Every single one of us will hate something about Obama's SCOTUS nominee

[scheming daemons]

Really, we all want someone who thinks exactly like we do.

The only problem with that is that nobody thinks exactly like you... except you.

Whoever it is will have issued at least one judicial opinion in the past that each of us disagrees strongly with.

They'll either be too progressive or not progressive enough. They'll have the wrong gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, age, or life experiences.

There'll be a judicial opinion from 1985 or something that will infuriate you.


I know this is a lot to be asking from the "basher brigade"... but we need to weigh the entire body of work of the nominee.

When Bush 41 nominated Souter, none of us thought we were going to get the champion for our causes that we ended up with.



You are going to be disappointed with some aspect of the person that is chosen. Unless he literally chooses you.



The right is going to bash whoever it is even before they know anything about the person.

I know this is asking a lot from DU... but be the grownups. The American public DOES pay attention, and ultimately DOES reward the side that acts rational.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Therefore Obama has betrayed us! QED!

:rofl:

[Lex]

2. I bet I know who you consider to be the "basher brigade."

:eyes:

[scheming daemons]

4. Everyone is going to be the basher brigade... that's the point

We're all going to hate something about the nominee.

[Lex]

8. "the" basher brigade = everyone?

Interesting use of language.

[scheming daemons]

10. It depends on who the nominee is....

The primary "bashers" will be those whose ox got gored.


We don't know those will be yet.

[Two Americas]

20. why would that be?

Why would anyone's ox be gored?

Why are you preemptively calling any and all critics - which means any who may disagree with you - "bashers," and why should we assume that the only reason they would speak out - say anything hat you may disagree with - would be merely because their ox had been gored?

Don't we all share the same ox here? If not, what are the differences between the agendas of people here that are in conflict, in your view?


..

[scheming daemons]

23. We all have different priorities...

Some might have a greater stake in reproductive rights than GLBT rights.

Some might care more about EFCA and union concerns while others care more about the environment.

Some might care more about executive branch over-reach (wiretaps) while others are more concerned about hate crimes.



If Obama picks someone who doesn't understand the sanctity of the 4th amendment... if he picks someone who is unwilling to restore the 4th amendment after it was shattered by the Bushies post-9/11... then *MY* ox would have been gored.

You might have an issue that is most important to you.



In other words... a group of people is going to be more pissed than another group of people based on what their priorities are. We know that the most pissed of all will be the right (which is good).

But some on the left who emotionally invested in a particular issue... or trait for the next justice... will be disappointed. It is impossible for Obama to fulfill each of our "wish lists".

So... disappointment by some is inevitable.

The question is... on the whole... is the person a good candidate? Even if they weren't your PERFECT candidate?

[Two Americas]

26. not really

That "different priorities" stuff is for the purpose of dividing us, and distracting us from where people actually stand. It is also a convenient tool for suppressing discussions.

The idea that some people are demanding a "perfect" candidate is false. It prevents anyone from saying anything, because if they do they can be accused of demanding perfection. No one is.

Preemptively planting the idea in people's minds that any future hypothetical remarks about a candidate, remarks that you disagree with, as stemming from a demand for perfection is unfair and not very straightforward.

People will have opinions. There is nothing wrong with that. They should be able to express them, and the readers of those oppinions do not need your interpretation of them, or the motives or mind set of the poster. As though opinions are expressed, you can debate them with people at that time.


...

[CTyankee]

21. So far, I've not been disappointed. He has made all the right moves

AFAIC. You can check back with me later, but he's been doing better than I expected and I am pleasantly surprised!

[Two Americas]

28. doesn't mean much

It does not really matter if he is making the right moves or not, since politicians usually make the right moves when pressured to do so, so it is not an excuse for suppressing dissent. Then, we would need to define what "right moves" means, exactly.

Whether or not you are personally pleasantly surprised does not tell us much, either. The less a person expects, the lower their standards are, the less they agonize over the suffering others are going through, the more oblivious or indifferent to the problems they are, then the more likely they would be pleasantly surprised. Not saying that those things are true for you, but merely pointing out that "I am pleasantly surprised!" - while millions are suffering - does not mean much of anything.

In any case, no matter what moves any politician makes, our job - out civic duty and moral obligation - does not change. We speak out for what is right. That is the way to have our elected representatives making the right moves.

I am not surprised, pleasantly or otherwise, and don't spend any time thinking about that. Of course, I don't think it is about me nor do I think it is about the careers of politicians. I see myself as a participant, not a spectator. My loyalty is to the people and to principles and ideals, and the party and politicians are subordinate to that in my thinking.

I worry about how the people are doing, not the politicians. For too many people, there are no "right moves" available.


...

[Voice for Peace]

3. thanks for the headsup

I'll be on guard (against hate)

[DrDan]

5. I disagree - there will be a subset here who will absolutely love

everything about the nominee - once they know who it is.

[Lex]

11. and will be utterly frantic to make sure everyone else agrees with them

or else they are "bashing" Obama evidently

[DrDan]

12. couldn't be more true . . . .

been on the end of that - not much fun

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truthN08]

6. I couldn't

I couldn't agree with you more.

[On the Road]

7. I Think Obama is Going to Pick Someone

who is unassailable and make all the Republicans look like idiots again for protesting before even knowing who the pick is.

[countingbluecars]

9. I'm just thanking my lucky stars

that McCain and Palin aren't doing the picking.

[Mz Pip]

15. That's my feeling too

I'd like it to be a woman or minority but won't lose my lunch if it turns out to be a white guy - as long as he has a liberal judicial philosophy.

[Zenlitened]

13. If the basher brigade doesn't watch out, they'll all get tombstoned!

Oh, wait... :hide:

[libnnc]

14. danger Will Robinson

danger....

[Two Americas]

16. I think we should be free to express our opinions

I do not think that the principles and ideals that we supposedly all support are merely a matter of each individual's personal desires. I do not think that people who defend those principles and ideals are talking about their personal desires, nor are they bashing.

I object to your unfounded generalization about a a very significant number of the people in the DU family implicit in your "basher brigade" smear.

We should be free to discuss any aspects of any government official. "Be quiet, and wait and see because maybe the person will turn out to be good" violates the spirit of representative democracy and is suppressive of a free and open discussion. It contradicts every principle and ideal we are fighting for.


...

[TheKentuckian]

18. Agreed, but keep in mind that others have free speech as well

which gives them the right to respond as they see fit.

Freedom of speech does not come with freedom from dissent or a letter of validation.

[Two Americas]

19. of course

I didn't say that people "have free speech." We could go around and around in circles here. The dissenters are not intolerant of free speech - it does not "go both ways" as the right wingers love to say - when they object to attempts at suppressing dissent. So no, people do not "have free speech" when that means license to suppress dissent.

It is not "dissent" to tell people not to express dissent, and then to accuse THEM of suppressing free speech when they object to that. It is not merely asking for validation when people ask to not be told to shut up or that they should not express certain opinions.

I don't know, if people want a vicious free-for-all I suppose that is what we will have. There will always be a double standard implicit in that, since those who seek to break up or prevent discussion will always have the advantage.

Here is the pattern, in reality rather than in some theory about free speech -

Poster A: A politician is doing or saying such and such, and that is in opposition to the principles and ideals we honor.

Poster B: There you go with your impatience, your outrage, your negativity, just as whiners and pouters and purists like you always do.

Poster A: Why don't you respond to the point I made rather than attacking me?

Poster B: What is the matter? Can't handle it that someone doesn't agree with you? I have free speech too, and you are trying to suppress my free speech.


...

[ZombieHorde]

17. Are there any stances, which some politicians openly hold,

which would make you a vocal basher? For example, a pro-life choice?

[scheming daemons]

24. A pro-life choice would DEFINITELY make me a basher....

..but I don't think that will happen.

Do you?



But someone who is not commitment to protecting the 4th amendment would disappoint me... even though they might otherwise be a solid candidate... but I wouldn't bash based on that alone.

[ZombieHorde]

25. "Do you?" I would be really surprised if his choice was anti-choice. (pun intended)

I was just pointing out that we all have our favorite issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, or the war on drugs, and we would be intellectually dishonest not to recognize that people's feelings and bashings may be just as legitimate as our own.

[StevieM]

27. You make a good point about Souter....we really lucked out with him. I think what matters most

is that everyone be given fair consideration, and no one be disqualified for reasons like John Thune has suggested.

Steve