CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said something quite alarming:

[Hawaii Hiker]

I was flipping channels & caught some of Jeffrey Toobin on Dobbs' show...Toobin thinks that during next administration, very likely that Supreme Court justices Stevens, Ginsburg, & AND Souter may retire....Ok, if any Democrat thinks about staying home if his/her candiate is not the nominee, what Toobin said should make even the Hillary haters want to GLADLY vote for her if she's the nominee...Hell, after what he said I'd vote for Joe Libermann (and i can't STAND him AT ALL) if he was the nominee...

If those 3 aforementioned justices retire next term, & they'd be replaced by a Republican president, well, the only question remaining would be what CENTURY would the new ultra-far right wing court take us back to; the 12th., 13th., or 14th. century??...

No democrat should stay at home next Nov., if your candiate is not the nominee, too much is at stake!...

:rant:

[hlthe2b]

1. well, I long proclaimed two words as the reason not to elect

Bush* in 2000 and 2004, ie., the Supreme Court.... I don't know how many times we can get it wrong, but I guess we are still at war with Oceana, aren't we? :mad:

[lonestarnot]

63. No just Christmas.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. RLOL

that is actually very funny, thank you

A new front against Hallloween has opened though

;-)

[Supersedeas]

79. priorities

[shadowknows69]

2. Too much is at stake if we elect the wrong person from either side

[Hawaii Hiker]

5. HRC is not even my prefered candiate, but I absolutely trust her

on judicial appointments...She voted no on whether to confirm Roberts and Ailito & she voted no on the Southwick nomination...

[shadowknows69]

24. valid points about her voting record

[pnwmom]

28. On this issue, there is NO wrong person on the Democratic side.

Any of our candidates' nominees would be infinitely preferable.

[mod mom]

77. Exactly which is why we need someone besides a DLCer to be our candidate!

[papau]

3. similar to 04 and Bush's 2 appointments to the USSC - we lost because of a stolen election and

now that we have tossed out the one chance we had to stop a stolen election in 08 via a requirement for mandatory audits - the Holt Bill that DUers felt was not good enough - the task of both winning the 08 election AND being named the winner has become that much harder.

I hope we can do it.

[MethuenProgressive]

4. The best way to make Progress is to win the White House.

To pout and stay home, to refuse to vote, is not just un-democratic, it's Anti-Democratic.

[emilyg]

6. Amen. Grow-up people. This is important.

[Ninja Jordan]

7. Not to mention Scalia may croak.

Which we be a huge pickup for us.

[ellenfl]

8. but isn't confirmation up to the senate? eom

[Ninja Jordan]

9. If that were true, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia wouldn't be on the court

The choice is ultimately up to the President.

[ellenfl]

38. no it's not.

the prez puts the nominee up but confirmation is up to the senate . . . and there are no recess appointments to the sc as far as i know. we just have to be sure the dems keep their backbones.

ellen fl

[robinlynne]

74. ummm. take a look at how well that has been working...Alito? Roberts?

[ellenfl]

75. yeah, well, we were still in the minority then. hopefully, things

have changed with regard to scotus confirmations.

ellen fl

[pnwmom]

30. Yeah, so we need to retain the Democratic Senate, too --

preferably with a larger majority.

[ellenfl]

37. i'm thinking we should be able to pick up more senate seats in 2008. eom

[Hawaii Hiker]

62. I'm hoping Democrats can get 55+ Senate seats

Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, & couple others are good potentials for pick ups in 2008....I mean, we have 51 now, but you need to have at least 55+ to allow for the Ben Nelson's, & other more conservative Democrats...

Remember, 4 Democratic senators voted to confirm Ailito...

It's bad enough to confirm an Ailito, but it would be a tragedy beyond description to confirm Ailito types with a Democratic majority in the Senate...

[DearAbby]

10. All the more reason to make sure our nominee is one who will

unite us...not divide us.

