So the Supreme Court really does matter. I wonder what would have happened with a republican

[still_one]

republican president the last 6 years. Would they have have appointed someone like Kagan and Sotomyer who voted for same sex marriage and the ACA?

We barely squeaked through this one, and there is a high probability that the next President will appoint at least one SC justice.

If for no other reason, the Supreme Court should be at least the paramount reason for voting for the Democratic nominee for President in 2016.

[gotj90]

1. Yep. Everyone should get behind the Dem nominee.

[leftofcool]

2. Yes, we will have Hillary as our nominee!

[still_one]

6. As long as it is the Democratic nominee, be it Hillary, Bernie, O'Malley, and others

[justiceischeap]

3. The USSC is my major voting issue for the next election

I'm usually not a one issue voter but if you think about the decisions the USSC makes and their long-lasting effects, it's probably the most important issue for the next election, IMO.

[still_one]

5. I agree. You can argue that because of the bush appointments we have Citizens United today

[justiceischeap]

7. Yup!

And if we somehow manage to turn the court in our favor, CU could, hypothetically get overturned if a case comes before them that has merit.

[Starry Messenger]

8. Mine too.

Megaditto to all that.

[William769]

4. No fucking Shit.

Blows that meme right out of the water that both parties are the same.

[MineralMan]

9. The SCOTUS is a major reason to vote for a Democrat

as President. Also, to GOTV and take back the Senate!

[Agnosticsherbet]

10. Republican Prsidents, at best, appoint swing votes

If we want a court that works for the people, we can not elect Republicans.

[former9thward]

11. The Justice who wrote the gay marriage opinion was a Reagan appointee.

Justice Roberts, a Bush appointee, has now saved the ACA twice. Sort of undercuts your argument.

[mythology]

12. Given the overall voting record of Roberts in particular

And Republican appointed Supreme Court justices in general makes the case.

Yes sometimes Roberts can vote in a way that doesn't make him look like an idiot, but usually he is quite happy to vote with the other Republicans.

[former9thward]

13. The Supreme Court is far more complicated

than hyper partisans make it. Despite what partisan non-lawyers think all nine Justices are really smart people.

[still_one]

15. Scalia has really distinguished himself lately, and please don't tell me what a legal genius Thomas

is because that is not accurate.

Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, are not that complicated, and very consistent in their decisions. Kennedy was more complex, but he was influenced by O'Connor when she was on the court. However, in the end, as the bush v gore demonstrated, when it came to party loyalty, they went back to their roots. Why else would they have issued an addendum to the bush v Gore that their decision should NOT be used as a precedent for future cases

[former9thward]

25. I would like to see you write a SC opinion.

Including those by Thomas. BTW plenty of Thomas' opinions were in law school case books when I was going -- and no, my profs were not conservative but liberal.

You are wrong on Bush v. Gore. There is no addendum to that decision saying it should not be used as precedent. That is an urban legend. In fact it HAS been cited in many briefs in voting rights cases.

[still_one]

30. In the ruling, ""Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal

protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." Most legal scholars believe that because of that the case did not set precedent in any way. It is not an urban legend. It is just that you have chosen not to interpret it that way.

Because an opinion is in a law school case book hardly gives merit to the justice's opinion. That is what law schools do, they discuss previous cases, and arguments presented.

Thomas believes there is no wiggle room in the interpretation of the Constitution. The problem with that is that it he is his mind is closed to other interpretations, and the bias he expressed against gays in his decisions only highlight this. Ironically, his interpretation of the Separation of Church and state is much more flexible. In my view he is a mediocre justice.

[former9thward]

36. I am not some fan of Thomas so don't build that strawman.

But I do know he is smart. Many on the left use the exact same smears against AA Thomas as the right did against AA Marshall. It is ugly that the only two AA Justices in the history of the Court face the same smears. Robert Byrd used to brag about how proud he was that he voted against both AAs nominated to the Court.

The phrase from Bush v. Gore is something that you can find in countless SC decisions. Of course that decision is limited to that case. Every case has something different so no decision can automatically be applied to another case without knowing the facts. Bush v. Gore is used as precedent by attorneys arguing voting rights cases and the SC knows all their cases can be used as precedent in arguments.

