A Moment that Made Me Sick Today

Oozed to the right.

and accusing a person of not being a "Real Democrat" means less than nothing. It's almost a compliment.

Democrats appoint a conservative, and Republicans nominate an extreme conservative.

Liberals are just about a thing of the past. I wish we could just stop calling any of our politicians "liberal." Maybe Bernie...

money!!!

This is not the party I grew up with and loved.

Confirmed by the Senate. Currently the Republicans have a majority and the likelihood of getting a liberal judge confirmed is very low. It works the same with a Republican president nominating a TP type and there was a Democratic senate would never confirm.

If that were really true, Roberts and Alito would never have been confirmed.

Roberts, nominated by a Republican president, a good reason to elect a Democratic president this year. A least Roberts voted correctly on the ACA.

And there are days when that gets to work in our favor. Not many, but maybe enough if we pick our battles correctly. It's also true that it's not just a liberal justice this Senate won't confirm, it's ANY JUSTICE.

Obama could tell them hes nominating himself and would have to resign the Presidency to do so, and theyd call him a weak quitter and that he had better not that's how much they truly hate the man and fear what he represents (the demographic death of the Republican Party).

President.

... filibustering those right-wingers.

The other 23 votes to confirm came from where?
That's right (reich) the Democrats and an Independent -- and no it wasn't Sanders
Pryor, Lincoln, Kohl, Feingold, Byrd, Rockefeller, Murray, Leahy, Jeffords, Johnson, Wyden, Nelson (Asshat Nebraska), Bingaman, Conrad, Dorgan, Bauchus, Nelson (FL), Salazar, LIEberman, Dodd, Carper, Landrieu, Levin

It should be noted that neither the President, nor the Vice-President, nor Ms Clinton voted for his nomination
And for those apologists for Feingold who cast one of his worst votes or Nelson of Nebraska who people defend by pointing out how conservative Nebraska is
Even Bayh of Indiana voted 'No'
Feinstein, Schumer and Reid all voted 'No'

Good on you. Awesome job!

Oh and yeah, they've always got some reason (talking points) for anything, it never has to make sense.

Remember those things and you should do fine here.

Glad to have you on board.

Yes, some Democrats voted for confirmation.

except if you look it up.

How about Rehnquist? There is another example that disproves your hypothesis.

Any other untenable positions you'd like to take?

Not sure why you want to continue this, but please proceed, (governor.)

Why you wish to continue this sub-thread, I am unsure. In any case, I will happily keep responding to point out that your original assertion was demonstrably incorrect.

TTFN

Rehnquist was appointed to the court with a 54 Democrat Majority in 1972
Clarence Thomas was appointed to the court with a 56 Democrat Majority in 1991


Your hypothesis is wrong. But please, post some more so we can keep discussing this!!

was confirmed in 2006, again the Senate was 55% Republican, this is history, will not be rewritten. Don't call me wrong, I was correct the first time I posted this information and it has not changed.

I gave examples.

You are hung up over one example for which I erred in saying that it also disproved your hypothesis. that one example did not.

The Thomas and Rehnquist examples stand by themselves as examples of you being wrong. I only need one to disprove your hypothesis. I have 2.

I am not sure if you are so dense that my explanations are not simple enough, or that you are so invested in pretending to not be wrong that you continue to pretend that you are not.

In either case, I am happy to continue to point out that you initial hypothesis is incorrect with at least two examples as many times as you insist that I do.

TTFN

is that the 1% own most of the media.

We have no left party.

As the left was moved right the right moved right, till we have what we have today, a bunch of Regan Democrats and a maniacal right wing Republicans

That's why we find ourselves with Clinton infestation problem.

Nature abhors a vacuum. FDR was president when I was born, I'm 81 now, and fervently hope I live long enough to see another FDR, see the vacuum filled with Progressives. Hoped for it this year, thought I sensed rebellion simmering under the surface, hoped it would put Bernie in the White House. Sigh.

'difficult' districts. And by that they mean conservative districts.

This has been the long standing explanation offered up by New Dems who have moved the party to the right.

I don't expect that any time soon, there will be any sensitivity to Democrats running in difficult districts that are more 'liberal' than the party.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/03/04/one-study-explains-why-its-tough-to-pass-liberal-laws/

And really, most of these excuses are self-serving rationalizations.

The democrats are almost as bad as the republicans, with the exception of social issues. Social issues are practically the only reason to vote.

The thing that works is fear of republicans. Which is based on a myth as professional dem do sometimes endorse republicans.

Of course they want their voters to believe that all dems are always better.

there was a real need for southern conservative democrats to overcome the hang-over of Johnson signing the civil rights act. Which was widely seen as an electoral loser in the South.

Nothing attracts people quite as much as success, and the pattern of Southern economic development was built on special incentives to corporation. It can't be described as anything but -very- corporate friendly.

Not surprisingly as economic power turned into political power the southern governors and legislatures had a fondness for the political orientations that had brought the corporations, jobs, money and economic development south and made that southern renaissance possible.

