Those who refused to vote for Hillary in 2016, and VP Harris in 2024, are complicit in the Supreme Court we have today.

[lostincalifornia]

[FadedMullet]

1. Yup. No argument from me.

[Oopsie Daisy]

2. Those who encouraged others to vote third party, or to vote "uncommitted" and not vote in the general...

... or a certain political wife who provided legitimacy and "cover" for those who voted for Jill Stein (ie: "it's more important THAT we vote rather than HOW we vote" ... or words to that effect) ... thus amplifying the fiction that "sending a message" is more important that actually WINNING! (Oh how pure!)

[calimary]

17. That "send a message" bullshit.

It’s never anything beyond “hi! I know this candidate will lose but I’m gonna throw my vote away, ANYWAY! THAT’LL show ya!”

[sheshe2]

26. All this! Exactly.

[Eliot Rosewater]

28. Thank you, I'm glad others are saying it.

I get in trouble when I do.

[betsuni]

48. That ideology's First Commandment is Both Sides Corrupt, so it doesn't matter who's president.

Last edited Tue Aug 5, 2025, 12:33 AM - Edit history (1)

Got real touchy when SCOTUS was brought up in 2016 or voting blue no matter who, stamping their little feet and yelling "Don't tell me what to do, yer not the boss of me, Establishment status quo Mommy!!!!!"

They're still out there preaching Both Sides Corrupt.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. How did Harris' loss impact the makeup of the Supreme Court?

In your rush to scapegoat, you must have missed that detail.

[Hekate]

5. It's been a pattern over 25 years. Fiendishly difficult to discern, I know.

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. That's not what the headline and topic of this thread says

It says those who refused to vote for Harris in 2024 are complicit in the Supreme Court we have today.

Nothing has changed about the court from November 2024 to the present.

[B.See]

19. What's changed is all the

unfathomable sht they've been rubber stamping on behalf of Trump ever since.

[Eliot Rosewater]

30. And that by not voting for Kamala Harris the court will get even worse.

Remarkable how someone would pick apart that point in this topic, shaking my head so hard I think it’s gonna fucking fall off.

Thank you for your response, I don’t communicate with certain people around here so I have to say what I have to say responding to other people that I support like you.

[BannonsLiver]

46. Yes, I feel your pain on that one.

It must be such a burden for them being so omniscient and having to exist among us mere mortals. I don’t know how they do it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

34. The same court would still be in place if Harris had won.

No doubt overturning her executive orders and new laws passed by a Dem congress.

The headline blaming those who didn’t vote for Harris for the current Supreme Court is a logical fallacy- period.

[B.See]

41. Depends on how one reads it, I think.

If we're talking the physical makeup of the court then yes, the same personnel. If we're talking the damage they've done by giving Trump his way, often via sometimes secretive shadow docket rulings, then I'd like to think having a Democrat in the White House, NOT issuing the destructive executive orders of Trump, NOT opposing and challenging lower court rulings, NOT having sabotaged government via the installation of LACKEYS and saboteurs, WOULD'VE made a difference.

I, for one, don't support the notion that we'd be in the same sht stew if Kamala were President.

[Fiendish Thingy]

45. The OP is about the court

Not the laundry list of other topics you introduced.

[B.See]

47. For the Supreme Court we have today:

a court that is rubber stamping everything Trump wants. The court that is enabling the dismantling of democracy. The court that is working on behalf of Trump, at the behest of Trump. Which it would NOT be doing for Kamala. NOT that she'd be demanding that they gave HER the power to do whatever the fk she wanted.

That's the difference. Perhaps the following article can help make my point clearer. (Or perhaps not):

Trump policies forced to pass thanks to Supreme Court - MSN

here's another:

Full List as Supreme Court Rules for Donald Trump 15 Times in a Row - Newsweek

[Fiendish Thingy]

49. It would be the same court whether Trump or Harris were president

If they weren’t enabling Trump, they’d be obstructing Harris.

You just don’t seem to understand that.

[B.See]

54. You don't seem to understand

the basis (or the reasoning) for my position that even with the same justices, the damage they'd have been able to do with Harris in the WH, even via obstruction, would have been LESS than what they are doing and will YET do in working hand in hand, further empowering a fascist authoritarian out to destroy democracy.


Not to mention the plain simple fact that Trump is in the position to appoint MORE of the same ilk.

And the supporting evidence of my argument is what President Biden was able to accomplish, in SPITE of Trump's 'supreme' court.

So, we'll just have to agree to DISAGREE.

You have a nice day.

[lostincalifornia]

59. Absolutely, and we would have a different DOJ also. What seems to be missing is that many of the same folks that

refused to vote for Hillary, also refused to vote for Harris, along with the fact that that judges such as Canon would not have been appointed by a President Harris.

