If you're pissed at Obama's senate votes, keep this in mind.

[Cyrano]

The next president will appoint one and maybe as many as three Supreme Court Justices. And they’re appointed for life.

The current Supreme Court Justices and their ages:

Liberals

John Paul Stevens 81

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 74

Stephen Breyer 69

David Souter 67


Conservative

Anthony Kennedy 71


Insane People

Antonin Scalia 71

Clarence Thomas 59

Samuel Alito 57

John Roberts 52


Does anyone really want to live in a country in which McCain gets to replace one, two, or even three of these people?

(Suggestion: Clip this list of the current SCOTUS and hand it out to your mentally challenged friends. It might not help, but it couldn't hurt.)

[Gman]

1. #1 Priority for 2008:

Expand the SCOTUS to 13 or even 15, a la FDR.

[n0nesuch]

39. That idea worked out well the first time...

... and with Conservatives preaching about 'Activist Judges' it should be just as successful this time. :)

[ryanmuegge]

2. Yes, everybody should keep that in mind.

The Christa-fascists say the same thing about the Republican candidate.

In fact, judicial appointments is one of the only areas in which 90% of the population see their votes in national elections pay off.

[backscatter712]

3. Definitely an important safety tip.

I disagree with Obama's vote, but I can understand why he did it, and hope that when he becomes President, that he and a Congress with more progressives on it will revise the laws and get rid of all the bad behavior and warrantless wiretapping.

[johnlal]

15. He's never promised to revise the laws

In fact, he endorsed the law that was passed. He's shown no signs of disliking the law (except for telecom immunity). He thinks the Amendment to FISA was necessary. I don't understand why so many people are saying he's going to change the law once he becomes president.

[Dukkha]

4. at least Obama will listen

McSame is on record saying his beliefs are not in sync with most of America and he doesn't care.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

5. I want a Dem President no matter what. I'm just upset at all the people who support him now

who trashed Hillary like crazy during the Primary.

I switched my support to Obama after Hillary lost NC by such a wide margin.

I'm angry at all the people on this board who acted like Hillary was the anti-Christ and now they make excuses for Obama.

It's pathetic and WRONG.

I want Obama to win very badly.

I guess I've learned my lesson:

Trash the other guy/gal in the primary and make them look like the anti-Christ... then support whoever wins. Is that it? I never bashed Obama that bad when I was a Hillary supporter. And I STILL wouldn't, because it is f***ing wrong to do so.

Guess I was naive. Cause 80% of the Obama supporters sure did bash the f**k out of Hillary.


Obama/Clinton '08

if not then

Obama/Edwards '08

if not then

Obama/Clark '08



Please God let 1 of my 3 wishes come true!

[Breeze54]

10. Alls fair in love and politics.

The primaries are over. Get over it.

[LVjinx]

14. If it makes you feel any better, a lot of those people are getting a taste of their own medicine.

But, like you said, what's important now is getting a democrat in office no matter who it is. Republicans *cannot* be allowed to fill the next few vacancies with more stooges.

[librechik]

6. Just hope O has a little bit better judgment on appointments than Clinton did

and not waste this chance by appointing some centrist appeaser. We need good, solid LIBERALS to balance this out for the 21st century.

(don't have much "hope" on this issue)

[MiniMe]

23. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a centrist appeaser?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

11. The point is that he might not appoint far-RW judges!

Like McCain probably would.

Speaking of 'moderate Republicans': Stevens and Souter are Republican appointees. Just not flaming near-fascist lunatics.

[Skittles]

8. hey.....pssssst

all of us know one stinks more than the other

[Cyrano]

9. Self-kicked for any night owls who might find it useful

I've posted this makeup of the SCOTUS previously and will continue to do so in the hope that it will change just enough minds to make a difference in the general election.

I live in Palm Beach County, FL where the 2000 election was stolen and where we know that every vote really does count.

This time around, let's not settle for a landslide win. Let's go for an avalanche.

[NewJeffCT]

12. damn, I can't believe Clarence Thomas is only 59

seems like he's been around forever... same with Scalia.

[LVjinx]

13. This is why we must vote Obama, even if we don't consider him an ideal candidate.

We have to have a democrat in office, to prevent the entire Court from becoming a nightmare. If we consider everything else to be small stuff, and some people do, we can't afford to forget that Justices can rule without oversight for decades should they feel like it.

[Cyrano]

16. Actually, there is a bit of oversight.

A supreme court justice can be impeached. I don't know if it's ever happened and I don't know what are considered grounds for impeachment.

If ignoring the Constitution is an impeachable offense, Scalia should have been long gone.

[NewJeffCT]

27. since no justice has been impeached since1805

And, even then, he was not convicted.

I doubt it would happen any time soon if they're not going to impeach Bush over all his misdoings.

[mmonk]

17. Why do people think that if you're pissed at him for removing

the 4th amendment to the Constitution of the United States from us, our children, and our grandchildren along with the usual bush Democrats who've worked hard at producing a unitary executive dictatorship for the United States, bush, and the neoconservative movement, that we would vote for McCain?

[CrispyQ]

20. An excellent question -

one that I wish I had thought to ask several times the past few weeks. I've been surprised to see so much squelching of dissent on a democratic board.

