Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I'm told "If you ever want a balanced SCOTUS, set your values aside and shut up and vote for HRC." [View all]Xipe Totec
(43,892 posts)35. It's called a Senate Hold. There are no limits.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
190 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I'm told "If you ever want a balanced SCOTUS, set your values aside and shut up and vote for HRC." [View all]
NYC_SKP
Mar 2015
OP
No. What is being said is vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in the general elections.
still_one
Mar 2015
#1
As to the 2016 Presidential primary, anointee seems more likely that nominee, as the term "nominee"
merrily
Mar 2015
#59
There is NOT one potential Democratic nominee who WON'T make a better SC choice than any of the
still_one
Mar 2015
#83
If we want to have a SC that represents the interests of the people, we need to make sure the Dem
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#118
It would help if the President did not represent the interests of the Corporate State.
Vincardog
Mar 2015
#151
Republicans have been laser focused on California since Texas went red and California went blue.
merrily
Mar 2015
#55
I'm not convinced that the "Blue Slip" (or the "Senate Hold") applies to SC Nominees ...
1StrongBlackMan
Mar 2015
#86
Senate holds are part of the blue slip process and does not apply to the SCOTUS
Gothmog
Mar 2015
#153
Who the hell is stopping Hillary supporters from making their choice? As if anyone could anyway.
merrily
Mar 2015
#69
I live in Texas where we are dealing with the effects of the Shelby County case
Gothmog
Mar 2015
#154
I'm sure the intimidation factor will only increase as we get closer to 2016.
liberal_at_heart
Mar 2015
#4
Luckily we don't even have to do that. We can vote for whomever we want in the primary and
liberal_at_heart
Mar 2015
#7
Well, surely you know, no other lefty who runs would ever choose any SCOTUS judges
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Mar 2015
#8
By what? He has had no nomination for the Supreme Court since then and has
TheKentuckian
Mar 2015
#91
Part of that statement may be true; part of it almost certainly isn't.
Spider Jerusalem
Mar 2015
#23
Both are true enough for America to progress... Im not looking perfection that some will rip...
uponit7771
Mar 2015
#24
I expect that if people said they're not interested in HRC because she's not Queen Elizabeth,
winter is coming
Mar 2015
#77
Strawman, I typed "progressive enough"... FUD and some .5% of dem voters are looking for perfection
uponit7771
Mar 2015
#79
Who voted for (let alone block) both those confirmations? It sure as hell wasn't only Republicans!
merrily
Mar 2015
#64
Cool, cling tightly to those principles while your fellow citizens suffer.
great white snark
Mar 2015
#31
As if ending welfare "as we know it," signing DOMA and NAFTA and lobbying Democrats to
merrily
Mar 2015
#61
What utter ad hom crap. The only thing I "judged," IF ANYTHING, were the statements in a post of
merrily
Mar 2015
#109
As already stated, call someone a bigot without cause and you get what you get (and most likely
merrily
Mar 2015
#126
You most certainly did. You accused me of sexism and sexism is a form of bigotry.
merrily
Mar 2015
#131
Having been a victim of sexual harassment at work and sexism, I am certainly not going to be shamed
merrily
Mar 2015
#180
Mmmmmm. Bacon! A vote for HRC is a vote for the STATUS QUOE we need movement in
Vincardog
Mar 2015
#34
Nance, people are so worried about losing that they're going to lose by picking Clinton.
NYC_SKP
Mar 2015
#90
Here's the problem, you are already projecting your fear on to SCOTUS nominees.
Major Hogwash
Mar 2015
#50
one would think a balanced or progressive court would BE a progressive value
LadyHawkAZ
Mar 2015
#52
What does not voting for a particular nominee have to do with not voting in general?
TheKentuckian
Mar 2015
#94
The primaries are over? FUCK! I STILL HAVENT FILED MY TAXES FOR 2014!!!!!!!!
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#58
Due to Nader's stupidity, we have Citizens United and have lost a key section of voting rights act
Gothmog
Mar 2015
#60
Not exactly. Look at the confirmation hearings and votes re: Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and
merrily
Mar 2015
#66
Riiight. The unanimous vote confirming Scalia after few questions has nothing to
merrily
Mar 2015
#111
I'm reminded this extreme court of present was seated by a Democratic Party majority.
mmonk
Mar 2015
#73
Oh good Lord. Surely you don't think Hillary alone supports womens' rights? Please.
NYC_SKP
Mar 2015
#82
my whole post.... i should have been way more clear, cause this is important to me. as a woman.
seabeyond
Mar 2015
#95
I feel like I'm seeing a lot more arguments lately that end with the basic premise
hughee99
Mar 2015
#92
How about stop worrying about voting for Hillary until we actually have a general election where...
LynneSin
Mar 2015
#96
That would result only in (2) the possiblity of ties and (2) charges of (gasp) "court packing."
merrily
Mar 2015
#113
Only in the general election. Not the primaries. :-) And no, I wasn't one of them who
BlueCaliDem
Mar 2015
#127
That instruction is much less meaningful when the Party tries to discourage primary challenges.
merrily
Mar 2015
#132
I was curious as to what folks are doing who are Dems and don't want Hillary.
CTyankee
Mar 2015
#186
I would love to take money out of politics. I'm saying it's not practical at this point...
brooklynite
Mar 2015
#162
And we have to do that in the primary. That is what a primary is for. Unfortunately the progressive
jwirr
Mar 2015
#142
I was thinking of JFK and President Obama. But you are correct - 1930 and 1980 come to mind.
jwirr
Mar 2015
#144
You should vote for the Democratic Nominee, a year from November. You should.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#185