[pnwmom]

31. There is no such perfect person. It's our job to unite behind whoever

the nominee is, because any of our candidates are vastly superior to the cretins on the other side.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. This is just one more MAJOR REASON a Democrat MUST BE elected!

We cannot allow them to have the chance to appoint anymore Justices! If that happens, we are so screwed. Welcome to 1930.:(

[jgraz]

12. Except that the last three Neanderthals could have been stopped had the Dems shown some spine

Thomas. Roberts. Alito. All clearly unqualified to sit on the bench, yet all confirmed. This is a bigger problem than just having the wrong guy in the White House.

Edit: Even though Kennedy is a conservative, just think how much worse off we'd be if the Democrats had caved in on Robert Bork's nomination.

[Ninja Jordan]

13. How are Alito and Roberts "unqualified"?

While I may not agree with their statutory and consitutional interpretations, neither are unqualified to sit on the Court. Alito's been a federal judge for many years, and Roberts has been one of the leading advocates in front of the Court--and himself had been a federal judge for several years prior to his nomination. Both are quite sharp. I fail to see how they're unqualified. Would I vote against their confirmation? Yes. But it wouldn't be because they weren't qualified.

[jgraz]

14. Both also lied in their confirmation hearings re: Roe and stare decisis

It's not just legal knowledge that qualifies someone for the bench. It's also temperament and moral fiber. Roberts and Alito fail on both counts.

[Ninja Jordan]

15. You'll have to do better than that.

You better bring examples if you plan on calling people liars.

[jgraz]

16. OK...you're defending Roberts and Alito...

Did I somehow log on to the wrong board?? :wtf:

[Ninja Jordan]

17. I'll always call BS when I see it.

I don't agree with their interperative methodology, but they are neither unqualified, or, from what I've seen, "liars." Roberts was actually pretty fantastic in his confirmation hearings. He made it hard for anyone to vote against him. He is clearly a judicial star. I hope we can put up nominees like him (in that they're very sharp and can handle rough questioning).

[jgraz]

18. Someone hasn't been paying attention lately

Here's one link for you. Next time you get to do your own homework.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5099.html

[Ninja Jordan]

19. Shouldn't have to research every accusation you make.

That burden of proof is always on you. What came of Specter's inquiry? It seems a stretch to say they were lying.

[jgraz]

27. This has become common knowledge on this site and other progressive blogs

The burden of staying minimally informed is on you.

[amandabeech]

52. I think that "qualified" and "philosophically inclined in a liberal direction" are two different

things for purposes of selecting judges. Qualified in the context of judicial candidates doesn't refer to philosophical approach to the law, but rather to whether the judge can understand the arguments of litigating attorneys, apply legal principles logically and write coherent opinions.

I wouldn't nominate Alito or Roberts, because I don't agree with their interpretations on many matters. I wouldn't vote for them, either.

Nonetheless, like the earlier poster, I think that they are qualified. They are both very smart and very experienced, and, unfortunately, likely to serve long terms. I recall that they had high ABA ratings, and were suitable nominees for a very conservative President.

Thomas, on the other hand, was very inexperienced and had almost no track record to examine. He was not qualified for the Supreme Court, and the ABA rankings for him were just that in a couple of cases. He should not have been nominated at all.

[pnwmom]

33. Yeah, and where has that gotten us? Nowhere. Which is why

we need a Democratic President and a Democratic Supreme Court in order to ensure a set of appointments that will start to turn this Court around.

[grasswire]

48. man o man

Has it come to this? That a man is valued by how he can navigate an interview without getting caught? Things are worse than I thought.

[cali]

20. quite the little sideshow

and quite the dishonest accusation of another DUer. The point is that another repuke will do in the SC for the forseeable future, and the rest of the federal judiciary as well. And no, contrary to your arguments in other threads, the SC is not quite yet, a completely lost cause.

Vote or don't vote next year, but the truth is that the next president will have the opportunity to name several Justices, and what a repuke would do and what a dem would do is considerably different.