Super Tuesday, New Dems, and contemporary Dem politics are largely a legacy of that transition. I get that contemporary dem politics grew out of processes that are basic to human nature. That philosophically this is an orientation of southern and big city politicians, who also look to entice corporations and jobs, isn't dastardly, it's natural to look to things that have worked elsewhere and adopt them. It's also easier and seems less risky to do something that worked elsewhere and in a different time. Hence that type of thinking becomes 'the politics of the doable' and it's blessed with the label 'pragmatic'.

and Sonia Sotomayor appointments? I was.

I was simply trying to make the point that Democrats should stop being so concerned about what Republicans think and stand for liberal values. Are you happy about the pIck of Marrick Garland?

than to say that it's "Bull Shit" that Democratic presidents appoint liberals, say "why the fuck us that" and that it was a "moment that made you sick". And I don't believe that Bill Clinton was really worrying about what the Republicans thought of his choice of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Who do you think he should have nominated instead of her? And which of Ginsburg's decisions do you dislike and that you think your hypothetical nominee would have voted differently on?

I wouldn't want to deprive the DU community as a whole of my thoughts on issues that you raise.

You always have the option of putting me on your Ignore list and then you will never see any of my posts at all (or any responses to them).

Don't be afraid to use it.

No pun intended

They want ideological purity and want those who don't meet their narrow standards purged

Amazing.

We should be highlighting these accomplishments instead of capitulating to the "takers" of our rights.

Mainstream modern democrats are more like the moderate republicans of the past who got tired of the lunacy within the GOP today. Interestingly, most conservatives whine about how current republican government figures aren't conservative enough. This country almost needs 4 parties. Super liberals, mainstream democrats, mainstream republicans and right-wing nut jobs.

Judges should have no bias.

Very difficult to achieve but that is the general principal that Dems operate under. The Idea that a judge should rule on the merits and not personal beliefs. This by definition would suggest centrist judges not ideologues. The fact that Republicans want to rule from the bench while decrying the idea does not make what they are doing right nor should Dems sink to that level.

Judges should be as close to as unbiased as possible.

And put in checks and balances to try to control that.

Although some of our most liberal Justices were appointed by relative conservatives, by Republicans. And the Republican presidents who appointed them were more liberal than Obama. We have moved unreasonably far to the right.

Moderation in all things. That is why I am a Bernie supporter.

In fact, he is not far left; he is a moderate Democrat.

It makes you a pretty crazy liberal extremist to believe that the government you pay for should actually do positive things for you and not the wealthy corporations.

I've been called a kook on this board after I suggested that Hillary Clinton wasn't a democrat because she favors war and Wall Street over the average citizen.

Keep your eye on the ball, and don't get distracted!

...I felt like an atheist teaching Bible school.

Little Newty Gingrich made "liberal" a pejorative. So the "new Dems" ran away from being liberal.

... it's just "Demo" ...

... because after you try out the "Demo" in public ...

... you bring it into your home only to find out either that it's completely broken ...

... or that it never was like the "Demo" that you saw originally ...

Republican ideology favors simple answers, black and white. These types of people like to be spoon fed simple cookie cutter questions and answers. They feel more comfortable being told what to think, like having their parents tell them right from wrong. RW media does this. It's self-fulfilling. Corporations like return on their investment. They pay to have a simple message distributed over their media outlets. RW followers love to get their talking points this way and are all too eager to reward their corporate masters and GOP representation. In this way they belong and need to belong to something bigger than themselves. Everyone within the scope of this ideology thinks exactly like them and the message is the same from top to bottom.

On the other hand, democrats and liberals cannot follow the same structure, because by definition, a liberal thinking person doesn't want to be told what to think, they determine right from wrong based on weighing several possible solutions. They don't need to belong and actually favor individuality. They don't even want to tell others how to think, because they figure everyone should have a working brain and should think for themselves. And if they do, it should follow that they'll probably come to the same logical conclusion they did.

So no TV or radio model will fit. Liberals come up with a million different similar great ideas, but no common message from top to bottom.

The two ideologies are a mismatch. On the one hand, you have one clearly defined RW culture that thinks and acts irrationally, pluralistically, and hypocritically, similar to the ISIS/ISIL mob, as one, and another that thinks it can use logic and reasoning to debate irrational thinkers.

You can win all the debates you want, but if the hypocrites are broadcasting that liberal thinking is bad on their 24/7 media machine, it's not a question of standing up for liberal accomplishments. So long as their mob believes "liberal" is a bad word, liberals are just a thought away from presentation before a firing squad.

What you posted is the dichotomy the powers that be want us to believe. We're good, they're bad, we must defeat them. I'm on the left for a number of reasons, and I believe those things rather than the things people on the right believe, but I would never write a post like yours, I find it as unenlightened as the views of the right.

You speak of two ideologies, but it isn't binary like that, there's a wide spectrum of beliefs that fall in a three-dimensional space, not a linear line.

I don't see either of your two sides as particularly rational. Our side seems to vote against their own interests as much or nearly as much as the right.

