OK. Forget Roe v. Wade

[cali]

For arguments sake I'll stipulate that even if Justices in the mold of Scalia/Thomas/ replace Stevens and Ginsberg, it won't be overturned.

But guess what, folks? THAT AIN'T THE ONLY ISSUE.

The Supreme Court can further dismantle environmental rights if you get more conservative judges- and don't say the Senate can keep them all out. More and more repukes will be looking for nominees who don't have much of a trail.

The Supreme Court deals with education, labor, torture, civil rights and so much more.

Look, if you don't think there's any difference between the dems, even when it comes to SCOTUS appointments, and you won't vote for she who cannot be named, under any circumstances, that's your business, but the SC is not solely about abortion.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. But also be aware that a DLC Dem president will appoint corporatist judges too

They'll be pro-choice, sure, but they'll stick it to workers and consumers just as much as Roberts and Alito.

You're right, it's not just about Roe v. Wade and this is why we have to fight the DLC in the primary.

[cali]

3. You have no evidence of that.

If you're talking about Hillary, she's a mixed bag, on corporatism. She voted against CAFTA- certainly a big wish on the corporate wish list. Breyer and Ginsberg are not wholly corporately owned, and her husband appointed them. My guess is she'd appoint judges in that same vein.

But I do agree that we have to fight the DLC and its associates.

[ruggerson]

4. Actually the facts prove you're wrong

Bill Clinton was DLC, and his two choices, Ginsburg and Breyer have been amongst the few judges routinely supporting the individual over the corporation.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. One, Bill and Hillary aren't the same person

I see her having an even tougher time getting her nominees through the Senate than he did, unless we pick up a LOT of seats in 2008.

Two, Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed over a decade ago. Corporate control over every lever of government has grown since then, not subsided. Big Biz will be calling in its chits when it comes to her nominations.

[cali]

8. I don't see her having a tough time getting her candidates

through a dem Senate that will almost certainly have 3+ more dems in it.

And your speculation that big businsess will call in chits on Hillary, isn't born out by her record in the Senate.

As I said, you don't want to see the difference between justices that Hillary or any other dem will nominate, and those that repukes will nominate, you won't. But so far, you have produced only speculation and no evidence to support your argument.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

16. I hope you're right. And I never said I didn't see any difference between her picks and the GOP's

I'm definitely speculating, but it's not unreasonable to believe that the corporate interests of this country will take a keen interest in upcoming SCOTUS nominees, no matter which party is in the WH. Congress has pretty much given them everything they want at this point.

And a lot of progressives will be happy as long as the noms are pro-choice, without noticing the other stuff.

[mondo joe]

10. You didn't say "Hillary". You said a DLC President - of which Bill Clinton was one.

So much for your shoddy slander.

[ruggerson]

15. Repeat after me

Hillary. Would. Appoint. Progressive. Justices.

Now breathe and repeat again.

Slowly.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

18. Okay, I hope you're right. Peace. n/t

[11 Bravo]

6. Facts?!?!

You've been here long enough to realize that the omnipresent anti-DLC, anti-centrist Democrats posters don't need no stinkin' facts!

[ruggerson]

14. I keep hoping

that common sense will rear its ugly head now and then. Stupid of me.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. You think Ruth Bader Ginsburg

is the same as Alito? How dumb.

[mondo joe]

9. Beat me to it. NT

[mrreowwr_kittty]

13. Do you think HILLARY Clinton appointed her? How dumb. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

17. the post I replied to was mindlessly bitching about

"DLC" leaders appointing justices. Bill Clinton was a DLC leader. There's no reason to believe Hillary Clinton would appoint right-wing jutices. How dumb.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

19. Not right-wing, but DLC corporatist. You don't think there's any such thing? How dumb. nt.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. Anyone who thinks

Hillary Clinton will appoint justices anything like those a Republican would appoint is just blinded by hate.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

24. No, she will appoint justices that are like those the DLC will appoint

Where do judges come from? They start out as lawyers. The DLC has a lot of, guess what? Lawyers.

So where do you think the judges will come from? They've been grooming politicians to their mold, why wouldn't they do the same with judges?

Hillary Clinton herself was touted as a possible SCOTUS nominee for a Dem president by posters on this very board. What do you suppose she is?

The courts are our last line of defense for the rights of individuals, workers, and consumers. The corporations have gotten pretty much everything they want from Congress at this point. The courts will be the last to go. They don't give a shit about abortion, either so the progressives will never know what hit them.

I hope I'm wrong.

[cali]

28. You're wrong.

But even if you were right, DLC lawyers (whatever that truly means) are better than fundy federalist society lawyers. Sorry, but I don't think you have a clue as to what you're talking about.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

29. Of course they're better. But they're not the best we can do.

And since you're going to be insulting to me like that I see no need to continue any dialogue with you. Good day.

[ruggerson]

2. Habeas Corpus

Good post. And don't forget that the SC also decides plenty of war related issues, including civil rights issues.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Lawrence v. Texas

The nation, it seems, is clearly in favor of abortion to some degree. Only a small minority wants to see Roe v. Wade abolished. However, the law overturning sodomy laws, well, I figure that would be something that could easily be reversed and the country would not erupt in an uproar.

[bluestateguy]

12. A Democrat will appoint pro-choice justices, a Republican is likely not to do so

Sure, Bush, Sr. gave us Souter, and Reagan gave us Kennedy and O'Connor, but they also gave us Thomas and Scalia. Bush, Jr. gave us Roberts and Alito.

Why take the chance by voting for some fringe third party crank candidate and throwing the election to the Republic Party. Even a President Giulinani, while personally pro-choice, would be under enormous pressure to appease the far right that grudgingly put him in office by appointing another Alito/Scalia/Thomas/Roberts clone.

[11 Bravo]

20. Rudy has already said that he will appoint justices in the Scalia/Thomas mold.

Of course, I suppose it's just barely possible that Rudy really is pro-choice, and is just another lying Repug shitweasel who would say ANYTHING to secure the nomination, but I'm not willing to take that chance.

[Katherine Brengle]

21. Of course it isn't, but reproductive rights are one of the most important

issues in the history of humankind.

Without them, I guarantee society will regress violently, and women will pay the price.

I'm not okay with that, so it IS one of my top concerns.

[cali]

22. It's one of mine too, but some posters

have been saying things to the effect that abortion will never be overturned, and so Hillary's (or whoever's) choices aren't enough of a reason to vote for her. They seemed to forget that the SC has jurisdiction over, well, everything.

[Katherine Brengle]

25. Ah, okay, I didn't understand that was your

motivation for posting - that does make sense.

[ruggerson]

26. I think much (not all) of the anti Hillary crowd

are one issue voters: the war.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Others in this thread have already summed it up: It's the difference between Ruth Bader Ginsburg

and Sam Alito.

Seems pretty fucking clear, to me. :shrug: