Remember if the Democrats don't win in 2008, the Supreme Court will shift hard right

[still_one]

Most likely Justice Stevens will retire, and he is hanging on until 2008. If you look at what the recently appointed supreme court justices have ruled there should be no doubt in anyones mind what will happen if the republican win

[Lost4words]

1. dont look now but we are already there, too late.

where were you on December 12, 2000?

[still_one]

2. It would be MUCH WORSE. oconner started but

there would be complete corporate takeover of the government if the republicans win

roberts, scalia, alito and thomas who believe that corporations should be treated as individuals, and that doesn't even talk about their views on civil liberties

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[sellitman]

3. Nader voters didn't care about this and look what has happened.

Yes...I blame them. There are other factors involved but they alone in Florida prevented an Al Gore Presidency.

[still_one]

14. I think the 2006 election was a watershed moment

I don't think many of the Congressional Democrats even appreciate what happen. They will though, as more and more people let their representative know how they feel

Look at the republicans. They are running scared. It was reported that 11 or 12 republicans went to the white house and told them that if Iraq doesn't turn around by fall, they would be vulnerable in the elections, and would consider voting against the administration

Things are changing, however slowly

[NightWatcher]

4. so regardless of their actions (ie secret trade deals) we have to vote for a dem?

I cant hold my nose and pull the lever anymore. It's too hard. Maybe something will change between now and next November, god I hope so.

[KoKo]

5. Contact your House Reps and let them know how you feel...here:

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

[NightWatcher]

6. I'll call and send emails, but corporations will send millions

I wonder whose voice will be heard?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

7. The same one that just got the cookie

While American workers got the shaft yet again.

[illinoisprogressive]

8. then we must choose a real dem and one people will want to vote for

[still_one]

11. RIGHT ON!!! /nt

[LWolf]

9. That's a good reason to hope that

the Democrats will field a candidate who will unite the progressive/independent/3rd party vote, rather than divide it.

:shrug:

[still_one]

10. Won't happen at the executive branch level

and it is extremely difficult at the congressional level

It would be a much different story if our Democracy was a parlimentary one instead of a Republic

[NNN0LHI]

12. Can't unite "3rd party" voters. They will take their ball and go home no matter what

These people are crazier than Bush.

Don

[LWolf]

33. Really?

I worked with more 3rd party and independent voters than rank and file dems in the '04 primaries. I found them eager to participate and to join up with anyone willing to work with them to elect a true progressive.

Maybe they're "going home" because the Democratic Party nominates status-quo, corporate candidates whose walk doesn't back their talk.

And maybe that's not so crazy.

:shrug:

[NNN0LHI]

34. Really

You may have had a different experience than I had with third party voters?

Every self identified third party voter I have known personally was just plain batshit crazy.

Couldn't reason with them no matter what you said.

Fuck them.

Don

[LWolf]

35. Do you normally view

those who differ with you as "batshit crazy?"

Are they crazy because they hold a different world view, or because you can't convince them to compromise on their principles, or because you think idealists are just crazy? What?

If your only frame of reference is whether or not someone with a "D" next to their name ends up "winning" a contest, perhaps people who place issues before party or who hold different values would seem crazy to you. :shrug:

My experience tells me that if you offer independents and 3rd party voters a candidate who will work directly on the issues they involve themselves in politics to affect, they will unify behind that candidate. The issues, not the party, is what matters to them.

Strength on those issues, without prevarication or Orwellian double-speak, wins those votes.

Trying to bully them into supporting someone who is not strong on those issues, or promising them that a candidate who does not stand with them on the issues will somehow change after being elected, will not get their vote.

It's really the party's choice, and the party is accountable for the results.

[DFW]

13. You're right, of course, but

There will always be some who think their own personal favorite
issue trumps the bigger picture of the Supreme Court.

