HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The single most important...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:20 PM

The single most important reason for Obama to be reelected

The Supreme Court.

We all have reasons for wanting President Obama to be re-elected. There are some who express some disappointment with what he did or did not do in his first term. But if President Obama is not re-elected, the make-up of the Supreme Court could become much more conservative over the next 4-8 years.

If Obama is re-elected, he will have 4 years to appoint moderate/liberal judges. Given the current age of 4 of the judges, he may get 1 or 2 appointments. It's possible Ginsburg and Breyer would retire before Obama's term is over, just so he could appoint 2 judges. Scalia and Kennedy would both be in their late 70's, but unless they become ill or incapacitated, they probably would not leave before Obama's 2nd term is over.

A Romney presidency of 4 years could result in replacing 1-2 moderate/liberal justices with 1-2 conservative justices.
A Romney presidency of 8 years could result in replacing 2 conservative justices with 2 conservative justices. Scalia and Kennedy would either leave on their own volition, or be encourage to retire so Romney could appoint 2 younger justices who would be on the court for 25-30 years.

So there is the potential for a 7-2 court with the conservatives in total control. If we thought the Citizens United decision was a travesty, imagine a court with no liberal influence at all. Even if Breyer held on for all 8 years, Romney would still get to replace 3 justices leaving us with a 6-3 court.




The last 8 justices retired or died between the ages of 70-90.

Sandra Day O'Connor retired at 75
David Souter............retired at 70
John Paul Stevens.....retired at 90
William Rehnquist.........died at 81
lewis Powell............. retired at 80
Harry Blackmun.........retired at 86
Warren Burger..........retired at 79
Thurgood Marshall.....retired at 83

I'm not a deep thinker, but I can do the math. I have seen what this court has done, and know what the right wants this court to do. Look at their efforts on voting restrictions, women's access to health care, the ACA, Roe v Wade, ad nauseum. I'm in the last third of my life cycle, so much that they could do would not impact me for too many years, but if I was young I would be very concerned about my future. I'm just saying.



70 replies, 9284 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 70 replies Author Time Post
Reply The single most important reason for Obama to be reelected (Original post)
Fla Dem Jun 2012 OP
DearAbby Jun 2012 #1
rurallib Jun 2012 #29
hifiguy Jun 2012 #2
Motown_Johnny Jun 2012 #3
dimbear Jun 2012 #4
lame54 Jun 2012 #5
cynatnite Jun 2012 #6
peace frog Jun 2012 #7
Fla Dem Jun 2012 #13
peace frog Jun 2012 #57
Fla Dem Jun 2012 #67
peace frog Jun 2012 #70
pinboy3niner Jun 2012 #8
davidwparker Jun 2012 #9
aint_no_life_nowhere Jun 2012 #10
BlueCaliDem Jun 2012 #11
Auntie Bush Jun 2012 #23
BlueCaliDem Jun 2012 #69
Peaceful Protester Jun 2012 #12
Fla Dem Jun 2012 #15
spanone Jun 2012 #14
lonestarnot Jun 2012 #16
stupidicus Jun 2012 #17
Auntie Bush Jun 2012 #24
Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #30
Auntie Bush Jun 2012 #33
Wounded Bear Jun 2012 #37
Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #39
Auntie Bush Jun 2012 #42
DonCoquixote Jun 2012 #63
Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #65
DonCoquixote Jun 2012 #68
stupidicus Jun 2012 #47
TeamPooka Jun 2012 #18
onlyadream Jun 2012 #19
Kablooie Jun 2012 #21
onlyadream Jun 2012 #25
Auntie Bush Jun 2012 #34
Kablooie Jun 2012 #20
Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #28
AverageJoe90 Jun 2012 #43
jwirr Jun 2012 #22
Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #26
bigwillq Jun 2012 #27
scheming daemons Jun 2012 #32
Auntie Bush Jun 2012 #35
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #55
dionysus Jun 2012 #49
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #56
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2012 #54
treestar Jun 2012 #59
Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #66
Stuart G Jun 2012 #31
unhinged1 Jun 2012 #36
Wounded Bear Jun 2012 #38
hue Jun 2012 #40
Eljo_Don Jun 2012 #41
chknltl Jun 2012 #44
Fla Dem Jun 2012 #52
SunSeeker Jun 2012 #45
santamargarita Jun 2012 #46
Paka Jun 2012 #48
Fla Dem Jun 2012 #51
progressivebydesign Jun 2012 #50
kentuck Jun 2012 #53
lib2DaBone Jun 2012 #58
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2012 #60
undeterred Jun 2012 #61
Harry Monroe Jun 2012 #62
proud patriot Jun 2012 #64

Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:27 PM

1. For sure....

I take the view, this election will be the last one that may count. I am not going to waste it. I will be voting for Obama, there is no alternative. With Citizen's United, all future elections are null and void.

VOTE WISELY.

THEY WIN; They will have the whole shooting match after this election.

Government
Courts
Resources

THEY WIN, WE ALL LOSE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 09:04 AM

29. I heard a local elected official say that the other day

"I believe this election may be the last one that counts."
I was really scared because this guy has the reputation for telling the real truth. He is as blunt as a rock often.
So when he said that, it scared me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:30 PM

2. + a googolplex. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:34 PM

3. If you drop the high and low as outliers

and then average the rest you come up with 80.666....


Without that 90 and that 70 it seems reasonable that we can expect a justice to leave the bench, one way or the other, in his/her early 80s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:39 PM

4. Citizen's United, worst decision of the century: source? John McCain.

Who appointed them, John?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dimbear (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 07:25 PM

5. Then THOSE would be the worst decisions

Last edited Tue Jun 26, 2012, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 07:27 PM

6. I think Scalia will stay until he's dead...

You'd have to pry his dead fingers from the gavel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cynatnite (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 07:33 PM

7. Absolutely agree

They'll have to carry him out of the SC in a body bag. And even then I'd want to examine the death certificate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cynatnite (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:24 PM

13. I think if he had a choice he would stay until he breathed his last.

But there are powerful forces on the right that would want him out of there before a Romney term is over. They want to ensure a conservative court for a generation if not longer. They would find a way to make him leave, nefarious means would not be off the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #13)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 07:32 PM

57. Can you explain

exactly why the right would want Scalia out of the SC? He is their staunchest and most vocal ally. if you are suggesting that a younger conservative would be a sure confirmation to the bench, that's a big IF. Even with Romney as POTUS, he may face a Congress dominated by Democrats who oppose his choice in numbers that halt the confirmation butt cold. There are too many uncertainties that could go south. Why would GOPers not want to hold onto Scalia. He's their man, now and forever, amen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peace frog (Reply #57)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:56 AM

67. But the question is; how long is forever?

All this is speculation, I'm just postulating that IF, and that's a mighty big IF, Romney is elected president, and then re-elected, by the time he is in his 8th year, Scalia will be 84 (if he lives that long). If I was thinking long term strategy, I would think at best Scalia would have 6 years left in him. Replace him in the last year of a Rethugs term, with a 50 or so year old and you've got that slot occupied for the next 20-30 years. Why leave a SCJ who is 84 (in 8 years) in office, who could die, get ill or otherwise become incapacitated within a short amount of time, when you have the opportunity to replace him with a judge who will be around a heck of a lot longer. And yes, no nominee is a guarantee, and I would guess if the "powers that be" felt they had a hostile congress, they would not push for Scalia to step down. But I do believe there are powerful forces in the RW world who can influence even supreme court justices, and if those powers thought they could replace Scalia with a younger model, as ideologically to the right as Scalia, they would do it in a heartbeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #67)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:51 PM

70. If Scalia lives the 6 years you're willing to grant him

that's 6 years of SC decisions absolutely guaranteed to delight the RW and continue to advance their cause. Can't see why they would ditch 6 years of a sure thing for a risky possibility that could fail and work against their interests for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 07:36 PM

8. One of MANY reasons

Civil rights (war on women, LGBT, SB 1070 etc., voting rights), defense spending, neocon war dreams, the future of social programs, health care...