I once watched (true story) two hummingbirds fighting in the air, over territorial rights to a hummingbird feeder. They locked beaks or tongues, and continued fighting as they both fell from the sky, crashing together on the ground below.

That's pretty much where we're at, Republicans and Democrats. The planet we live in is being destroyed by greed as people vote for the perpetrators while being divided by far less consequential issues.

We have more in common with your average right-wing citizen than we do with the party elites of either major party.

We are about to nominate a candidate who supports fracking, gets tons of money from fossil fuel interests, rakes in corporate money with every breath, and is a great friend of the biggest banks and some of the worst war mongers. Not only that, but she is one of the most divisive Democrats we have, so will not be able to unite people behind issues such as climate change or getting corporate money in politics. So I'm sorry, I don't see us having any monopoly on rational thinking or transcending corporate media messaging.

a couple of decades ago.

she would no doubt agree with every word of that.

[center]

High five, Chasstev![/center]

US Sovereignty are challenged, it will be the Supreme Court that will hear those challenges.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141431295

i have not seen how the votes broke down yet but one of our supposedly liberal judges had to conspire with the repubs to circumvent the 4th amendment

though it has been said that Ike lived to regret his choice. Worked out well for the rest of us though.

to put William Brennan on the Supreme Court only a month before the 1956 election. (He was later confirmed by the full senate in a unanimous affirmation.)

Brennan is one of the court's most celebrated liberals of the past 60 years.

...or at least regain a status as a constituency in the party that the leadership cannot simply ignore.

That much propaganda creates "reality" in people's minds beyond their base.

Warren, appointed by Eisenhower, wrote the decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
Blackmun, appointed by Nixon, wrote the decision in Roe v. Wade.

Triangulation.

And we have been triangulated sense the 80s.

I imagine one difficult thing about being a teacher would be the requirement to stick to the fiction.

Burger and Blackmun voted for Roe v Wade (both were appointed by GOP presidents) etc. etc. etc.

The supreme court has turned more republican appointments liberal than the other way around (White).

Generalizations when it comes to court appointments are not so easy.

And Hillary, a former rethuglican, will push it even further with more wars and wallstreet concessions. Those who want HRC as our next president are either right leaning Democrats or just deluded into thinking that the Clinton's are progressive.

the supreme court. I wouldn't be surprised if they were conservatives.

I guess I don't trust her because of her constantly being on the wrong side of history and decades late to civil rights. I don't think liberal values come naturally to her. I think they're campaign promises and that's it. Why, because she was saying and doing the opposite before this campaign.

That's how it has worked since Bork.

The weakness act is nothing but a ruse. Start from a position of weakness then cave in to what the Republicans want. Then ask for our votes next election as if they have done a fine job preventing full on goose stepping Fascism.

If you can't see through this shit after a few decades of it you aren't looking very closely.

The ACA bullshit is a perfect example. The position of strength was a European single payer system. That is where you start. That was a discussion we should have had, no holds barred. What did we get instead? Discussion of the real heath care reform was verboten. People that stood up and wanted (reasonably) to discuss single payer were arrested! And the President said, "Single payer would be ideal but it would be too expensive." He couldn't have believed that. He was lying.

It's like that on every issue. We are tired of corporate rule.

You practically get laughed off if you suggest a Supreme Court Justice pick as a reason not to toss away a vote.

Democrats have reached across the aisle so many times to reach "consensus" that the aisle is now down the middle of the Republican Party.

There's no reasonable explanation of more liberals supporting Hillary than Bernie than that sad observation. Most liberals are apparently afraid of their shadows.

The RepubliCONs have turned hard right, and it seems that the Democrats of today are more like Eisenhower RepubliCONs than they are actual Democrats.

we have seen less of them, since they have been on the court for less time.

Merrick Garland is a strategic appointment, and i think for about 80% of the cases he will vote with the liberals.

The white Democrats liked liberal policy and accomplishments fine until they realized that we were serious about making them share with black people. Then they fled the party in droves. So the starting premise of this entire post is wrong. GOP has controlled the debate because people are racist and the GOP is willing to blow the dog whistles many like to hear.

Also, a great number of the justices who voted for gay marriage were appointed by Democratic Presidents y'all call "centrist". So what is your problem? You think Garland would vote against gay marriage or Brown? Kennedy is the swing and he is from Reagan, so Reps are the ones who should be bitter.

Merrick Garland is a cynical but brilliant ploy by Obama to make the GOP look and feel bad. They know Garland is, 90% chance, the best nominee they will see for the position, but they can't take him because their base is batshit crazy. Meanwhile, all the moderates and swings are thinking WTF? Stop being obstructionist and do your job!

By all accounts, Garland is a straight arrow and a great judge, even if you don't agree with his ideology. We could do a hell of a lot worse is they DID take the bait

Enough with that claptrap.

The proud history of the Democratic Party should be the basis for the future.

Thankfully his ship is sinking very fast and it's only a matter of time before the conservative media bubble bursts. And I'll be there with plenty of butter when that happens.