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]TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)91. By what? He has had no nomination for the Supreme Court since then and has
ended up posting corporate conservatives and even open Republicans to lower courts.
A major problem is that TeaPubliKlans will fight like hell against anyone more liberal than moderate with a corporate friendly lean when Democrats nominate but Democrats will show deference to ANY TeaPubliKlan nominees except the most absurdly over the top and open nut jobs (see Bork) and the utterly incompetent (see Myers) but will tolerate any level of right wing ideology or repugnant jurisprudence (see the majority including fake swing vote Kennedy).
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