This is a no-brainer not just in one way, but in EVERY way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 07:50 PM

9. That be the one n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:09 PM

10. Even if there were no other reasons - this one would be enough

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:15 PM

11. There are MANY reasons, but this one is up there for sure.

We can't afford more Scalitos and Roberts. This country won't survive it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:41 PM

23. And no more Alieto'a or Thomas'

I can't imagine what will/could happen to this country if we have more conservatives on the SC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 01:16 PM

69. The answer is

oligarchy or fascism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:23 PM

12. Excellent Well Thought Out Presentation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peaceful Protester (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:28 PM

15. Thanks very much.

I don't post many original threads, usually just comment on others posts, but this issue really has me concerned. The judicial system is all we have to protect us from tyranny. A totally right wing conservative court will be the downfall of our republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:26 PM

14. k&r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:31 PM

16. If there were only 1 reason, this would be right up there at the top of the list. One issue voters

never cease to amaze me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:52 PM

17. as it was the first time he ran

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:47 PM

24. Right, we wouldn't have two more liberal women on the SC. Horrible just thinking about it.

If Obama hadn't won we'd already have a 7 to 2 court. Probably why the Rethugs hate Obama so much...besides the fact that he's black. He denied them a conservative majority and put 2 woman (horrors) on the court. Obama MUST win again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #24)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 09:06 AM

30. Justify your claim about two more liberal women on the Court.

 

Sonia Sotomayor is a moderate at best. And Elena Kagan is a moderate who is against gay marriage.

The problem is not that he appointed women, but the women he appointed. Diane Wood, Leah Sears, Jennifer Granholm, and others were considered and would have been much more suitable replacements than Kagan. Although personally I think Hillary Clinton should have been considered and nominated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pab Sungenis (Reply #30)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 12:49 PM

33. Any of them would have been better...but he probably couldn't have gotten them confirmed.

I didn't realize those 2 women were so moderate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #33)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 01:07 PM

37. Judges are by their nature conservative...

There really isn't such a thing as a liberal judge.

The best we can hope for is to appoint moderates who won't kowtow to ultra-conservative ideals.

It's a safe bet that Rmoney, or any Repub, would never do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #33)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 01:32 PM

39. Are you sure?

 

We had the majority in the Senate both times. No nominee for the Court has been filibustered since Abe Fortas. We didn't even filibuster Thomas, Roberts, or Alito and in all three cases we would have had cause to do so.

Any of the people I named could have and should have been nominated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pab Sungenis (Reply #39)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 04:01 PM

42. Not if the ReThugs filibustered them ..and they would. Dems don't operate like that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pab Sungenis (Reply #30)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 11:20 PM

63. I agree about granholm

My one disgareement is with Hillary, because she is needed where she is, and the SoS is pretty much what she wanted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #63)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:44 AM

65. Fair point.

 

But I still think she deserved to be on the Court more than almost every name bandied about in the past 12 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pab Sungenis (Reply #65)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:27 AM

68. I would love to see Granholm

or for that matter, Bill himself.

The only thing that makes me nervous about Hill on the Supremes is that she is a big fan of outsourcing, which gives me concern that if we need the Supremes to, let's say, rule H1-B visas as unconstitutional, Hill might side with the right. Sooner or later, that fight will happen. I also get upset that so many people seem to dislike Sotomayor, when she is the one the made the billionaires choke back in the baseball strike. The woman has a serious, decades-long resume, and people (not saying you, I have not heard your opinion of her, yet) seem to speak as if she had no resume.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #24)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 05:45 PM

47. yep

SCOTUS appointments have always dictated my choice for pres - for going on 40 years now. While as a lefty I've had many problems with the person I voted for, I've always thought it of paramount importance to keep the the court and us from being afflicted with lifetime appointments of rightwingers. AT worst all you're gonna get outta a dem pres, is rightwing-lite, which is much preferable to more kooks like the cons sitting on that bench now.