There are so many appointments trump has made that are a disaster. RFK jr sure wouldn't be in charge, along with the other thugs and incompetents that he has appointed.

Trump has been in office in his second term less than a year, and look at the damage he has done.

If a Thomas or Alito retires, with trump in the WH, and their majority in the Senate, they will have sealed the SC for decades to come.

[DFW]

53. You're correct. I would have worded things differently.

Trump getting in means that Thomas and Alito, if so inclined, can retire in peace knowing that a younger, equally malevolent person will replace them, and be there for decades. Harris getting in would have meant that Alito and Thomas would have had to hope that Mother Nature covered their sorry asses at least for four years, with no Leonard Leo-covered cushy retirement as an option.

The 2024 election didn’t have any immediate effect on the court at all, just possibly it’s immediate future.

That’s the way I see it, anyway.

However, do NOT get me started on 2016 without opening some very deep old wounds.

[lostincalifornia]

60. That is exactly right, and if I was a betting man, they will before the sociopath leaves office.

[Hekate]

40. Yes and since I am looking back at a pattern, let me point out Bush v Gore, bollixed up by Nader & decided by SCOTUS

That set the stage from then until now—- and it was the decision of SCOTUS

[lostincalifornia]

10. Simple, it will include any SC court judges in the next two years, and

Last edited Mon Aug 4, 2025, 08:25 PM - Edit history (1)

4 years if the rethugs remain in control of the Senate.

In addition, it will also include federal judicial appointments.

All that cannot be ignored.

He just filled a President Obama judicial vacancy.

[AverageOldGuy]

24. Yes.

For example . . . Bove.

I predict Thomas or Alito will retire soon giving Trump the authority to put Bove on the Court.

[lostincalifornia]

38. I think you are right. They sure don't want a possible Democrat in the WH when they retire.

[Orrex]

13. I don't believe that the OP made any claim about the makeup of the SCOTUS.

Can you point me to that part? TIA!

I read the OP more as a comment about how the extremist Reichwing SCOTUS is happy to rubber-stamp just about anything that the festering orange prolapse does, whereas they'd likely be much more aggressive in curtailing any excesses by a President Harris.

[Eliot Rosewater]

31. Oh don't go and mess up the attempt to derail

A very important thread about a very important issue that will end up in the imprisonment, deportation or death of most people who are not maga.

Please don’t confuse my sarcasm and anger that I’m talking about you, I’m very glad you posted this and I’m just using your post to respond to how absurd it is that this thread was almost derailed by another person.

[Hekate]

4. But but but they cackle when they laugh and and and...

When left-Dems and left-of-Dems complained of our general election candidates over the past 20 years, I finally realized my reasoned arguments were falling on deaf ears.

I finally started giving a one -word reply to those posts — SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. Still — perfection or nothing. Happy now?

[Thunderbeast]

6. May I add Al Gore to the list?

Ralph Nader did immeasurable harm to this Democracy...and resulted in a more dangerous American Imperial Petro-Empire.

and the Corvair was NOT "Unsafe at any speed". Many cars WAY more dangerous.

[FalloutShelter]

12. So true.

I clearly remember having this discussion with some Dem. Friends in 2000. Didn’t like Gore. Wanted Nader.

[Bobstandard]

16. Nader lost. Gore won.

There’s a big difference between the two. And if the legitimate results had given us a Gore presidency, think how much better off we’d be on the environment.

To me, Nader is a sad footnote. He saw himself as a disrupter but a good case can be made that his self-centered brand of disruption led to Gore’s loss in a big way.

[FalloutShelter]

25. So true.

[DemocracyForever]

57. Nader is a closet republican

Nader knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted Bush to win and got enough people in Florida and elsewhere to buy his big lie that there were no differences between Al Gore and Bush. 25 years later, Nader still refuses to accept responsibility for what he's done to our country.

[Tbone421]

8. Hate this mind set. Group think is for MAGA.

[Oopsie Daisy]

11. Oh please! GMAFB! Democratic party loyalty is NOT "group think".

Opposition to "purity tests" that benefit the GOP is not "group think."

PS: "Welcome to DU!"

[Eliot Rosewater]

32. Thank you for saying what everyone else is thinking

[lostincalifornia]

39. Well said OD.

[LT Barclay]

18. Thanks. If you're new you're lucky you weren't here for the great purge of 2015

[DemocracyForever]

58. Nader helped GOP in 2000

It was Nader who siphoned off critical votes from Al Gore in Florida and elsewhere with his big lie. This helped Bush. It was GOP money that paid for Nader's $5 million tv ad campaign that was run in critical states like Florida. The evidence is overwhelming that Nader helped the GOP and the GOP helped Nader.

[NNadir]

61. Welcome to DU. I, for one, am pleased to have you here. It was a bete noire with me, some decades ago.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

9. I don't believe they took the SCOTUS into account.

Or truly believe that the far right court is conservative. In reality they are the radical defenders of amoral legislation. They do not believe in the rights of individuals.

[paulrevere2018]

22. This has been the goal of the Federalist Society for the last 25 years since Leo took over.

The shortest path to realize the dream of a white christian (well actually catholic) nation was to train several generations of law students on their philosophy at one end, and use cash to influence at the other end. Get these loyal lawyers on the various courts, including the SCOTUS , and then subvert the very nature of the country. No need to deal with the messy, unpredictable nature of elections to get your aims fulfilled.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

37. An actual conspiracy that the people ignore.

So much easier to engage in class warfare.

[iemanja]

42. They specifically argued that SCOTUS wasn't a reason to vote for HIllary

They were mainly privileged white men, so what did they care?

[SleeplessinSoCal]

44. My Republican mother used SCOTUS as an excuse...

... to vote for Bush in 2000. In 2004 it became the Iraq War and various endorsements that she'd listen to. She had been a Democrat before Reagan. Then FNC twisted her thinking.

I'll never know what was so fearful about a progressive SCOTUS.

[mcar]

14. Yep. nt

[calimary]

15. Can't argue about that.

And yes. Don’t forget about Al Gore. Sheesh… he would have been great, AND quite noble, in the White House.

[B.See]

20. Re the OP, they're

COMPLICIT in a HELLUVA lot more than just that.

[Eliot Rosewater]

33. Like the loss of our Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and

And FDA and weather service and Department of Justice and I don’t know all the acronyms but everything is gone they’re destroying everything
😡😡😡😡

Anybody who doesn’t realize they’re going to take our Social Security and Medicare money and blame it on Biden, sigh sigh sigh sigh

[BidenRocks]

21. Which brings us to Mitch.

He took the low road and screwed America.

[AverageOldGuy]

23. Yes, they are.

However, they’ll all deny it and give us some bullshit excuse.

If you claim to be a Democrat, VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINEE and don’t give me any of your bullshit about “ her emails. “

[walkingman]

27. Once I might understand (although really dumb) but twice - just plain ignorance.

[sop]

29. I recall their "Let it all burn down!" arguments at the time.

They finally got their wish.

[electric_blue68]

35. Yeah...And DRAGGING Everyone Else WITH Them!

😬😬😬

[electric_blue68]

36. So Effing True!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

43. And for George HW Bush who started it all with Clarence Thomas.

He is the biggest POS on that court followed by Kavanaugh and Alito.

[Beartracks]

50. True. They can't say they "didn't vote" just because they didn't cast a ballot in those races.

Inaction counts just as much toward the voting result as an actual ballot. Everyone has a vote whether they cast a ballot or not. This isn't like a retail choice where if you don't like either smart phone you can leave the store without one. You get one of the top two candidates as your President, whether you vote with a ballot or not. If you "don't like" either choice, but the thought of one of them greeting you as President on the morning after Election Day absolutely makes you hope that THEY don't win regardless of your inaction, then by all means jump into action and go cast a ballot for the other candidate, if for no other reason than to cancel someone else's vote -- an action which will make it even just a little bit more likely that the candidate you really don't want to win, loses. No guarantee, of course, but when enough people hold their nose and hedge their bets like that, the results could surprise you.

==================

[3catwoman3]

51. The makeup of the Supreme Court was/should have been reason enough to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Period. End of story. A pox on all those who did not.

[mahina]

52. This just in

[ClimateChangeisReal]

55. The Rehnquist 5 made today's nightmare possible

with their judicial coup d'état in 2000 which put Roberts and Alito on the SCOTUS and gave us W's 2008 economic meltdown that left so any working class voters behind which combined with Rehnquist 5's killing of democracy in 2000 which then gave us Rump who appointed Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Coney-Barrett.. No one should ever forget that there would be no Rump today without the Rehnquist 5 in 2000.

[DemocracyForever]

56. "Bush vs Gore" ruling created today's SCOTUS

The "Bush vs Gore" ruling created today's SCOTUS. That ruling prevented the counting of 170,000 legally cast Florida 2000 ballots located in the largest and most heavily democratic voting counties in Florida. The SCOTUS appointed Bush then rewarded one of his lawyers, John Roberts and Samuel Alito with SCOTUS appointments. They now make up 2 of the 6 radicals that now control the SCOTUS. Coney-Barret and Kavanaugh were also lawyers for Bush in 20000 and they're also now part of the radical 6 that control the SCOTUS..