[jgraz]

29. And Thanks for Playing: Completely Missing the Point

Dude, you really need to develop your sense of irony in conversation. Also you may want to consider removing that huge stick up your butt.

Edit: Just for the record, I'm not actually accusing you of inserting foreign objects into your rectum. Just in case you were confused on that point.

Edit 2: Not that there's anything wrong with that if you're into that thing.

Edit 3: But I really don't want to know. Thanks.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

32. We need choices a lot better than Justice Roberts vs. Justice Kennedy.

And the only way to get that is to have a Democratic President.

[VP505]

54. I agree, and it will be

interesting to watch and see, should it come to pass that a Dem get elected and there are SCOTUS appointments, how vigorously the Republics will fight their nominations. How likely will it be that they will BLOCK at least one, just to show how its done?

[GeorgeGist]

21. Going Nowhere Fast

either way ... America's Days are Past.

[JMDEM]

22. Yea, this is why I'll vote for Hillary, if she's the nominee.

Makes me want to gag, but you are right -- that would be REALLY SCARY -- to have two more neocons on the SC.

[antigop]

23. Ooh, the "threat" du jour. I'm soooo scared. n/t

[JMDEM]

25. You should be. We're teetering on the edge as it is... nt.

[antigop]

26. Ooh, I'm shaking in my boots. n/t

[pnwmom]

34. Spoken like the Naderites of old.

I would think people would have learned by now.

:shrug:

[antigop]

39. I would think people would have learned by now that the Senate needs to confirm judges. n/t

[pnwmom]

42. As long as we're relying on the Senate -- and not a Democratic President --

the BEST we can hope for are center-right judges who have good judicial qualifications.

We need to do a lot better than that to turn the Court around.

[antigop]

43. then we have a problem WITH THE SENATE -- are you working to oust those Senators who

vote to confirm rw judges?

[pnwmom]

46. The Senate has always, historically, given the President the benefit

of the doubt and voted to confirm nominees who are well qualified and without serious personal flaws (such as history of racism). It would be unprecedented for the Democrats in the Senate to refuse to confirm any nominee based on purely political factors.

And no, I'm not working to oust either of my Democratic Senators. I like them both.

[antigop]

47. Who said anything on this thread about confirming based on "purely political factors"?

n/t

[pnwmom]

51. That would be the only way to avoid a complete takeover by

the right, if we have another Rethug President. There are plenty of well-qualified very conservative judges, who would be easily confirmed unless purely political factors went into the vote.

[antigop]

59. Nope. Nice try. They can simply not confirm. n/t

[antigop]

45. And a pro-corporate Dem pres can appoint pro-corporate judges. N/t

[CK_John]

36. IMO, I think at least 3 more justices for a total of 6 will be replaced in the next first term . n/t

[mudesi]

40. Who says Hillary would appoint the right people?

She's not exactly a flaming liberal, you know.

[pnwmom]

44. Her actual voting record makes her one of the most liberal people in the Senate.

She has a voting record consistently above 90% on progressive issues. DUers often distort her record, for some reason; but the Rethugs are well aware of how liberal her record is, and they're always screaming about it.

www.progressivepunch.com

[antigop]

49. Oh, please! How much "progressive" legislation was passed by Congress when it was controlled by

Republicans?

Nice try.

[pnwmom]

50. She only has control of her own votes, not those of the

rest of the Senate.

And her own record puts her among the most progressive in the Senate -- of either party.

[antigop]

60. Then don't try to make her out as a "liberal". N/t

[MoonRiver]

41. I heard him and he made sense.

I'll vote for the Democrat in 2008, regardless of the candidate. It's as simple as that.

[leveymg]

53. President Hillary's Supreme Court justices - after the Iran war. PIC>

[amandabeech]

55. Hillary is about my last choice, but I'll hold my nose and vote for her

because she'll nominate judges more in tune with my thinking than any of the pubbies, who will placate the religious conservatives in the party with their judicial appointees.

Clinton will nominate center-left and maybe even a few left-wingers who will not get rid of abortion and will allow voluntary desegregation.