Others can complain about whether BHO's picks so far are "liberal" enough or not. I'll remain thankful they aren't shameless rightwingnuts.

It's bad enough that the ideological center line in DC generally has shifted so dramatically to the right. Putting more fascists/coporatists like Roberts or Scalito on the bench is the last thing this country needs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:58 PM

18. scary

scary thoughts.
That they could have 4-8 more years of GOP SCOTUS stacking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 09:23 PM

19. This whole SC system is wrong

What were the founders thinking? The judges are there for life and are appointed by the Presidrnt. Aren't the three branches supposed to be separate for checks and balances? If so, then why does the POTUS get to make the appointment? That doesn't make for a balance. The judged should be elected and have term limits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onlyadream (Reply #19)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:27 PM

21. Lives weren't as long when the law was made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #21)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 07:14 AM

25. Not so sure about that

I know the average life expectancy was low, but that was because many women died in child birth and they had a high in fant mortality rate, which brings the average down significantly. Many men, like Benjamin Franklin, had long lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #21)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 12:53 PM

34. But they should only be elected for ONE maybe 6 year term. Then they hopefully wouldn't

become so political.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:27 PM

20. One or two more conservatives would lock in a conservative court for decades.

We'd have a radical right moving country for the rest of our lives and nothing we could do about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #20)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 08:58 AM

28. The court right now is

 

Two liberals, two "moderates," and five conservatives.

This time next year, if Obama is re-elected, it will probably be one liberal, three "moderates," and five conservatives.

Even if Scalia retires, which he won't under a Democrat, at best we'll have four "moderates," four conservatives, and one liberal.

We already have a conservative court locked in for decades, and it will continue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #20)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 04:51 PM

43. Not unless we revolted and had the ultra-cons removed and tried for treason......

....and preferably convicted, though we might need to be very selective about the selection of jury members.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:33 PM

22. Yes, we need to replace as many as we can and I for one would like to see enough Democratic

control of the House and Senate to enlarge the SCOTUS if possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 08:56 AM

26. But will Obama actually appoint LIBERALS?

 

He hasn't yet.

His one nomination set gay rights back decades, and I don't trust him to not appoint more "moderates" who are really conservatives.

Either way the Supreme Court is gone for decades, so stick to issues we can actually win with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pab Sungenis (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 08:57 AM

27. Good post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pab Sungenis (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 12:00 PM

32. Nonsense. Sottomayor and Kagan are both solid liberals and have ajudicated like liberals


...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 12:56 PM

35. I hope you're right or we're screwed even if Obama gets re-elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #35)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 06:45 PM

55. Please don't fall for the propaganda. Do your own research. If the poster were telling the....

truth, then why so many 5 - 4 decisions? Kagan and Sotomayor can be counted on, routinely, to vote with Ruth B. Ginsberg. And besides, do they have to be DU's definition of "liberal"? If you read PS' post carefully, you'd see that he/she suggested Hillary, who if I remember correctly, was a card carrying member of the DLC....ya know, the dreaded "C" word, as in "centrist". I ask you, what's more "moderate" than a DLC "centrist"? Ignore the attempts to divert your attention, a quick search can be quite revealing. There's some history here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 06:03 PM

49. you're talking to a dining room table, as Barney Frank would say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #49)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 06:46 PM

56. "a dining room table"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pab Sungenis (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 06:38 PM

54. I would be happy ...

If President Obama appointed Justices based on their fidelity to the rule of law and precedent and a strong dose of "state of society" sentiment; rather than, political ideology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pab Sungenis (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 08:12 PM

59. Absurdity

name one case that "set gay rights back decades" and one vote ever made by Sotomayor or Kagan to that effect. Compared to whoever Rmoney would appoint? Please. Give this one up. It's really, really OTT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #59)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:45 AM

66. You lost all right to a logical argument

 

when you trotted out the "would you rather have Romney?" fallacy. Kagan has destroyed any likelihood of gay marriage getting past the current Court due to her opposition to it.