:hi:

[mmonk]

30. Thanks. It's like all or none around here. It's as if support must be

unequivocal on every issue with the candidate. :hi:

[ThomWV]

18. Horseshit

One doesn't have anything to do with the other. Obama voted wrong on FISA and he knew what he was doing. That has nothing at all to do with who the next President will or will not appoint to any position in Government. What you are doing is exactly what Republicans do - change the subject to something that seems germaine and then hope the fools don't notice. Trust me, we notice.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. What evidnece do you have that Obama knew that it was 'wrong' to vote for FISA?

:shrug:

[Zodiak]

42. Well, that is debatable

But there was a press release where he did say that the immunity provision was wrong, but he would vote for the compromise because it is the best we can do.

So...Obama voted for a bill that had a large subsection he considered to be "wrong". Some would argue that voting for the whole bill was "wrong" because of that, but others can argue that the perceived political necessity made it right.

But the press release is some evidence

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. Doesn't the press release indicate that the rest of the bill outweighs the immunity provision?

[CrispyQ]

19. SCOTUS is the only motivation I have to go to the polls right now.

I don't expect Obama to appoint any true liberals to the court, but I do think his choices will not be as odious as McCain's.

[TexasObserver]

22. Yeah, because that's the only difference between Obama and McCain.

Really? Really?! That's the only motivation you have to go to the polls?

The war in Iraq
The war in Afghanistan
The sabre rattling with Iran
The right of abortion
Social Security
Consumer Finance
Health Care

Really?

You might want to tune that angst back a few notches.

[CrispyQ]

40. It's not angst - it's despondency.

Be thankful I have the little motivation that I do!

x(

It's getting harder & harder to tell the democratic party from the republican party. I'm not disappointed in Obama because I never had any hope in him to begin with. But I am bitterly disappointed in the democratic party as they throw the liberals under the bus to court the undecideds, centrists & disillusioned repubs. Oh & don't forget the corporations, their real masters.

[MadHound]

21. So we're supposed to allow the Constitution to be shredded,

In exchange for a slightly less conservative pick for the SC. Hmmm, what a choice, let me get back to you on that one.

[MiniMe]

25. "slightly less conservative pick"?

Roberts and Alito are slightly more conservative that the others? Probably true of you are talking about Thomas and Scalia, but not the rest.

[MadHound]

28. We're not going to get a liberal judge out of Obama

He has shown that his politics are moderate verging on conservative. Thus his SC picks will be along the same line. Probably somewhat liberal on social issues like abortion, conservative on economic and corporate issues. Thus our two party/same corporate master system of government will continue on. Yippee:eyes:

[NewJeffCT]

31. so why did Obama vote against Alito & Roberts then?

I wasn't a supporter of anybody during the primaries, but I would be surprised if Obama nominated a moderate to the court when people like Deval Patrick and Sonia Sotomayor have been mentioned as possibles scotus choices for him.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. Bill Clinton is a moderate. What kind of judges did he appoint?

:shrug:

[MiniMe]

36. I'm fine with a judge who isn't a flaming liberal, I want somebody who respects the constitution

From what I have seen, Roberts and Alito don't. And a judge who isn't a corporate whore.

[rg302200]

38. Where is your proof that he won't?

Has he said that he won't nominate liberals? Get a grip, the congress will be overwhelmingly Democrat and Obama will be able to push through a liberal judge when the time comes. Obama is a progressive make no doubts about it. One vote does not change the ENTIRE voting history of a person!

[NewJeffCT]

29. I know

slightly less conservative? :banghead:

Obama did vote against Roberts & Alito.

While many here on DU aren't big fans of Bill Clinton for being a moderate/DLCer, his two Supreme Court nominees - Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer - have been reliable liberals on the court.

And, you don't think the court would look way way different today if it was Al Gore or John Kerry appointing the replacements for Rehnquist and O'Connor? Say, Sonia Sotomayor or Deval Patrick?

[ThomWV]

26. Agreed!

You got that right.

[salguine]

24. Right...we should surrender the right to ever be dissatisfied with Obama. Why not

mention that we're at war, too? We should never question a President then, either.

[TexasObserver]

33. We have to have the presidency because of those upcoming Supreme Court appointments

If the only thing at stake was the Supreme Court, it would be worth it to support the Democratic nominee for president.

[Phred42]

35. Obviously we HAVE to vote for Obama

and he KNOWS that - So he can 'triangulate' all he wants to. Even if he turns anti-Abortion, or says we need to bomb Germany

we have no alternative, we are stuck.

That's what pisses me off.

We CAN'T hold him accountable any more than we can hold Bush accountable.

that should tell you something

:grr:

[Romulox]

37. But if Obama nominates a liberal judge, the Republicans will use it against him in 2012!

[Greyhound]

41. Tired point and you got the division dead wrong. The only nominal "liberals" on the court

are Ginsberg and Breyer. Souter and Stevens are both conservative republiks just more in the mold of Nixon and do take their responsibilities and legacy seriously.

Not being a fascist ideologue does not make one liberal.

[Zodiak]

43. I love the way you frame this

"Liberal (actually marginally so)

Conservative 1 Judge

Bat-shit crazy 4 judges"

Your assessment is the distilled truth.

[EbenezerMcIntosh]

45. Yes, this is a great reason to vote for Obama (nt)