The same mentality that permitted the Nader voters to vote Bush in
saying "there is no difference between Bush and Gore" will permit
some to stay away from the ballot next year because A.) "Hillary
is a corporate shill, and can never win anyway" B.) "Edwards lives
in too big a house, and is a wimp, besides" C.) "Obama is too inexperienced"
D.) "Biden is in the pocket of all the Delaware credit card corporations"
E.) "Gore is still too bland and a proven loser" F.) "Wes Clark still
hasn't declared, and, anyway he is too scholarly"

or G.) any combination of any of the above

The fact that ANY of them in the White House would be preferable to a
Republican choosing the next Supreme Court Justice seems to leave a number
of people cold, just like with the Naderites in 2000. Some of them now regret
their decision. The captain of the Titanic regretted running into the
iceberg, too, but too late. I hope that the "anti-" crowd can overcome
their distaste when their pet candidate is not nominated, and vote for
the Democratic candidate anyway. Otherwise, the next Supreme Court Justice
will be a clone of Clarence Thomas or Sam Alito, and yes, it WILL TOO be
your fault.

The thought of it makes me shudder. I sure hope that it's a topic we won't
have to be discussing the day after the 2008 election. It sure as hell had
better be a moot point.

[NightWatcher]

15. is there any room remaining on the right for them to "shift"

They (repukes) have a majority in the SCOTUS and they've been using bush's signing statements. Corporations own everything. The air and water is dirty and getting worse. The environment is going downhill along with worker's rights.

Can they go much further to the right?

[still_one]

16. I think they can, and we are only hanging on by a thread

Kennedy is pretty much a flip of the coin, but at least "sometimes" he does the right thing

99% of the time you can count on thomas, scalia, alito, and roberts to do the wrong thing

[MadHound]

17. Oh yay! The call for lockstep voting starts earlier than ever this election cycle.

What prompted this? The thread informing us that a majority of Americans actually want a viable third party option? Heaven forbid that Americans have an option that they actually want to vote for, as opposed to having to decide on who they want to vote against

Couple this with the staggering amount of people who are so uninspired by American politics that they no longer vote and what you have here is a picture that should actually alarm the Democratic party. Namely that they aren't putting forth the candidates, nor running on the issues that actaully resonate with most Americans:shrug:

[NightWatcher]

19. forget third parties. I want six or seven viable parties

let's have an election with no majority outcome. There is no "majority" idea or belief anymore.

I think that now is the prime time for a new 3rd party. the worse that things get, the more "viable" an alternative becomes to the same old song and dance.

[MadHound]

21. I found observing the French elections this year rather refreshing

With a total of twelve candidates running, four of whom had a real shot at making the run-off, and the chance for everybody to at least initially vote for a person they like, rather than being forced into our same ol'=same ol' choice of the lesser of two evils.

We desperately need election reform in this country. Publicly funded elections, IRV, and viable third parties.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Tom Joad]

18. I think it has something to do with Dems voting to confirm reactionaries.

[DFW]

20. Lockstep voting?

Not in the primaries, by any means, but in the general?
Especially in the coming general election? Yes, unfortunately,
absolutely. As long as the far right controls the Republican
party, and as long as voting for a third party will, in effect,
hand the election to a Republican president, then yes, I'm
calling, shamelessly, for a vote for the Democratic candidate
This time, anyway.

The thought of a Republican like John McCain or Fred Thompson
selecting the next Supreme Court Justice(s) should at least be
cause for hesitation to vote a third party in the upcoming election.
The Naderites voted (supposedly, anyway) their conscience. That gave
us Bush, Iraq, Roberts and Alito. Look at the way they have voted in SC
decisions so far. If more of that is an acceptable price to pay for
voting for Ralph Nader or another third party candidate, then I'm
afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not opposed to third party
candidates as such, but if they willfully throw the election to a
party run (at least so far) by neo-fascists, then I would prefer they
make their points in some other fashion. When it can be done without
handing control of the country to Halliburton and Pat Robertson, then
by all means, let a hundred flowers bloom.