Since you don't want to discuss this and just trot out the "Romney is worse" scare tactic, have a nice day. Goodbye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 11:04 AM

31. K and R nt. thanks for posting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 12:56 PM

36. Thanks for bringing this up

This topic has been on my mind a lot lately, and I wholeheartedly agreed...this is bar none the most important election, possibly ever. If the Activist Court overturns the HC law and Obama ends up losing, I will enter a period of extended apathy and most likely just give up on America. I think the SC has too much power, it seems like they have a vested interest in this decision Thurs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 01:09 PM

38. No doubt that this is one of the most important issues. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 02:30 PM

40. This cannot be underestimated!!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 02:33 PM

41. conservastives vs. liberals

Conservative or liberal is not the issues with the Supreme Court Judges. It is decency and honesty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eljo_Don (Reply #41)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 05:00 PM

44. The real issue with the SC.:

Is it We The Peoples government or is it the government of those who pay the most for it. (Considering that the Chinese government can afford to spend a lot more than We The People, our government being up for grabs to the highest bidder can not and must not last much longer!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eljo_Don (Reply #41)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 06:18 PM

52. In a perfect world I agree 100%. Alas..........

But IMHO Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan have those qualities head and shoulders over Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 05:02 PM

45. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 05:22 PM

46. That fucking Mormon would put the finishing touches on Fascist America

You should read some of the history of this bunch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 05:56 PM

48. Great Post.

I have a lot of reasons that I'm voting for Obama, but this is high on the list for sure. I grew up with a mother who ranted on about how FDR stacked the court with those crackpot liberals, but she would think this court was just dandy. She died at 97 in 2004, so never had the joy of calling herself a teabagger, but she formulated their platform long before they knew it was coming. Once I escaped that conservative cesspool I never looked back, and I shudder to think what a 7-2 court would mean.

Like you, Fla Dem, I'm in the last third of my life, but I cry when I see what is happening to my country. I hope you don't mind if I steal your post (giving you credit) to send to a couple of my more moderate relatives who might be wavering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paka (Reply #48)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 06:11 PM

51. By all means Paka, I'm honored. Thanks for the kind remarks. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 06:08 PM

50. This is the most important election in my lifetime.

After the SC decision that is allowing over a billion dollars to be spent, without accountability, by corporations... we are fighting for our democracy as we know it. That was the first time that they had the audacity to screw with the SC to make something SO political and damaging for our freedom... It will have devastating effects on the ability to bring our Country back from the abyss of jobs sent to India and China so people like Koch bros can be billionaires, while everyone else descends into poverty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 06:21 PM

53. That's rather sad...


That the great Democratic Party is left with little to defend except the Supreme Court. There was a time when the Supreme could be relied upon to be semi-rational. Not anymore. Justice has a finger on one side of the scales. The Court is not as concerned about justice as they are their political agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 07:51 PM

58. Sad.. our only hope is that we are reduced to fighting against Republican Fascism...

 

Wish we had a strong progressive leader... but oh well.. we do not..

We have to settle for the lesser of two evils... even then I'm not sure the evils are that far apart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lib2DaBone (Reply #58)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 08:55 PM

60. "Wish we had a strong progressive leader"

We've had plenty of opportunities. The question then becomes, why don't we choose them? Could it be that rank-n-file Democrats, like myself, don't care for the so-called "progressive" options we've been presented with? It happens time and time again, we're presented with moderates, and the progressive alternative, and each time we choose center-left, and that seems to be what the "Democratic" rank-n-file want. You can't argue with numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 09:10 PM

61. We need to make Thomas and Alito age faster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 10:23 PM

62. Single most important reason is that this country is so fucked if Republicans gain control of both

The Executive and Legislative Branch. They already effectively control the Judicial. If that happens, we can expect Fascism in the next 4 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 11:21 PM

64. that's what my signature says

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread