when Bush declares war in Iran or privatizes Social Security and there are no votes to filibuster it.

[merwin]

29. But if we don't run people against the people who refuse to fight for

the rights of their constituents, then there will surely not be a filibuster when that time comes.

[mmonk]

3. I agree.

[fairandunbalanced]

4. they key

is to retake our country and throw out the current supreme court in favor of a publically elected supreme court. We have to get away form winner takes all. If one person is appointing everyone it will never have roots in democracy.

[Ignacio Upton]

8. Publically elected would be worse

The Republican SCOTUS candidates would have deep pockets and donors, and I don't want to see our justices Swiftboated any more than they would already be.

[fairandunbalanced]

16. I dont agree

It simply cant get any worse than someone picking the candidates for the so called elected officials to elect.
I question the entire legitimacy of the supreme court, The Federal Reserve bank, and the electoral voting system!

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. I'd be happy with just sticking with the constitution, thank you.

It's the other side that wants to overthrow the constitution, not us.

[fairandunbalanced]

14. Oh the constitution

Yeah well at the time of its signing only like 10% of the population supported it, its basically a federalist paper that should be entirely rewritten to include the actual people of the united states not just property and business owners. I'm sorry but a 300 year old document is way out of date and has been totally exploited by a few to benefit a few. Take for instance the 14 amendment what was its real purpose? because if you look at it for what it really did which was give the ability for corporations to label themselves as a person and receive the same rights as a person, when a corporation is not a person, is inherently wrong. And thats just the tip of the ice berg!

burn that stupid piece of paper and let get real about democracy and civil rights!

[redwitch]

17. Um. I don't think I'm ready to burn the Constitution just yet.

Jeez. :eyes:

[fairandunbalanced]

20. burn it and keep the bill of rights

thats the only thing that really separates our Constitution from other governments constitutions! without the bill of rights which is constantly being rewritten, the constitution does nothing for us!

Im not a big fan of the old document or the founding fathers that wrote it. If you really study the constitution you will find all of its flaws and realize that its time for a new one.

[bvar22]

5. Aren't those "pyrrhic" victories....

if we continue to put people in those seats who vote with the Republicans on important issues?

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Putting dem challengers up against dems does not reduce our

strength -- and it may result in getting dems in office who will stand up for our principles.

I think we need to put a strong progressive candidate up against every one of the 18 who voted for cloture. Voting 'no' after guaranteeing Alito's appointment was a useless gesture that should fool no one.

If we keep the same turncoat dems in office, how will we ever change the political landscape. An opposition party needs to oppose.

Dump the Vichy Dems.

[Ignacio Upton]

10. Chances are it will

If we get someone who runs a primary challenge to the left, historically that person may be someone who is fairly liberal on other issues as well. Pragmatically that person would likely do worse in running against the Republican nominee. Also, primaries tend to be bloody, and if your candidate loses, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the same supporters of that candidate stay home or vote Green Party candidate. If you contribute in any way to reducing our caucus, you are just as much an enabler as Nader

[Snivi Yllom]

23. primary fights almost never help an incumbent

they cost money, energy, and can force you to change a stance

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. Sorry about the money, but changing the stance is the very point

of the whole thing.

We need people on our side who are not afraid to say that the other side is lying about us. We are not going to confiscate anyone's guns. We are not going to ban the bible. We are not going to force anyone into a gay marriage. We will not force anyone to have an abortion.

We will defend citizens' rights. We will push for equitable taxes. We will defend free speech. We will defend a woman's right to medical care, and to make her own medical decisions.

If the incumbent supports the republicans, we need to change that incumbent out for one who will support us. Otherwise, what's the point?

[yurbud]

9. Ways to prepare: buy KY for quislings who bend over for the far right.

[Brotherjohn]

12. Maybe that's what many Dems are saving the filibuster for?

Think about it. When they finally decide to filibuster a judicial nominee, Repubs are gonna try to make sure it's the LAST time. If Dems used it now, it'd probably just get nuked, and public opinion wouldn't be as much with them, and it just might stand.

But by letting Alito through, they can say they've bent over backwards and given Bush 2 SC judges. But when the next one gets nominated and is a far-right idealogue (which you can guarantee), the Dems can say "enough!", and it would look a lot more reasonable to most people. It would also likely be the judge to overturn Roe v Wade. Maybe public pressure might be such that the nuclear option wouldn't BE an option for Repubs at that point.

Just thinking.

[never_get_over_it]

18. Please Stop it

and I am not trying to be rude, but we have heard this freaking lame excuse from them for five fucking years - we're saving our fight for the big one....well this was the big one and they blew it big and we need to get rid of every freaking Democrat who does not understand what it means to be a Democrat....

And by the way getting nuked by the repunks is total bs on their part - changing Senate rules takes more than a simple majority - I think it is either 60 or 66 whatever it is they don't have enough votes - but following the rules on changing the rules doesn't seem to matter to these filthy repunks and pointing it out to the public and fighting back doesn't seem to matter to these spineless Dems

[Brotherjohn]

22. I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm just guessing at their reasoning.

However, the "Gang or 14" and the nuclear option are relatively new developments. Those developments do change things. It was just before the Roberts nomination (I believe) that the Republicans came up with, and really started to threaten, nuking the filibuster. I don't know if they'd be able to pull it off, but I wouldn't put anything beyond this bunch. And if it's done, and it sticks (even for a few years), we're sunk.

If that is the new reality, it might make some Dems choose their time more carefully at this particular time, and relative to Supreme court nominees. I mean even moreso than the usual "we're waiting for the 'big one'" reasoning.

[Dr Fate]

25. Sure- and then we will use a time machine to vote "no" on Iraq.

"The plan" is all coming together!

[JohnnyRingo]

13. If the more compassionate and moderate justices care about the court...

(and America)
They can just hang in there for two more years.
Barring intervention by Ann Coulter, the court may not be beyond repair by a Democratic administration in '09 by which time Scalia and Rhenquist may be considering an exit.

Of course, if there appears to be a hold out on retirements I expect the conservatives to implement an accelerated court agenda to fill their wish list while they hold a majority.

[DrGrishka]

15. Ummmm

Rehnquist has been dead for about 6 months. So yeah I would hope that he considers an exit by 2009. :)

I doubt Scalia will go anywhere now that he has almost a majority.

[Robbins]

19. Problem

The ALito vote shows that when push comes to shove the Dems In name only will vote for whoever Bush
puts up.

[JohnnyRingo]

28. Hahaha...ooops

I meant the other freedom miser on the court

[IndianaGreen]

21. What's the point if the Dem leadership won't filibuster?

Those that voted for cloture know that their DINO actions are never punished at the polls, so what incentive do they have to modify their behaviour.

[Dr Fate]

24. Frist will legislate away the filibuster long b/f then.

Count on it.

he saw how close we came- kiss it good bye.

[BigBearJohn]

26. Let's prepare by winning back congress in 2006