[DFW]

22. The French system would change things a lot, for sure

Especially public funding and a runoff between the two top
vote-getters. But there is no way we will adopt anything
remotely like that before 2008, and it is practically a certainty
that the next president will be selecting one or more SC justices.

One thing we can all count on is there being no reform whatsoever
if we get a Republican president. Reform will be difficult enough
with a Democratic president, but at least the door would be open.
It would depend on who won, of course. If it's Hillary, I would be
very surprised to see much movement in that direction. If it were
Gore, I suspect that he would be VERY receptive to electoral reform,
as one who was already denied office due to electoral corruption.
The rest, who knows? But better any chance, no matter how slim, than
none at all.

[warren pease]

23. That would be in sharp contrast to its present enlightened, apolitical stance? n/t

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[DFW]

27. Yes, whereas Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito

----were rotten before even being put up for sale.
They were damaged good from the outset, and only
putrefied further after acquisition.

[still_one]

28. You are right, hopefully we can keep the court from falling completely /nt

[ThomWV]

29. Problem Is That Any Of Them Could Have A Stroke Tomorrow

Or a heart attack or something else sudden that earlier physicals might not forwarn against.

Lets face it, as long as George Bush remains in office the Democracy is in peril.

[DFW]

30. I agree totally

It hangs by a narrow thread until January 20, 2009.

If we elect, or even install without electing, a Republican president
in 2009, then that peril gets extended by another 4 years, at which time
Justice Stevens will be 93, and Breyer and Ginsburg will be in their
seventies. While I wish them robust health, I don't want the balance
of the Supreme Court to have to depend on it. I don't care if the Dalai
Lama himself runs as a Green, and we nominate Joe Biden. I'm still voting
Democratic unless we nominate Zell Miller, in which case I will apply for
political asylum in Germany.

[ToeBot]

31. I don't know why you're bitching here..

It's the traitorous Dem's in Congress who think they can afford whatever repercussions their actions incite. Has is occurred to anyone that the notion of "Our Party, right or wrong", IS what's wrong?

[DFW]

32. I'm fully aware of that, but if we lose any chance to save the Court

We will NEVER get the chance to reform ANYTHING.
If we let the Republicans stack the court for a generation,
we can pass enough legislation to make the country into Utopia
and all the extremist right has to do is mount a legal challenge
and get their puppets on the Court to strike it all down.

The chronological order of reform does matter, and if we never get
the chance to balance the Supreme Court, then it won't matter if
the party gets populated by saints and angels. Ideals are fine, but
reality must intrude every now and then, because we will never achieve
perfection. It's a goal we will ever strive for and never attain.
But it is much easier to roll downhill than to march uphill, and if
the Republicans get to nominate the next SC Justice, then we will not
only roll downhill but sink into the swamp that lies at the bottom.

No matter what reforms are needed in the party, and indeed in our system
as a whole, we will not get to square one if the radical right controls
the Supreme Court for a generation. I am not willing to let my version
of perfection prevent me from wanting to stop things from getting worse
than they are now. If you think it can't get any worse, then I can understand
your point of view. But I think things can get MUCH worse, and this must
be stopped at all costs before we work on reforming that which can be
reformed. We can do both, but will not get ANYwhere if the Court lurches
further to the right for a generation. They can block all challenges to
electoral fraud and enable a permanent Republican presidency if they
control the court. Not so if the court maintains or increases a moderate
membership. This is not a case of my party, right or wrong. This is a case
of my country, save it or lose it. Winning a battle just to lose the war
will not save it. If we lose the presidency in 2009, we lose the Court. It IS
that simple, as the OP implied. It can be argued whether or not voting the
party line, no matter who the nominee is, is worth saving the Court. You
may not think so. The author of the original post does think so, and so do I.
It is just a point of view, not a claim of "my party, right or wrong."