For an interesting discussion on this topic see Bush v. Gore as Precedent from Yale Law School.

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=student_papers

[still_one]

37. I understand the bush v gore decision, and the main problem is that the

Gore team did not request a recount of the whole state immediately after the issue. Gore was not represented well by his legal team in my view

Precident is used all the time, and it is usually taken seriously by most justices.

I disagree that Thomas is an extrodinary justice, and it is not based on his politics. Bork was far more equipped than Thomas, though he would have voted hard core conservative.

[LanternWaste]

16. And is far less complicated than the simpleminded make it out to be.

And is far less complicated than the simpleminded make it out to be. Despite what bumper-sticker philosophers think, we're all humans containing far more bias than not.

[EL34x4]

17. Yep. Look at Roe v. Wade

Five of the seven justices writing for the majority were placed on the bench by Republican presidents. One of the two dissenters was a JFK appointee.

Conservatives often howl, "If only we cold get a conservative court! We could overturn Roe v. Wade!" while forgetting that it was a "conservative" court that made R v. W the law of the land in the first place.

[still_one]

14. not at all. Everyone of the bush appointments except roberts voted against the ACA, and same sex

marriage. Kennedy has been a mixed bag. Look at citizens united.

However, why your argument is bogus is because there is a high probability that the next SC justice to retire will be from the progressive side, and it will be the NEXT president who will appoint that replacement.

It is nice to be cavalier with such decisions, and write off using the "nader" argument that it really doesn't matter, but for those affected it sure does

It is only luck that O'Conner and Kennedy didn't vote with the republican ideology on a lot of issues and the roe V wade still stands. If a republican is president, those SC appointment will be hard core ideologies, just look at who is running on the republican side. Not one republican candidate agrees with the last 3 SC decisions. All Those running as Democrats, including Hillary, Bernie, O'Malley, etc. have the opposite view

Frnakly, I prefer not to roll the dice and hope for a "swing" vote under a republican appointment

I have no doubt you realize that the probability of a republican president appointment verses a Democratic president appoint of a SC justices would be very different

[Renew Deal]

19. If Kerry was elected there would not have been a Citizens United

[still_one]

21. No question about it

[BeyondGeography]

27. The only reason it needed to be saved was because we only have four reliable votes

on most any given issue.

Your point on individual discretion notwithstanding, this is not complicated.

[Democat]

28. Imagine if Bork, Reagan's original nominee, had been confirmed

Democrats standing up to Bork was a big deal.

[former9thward]

29. Predicting the path of Justices is very difficult.

JFK appointed his football buddy, Bryan White, to the court. White became very conservative as the years went by. Ford appointed Stevens who became a liberal. Bush I appointed Souter who became a liberal.

[joeybee12]

18. Well, had Bush not stolen the election...

We wouldn't have Roberts or Alito...would have been 7-2.

[AZ Progressive]

23. We also wouldn't have had Citizens United

Whoever picks the next Supreme court nominee matters!

[joeybee12]

24. Life would have been way different without that theft...nt

[still_one]

31. and that was facilitated by O'Connor and Kennedy

[joeybee12]

33. From what I'd read, Kennedy was the one having doubts...

Not O'Connor...another day, they said, he would have voted the right way.

[still_one]

34. That is why swing votes are dangerous. O'Connor, at least in the past was able to influence Kennedy

in some of his decisions, at least that is what has been said

[DCBob]

20. Its troubling we feel the need to remind Democrats about this.

Hopefully they get it now.

[still_one]

22. I am skeptical that those who feel that way will have their minds changed by this weeks decisions

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. Many other issues pale beyond that of the Supreme Court

which is why, although I have a favorite, I will vote for whichever Dem gets the nomination. Any of the GOPers are certain to appoint more nutbags like Scalia. Ginsburg, in particular, is no spring chicken, and we can count on at least one opening on the court in the next few years. I do not want any GOPer to have the power to fill a court vacancy. We have seen, over and over, how important the Supreme Court is.

[DCBob]

32. I dont even want to imagine it.

There are no limits to what they might have done.. or what they might do if they win the WH in 2016.

[jwirr]

35. No they would not have and they will not. We need to bring the clowns down.