Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumhrmjustin
(71,265 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Kablooie
(18,612 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Technically, you can filibuster a SCOTUS nomination but there would be a steep political price to be paid. The public would be unhappy if a SCOTUS seat is left empty
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Gothmog
(144,945 posts)The Senate blocking a SCOTUS nomination is or used to be a big deal. Abe Fortas was blocked but he had some issues and LBJ was very unpopular at the end of his term. Nixon had a couple of unqualified nominees blocked and there is the Bork case (he was qualified but crazy). Normally, a nominee selected by the POTUS is confirmed in large part because there is political pressure to do so absent a strong case for blocking.
Technically, the nuclear option does not apply to SCOTUS justices but I would be surprise to see a filibuster of a moderate well qualified nominee. I doubt that a Ruth Bader Ginsburg could be confirmed even if the Democrats take back the Senate in 2016 but HRC should be able to get most of her nominees confirmed
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)liberal judges.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)However the nuclear option adopted by Senator Reid excludes SCOTUS justices and so to confirm someone like a RBG, we would need 60 Senate votes unless the Nuclear option is expanded to include SCOTUS justices (and this is possible for so long as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are in the Senate)
William769
(55,144 posts)asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)So refreshing to finally see some sanity put into the discussion today...really has been very difficult to weed out some people 's agenda..here at DU!
nirvana555
(448 posts)OKNancy
(41,832 posts)have been cleaning house of repeat trolls who it just so happens seem to be the most strident Hillary bashers. Imagine that.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)He's not looking the best for wear either.
calimary
(81,127 posts)But yeah. Him too. He can't be counted on.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)DFW
(54,302 posts)Whether or not it is Hillary.
elleng
(130,768 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Be it Hillary, or joe blow.
Response to Gothmog (Original post)
neverforget This message was self-deleted by its author.
Purrfessor
(1,188 posts)And the thing is, nobody will notice.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Goodhair is an idiot but he is correct that the key issue is the SCOTUS http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/perry-identifies-the-top-issue-the-2016-race This chart is really good on why HRC needs to be POTUS
?itok=RU4tfAN1
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)elleng
(130,768 posts)that a DEMOCRAT win in 2016.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)elleng
(130,768 posts)but the OP suggests that only 1 candidate is appropriate, and that's not the case.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)elleng
(130,768 posts)and I went out of my way not to advocate for another candidate. However, I responded to the question posed by the OP.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Gothmog
(144,945 posts)The SCOTUS is too important of an issue to risk on a candidate who may not be viable in the general election. I am not convinced that Sanders is viable in the general election which is one of the reasons that I am supporting Clinton. I will support the Democratic nominee but we need to make sure that there is a Democrat being sworned in after the 2016 election
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)I like Bernie Sanders and admire/agree with most of his positions. However, we need to have a candidate who can be competitive in the general election. HRC is doing that to compete with the Kochs and the GOP money machine. The Kochs are promising $889 million in funding and Jeb should be able to raise another billion dollars (he is suppose to announce $100 million for his super pac at the end of May)
I take HRC at her word that she would support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and would use a litmus test of only appointing SCOTUS justices who favor overturning Citizens United. However, she has to compete against the multiple billions being raised by the Kochs and the GOP candidate and HRC can not unilaterally disarm. I hate the amount of money being spent now and I am really afraid that HRC may not be able to keep up with the Kochs and the GOP candidate
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)of course.
elleng
(130,768 posts)Gothmog
(144,945 posts)However right now we are in the primary process and I strongly believe that general election viability is a key issue. I will support the Democratic candidate no matter what but right now I am very concerned that we get the strongest and most viable candidate on the ballot in November. I am somewhat afraid that even HRC may not be able to keep with the Kochs and the GOP money machine but she is the only Democrat eligible who has a chance (given that President Obama can not run again).
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)According to some, the control of the SCOTUS is not an important consideration for the 2016 elections. Evidently the DNC and Hillary supporters are only bringing this issue up to keep Sanders from having 28 debates
Cha
(296,881 posts)must have a Democratic President!
The Clinton campaign's New Hampshire logo.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/28/402778882/the-clinton-h-is-becoming-the-empire-state-building-of-campaign-logos
She could have a different one for all 50 states!
Mahalo Goth
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I'm having a hard time believing that progressives couldn't see that risking unions, gay rights, voting rights for minorities, immigration, health care, reproductive rights is insanity. If a Repuke gets into the WH, we are fucked for nearly 50 years. It will change the entire constitution of the courts to have it stacked with conservative justices.
I care about class issues too, and it will be all out war against the 99%. I'm befuddled.
Gothmog
(144,945 posts)One of the key issues that I am considering in the upcoming primary contest is the control of the SCOTUS. The recent 5 to 4 decisions that came down last week and the week before show how important the SCOTUS is ad the control of the SCOTUS will be determined by the 2016 election. http://theweek.com/articles/564891/why-2016-supreme-court-election
All that is unlikely to banish the memory of the last couple of weeks from Republicans' minds, and you can bet that the GOP presidential candidates are going to have to promise primary voters that they'll deliver more Supreme Court justices like Alito, and fewer like Anthony Kennedy or even Roberts. If Democrats care about their own agenda, they ought to be no less motivated to vote by the prospect of changes in the court....
While it's possible that they all might decide to hold out until there's a president of their own party to replace them, infirmity or illness may make that impossible. And it's been an awfully long time since a president had the opportunity to change the court's course. The last time a Republican managed it was when George H.W. Bush appointed Clarence Thomas to replace the retiring Thurgood Marshall. And Democrats? Believe it or not, it's been over six decades since a Democratic president had the opportunity to replace a conservative justice; the last one to do it was John F. Kennedy, who appointed Byron White to a seat when Charles Evans Whittaker, who had been appointed by President Eisenhower, resigned in 1962.
If the next president gets that chance, no matter which party he or she comes from, it will profoundly affect the court's direction. If a Republican could appoint someone to replace Ginsburg or Breyer, it would mean a 6-3 conservative majority, which means that Kennedy would no longer be the swing vote and there would be a margin for error in every case. If a Democratic president were to replace Scalia or Kennedy, then the court would go from 5-4 in favor of the conservatives to 5-4 in favor of the liberals.
Those two outcomes would produce two radically different Supreme Courts, with implications that would shape American life for decades. If you think the court has been handling controversial and consequential cases lately, just you wait.
I remember when GHWBush replaced Thurgood Marshal with that idiot Clarence Thomas which started the shift of the court towards being far more conservative. If the GOP gets to pick the replacements for Breyer and RBG, then the court will tilted to the right for a very very long time. By the same measure, if a Democratic President gets to select Kennedy's or Scalia's replacment, then we will not have to worry about the gutting of the right to privacy or Roe v. Wade.
All but a couple of the abortion clinics in Texas were scheduled to be shut down on July 1 and these clinics are still open due to a 5 to 4 decision. Affirmative action, one man one vote and a host of important issues will be decided next year and I would hate to see the SCOTUS shift to being a 6 to 3 court in favor of the conservatives.