I encourage all Clinton haters to get out there and hold their noses for this reason, and this reason alone.

[RamboLiberal]

56. I agree - Hillary is not my first choice

but I'll definitely be there voting for her if she's the nominee because I realize the SCOTUS and our very future is at risk.

[amandabeech]

57. We have to remember to press this point in the fall,

no matter who the nominee is.

Every vote will count, and the pubbies are all worse than all of our candidates.

[OzarkDem]

68. Why?

What makes her superior to the other Dem candidates when it comes to appointing good justices to SCOTUS?

[amandabeech]

69. I guess that I didn't make myself clear.

I don't think that she would pick better judges than the other Dem candidates. In fact, I think that there would be considerable overlap in nominations among the group of candidates.

I do think that her nominees would be far superior to anyone that any of the pubbies would put up.

I'm not a big Clinton fan and I don't trust her to stay out of trouble in the Middle East, but if she were the nominee I'd go out and vote for her anyway, just because her judicial nominees would be far superior to those of her pubbie opponent. I think that judicial nominees are just that important.

I'm a lawyer, by the way, if that makes any difference, and have studied the impact of key Supreme Court cases, like Brown v. Board of Ed., which the Roberts court turned on its head, and Roe v. Wade, which the Roberts court would like to turn on its head. Getting the right people on the federal bench is a key to protecting our rights.

[OzarkDem]

71. Thanks for clarification

:thumbsup:

[amandabeech]

73. My pleasure. n/t

[DeepModem Mom]

58. K&R

[CyberPieHole]

61. Agreed.

I'd even vote for Obama in the GE and he is now my last choice...but even he would be better than a repug.

[lame54]

64. here's the solution

Here is my plea for Gore to run
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Nnph3zkHNw
Re-Elect Al Gore for a climate change in Washington

[CrispyQ]

65. I don't care who the dem candidate is, I'll vote for them.

k&r

[OzarkDem]

66. Don't assume any Dem will appoint fair and qualified justices

Some may still labor under the GOP fed notion that Dems are radical, left wingers. Dems w/ inferiority complexes should not be determining the makeup of the SCOTUS.

It will take a very strong and principled candidate who is willing to stand up to GOP and media pressure, including pressure from fellow Dems who buy into GOP propaganda.

I'm not sure who that candidate is yet, but its going to take an exceptionally strong, principled Dem willing to fight for good candidates w/o caving to pressure to "compromise". I'm not seeing a lot of that yet in the front running candidates.

[JitterbugPerfume]

70. This is just one of the reasons why

I could never ever under any circumstance vote for a republican. The SC is just to important.

[Gloria]

72. He said this on Charlie Rose earlier this week AND also said that

HRC if elected would choose Obama for the Supreme Court. Rose asked him where he got this from....he said he had his sources and that he felt it was a "slam dunk"....or a hands down thing.

He scared the bejeesus out of me that night.....Also said that he still didn't think it was automatic that Gore would have won FL if there had been a recount....

He also said that for Democrats to say that "judges get more moderate when they go on the Court" was "arrogant"--I didn't think that was the right word to use....I think it smacks of bullshit to cover their DLC butts.....he said ROBERTS was the most conservative of all, that Clarence Thomas or Scalia weren't the most conservative on the Court. Well, that made me feel a whole lot better! :sarcasm:

And then he also said that the lower Federal courts start getting pushed to follow along with the conservative bent...and it's one big mess we're in, folks!

BTW, what was that about turning back only SOME of the Bush crap, HRC??

[Nye Bevan]

76. but... but... Hillary = DLC = BAD BAD BAD!

I would rather have Giuliani or Romney name the next 4 Supreme Court justices than vote for a candidate who does not agree with me on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE! I mean, it's only going to define the makeup of the court for the next 30-40 years, so it's not that big a deal, really....

[Bake]

78. PEOPLE: READ TOOBIN'S BOOK "THE NINE"

And then tell me you're going to sit out 2008 or vote third party.

Bake