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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:49 AM Jun 2016

For those whom the SCOTUS is not a sufficient reason to vote for HRC in the GE

I have two questions.

1. When was the last time in our history that a justice appointed by a Republican was able to be replaced by a justice appointed by a Democrat?

2. How do you propose enacting progressive policy (such as removing money from politics), any time in the next few decades, without the replacement of a Republican-appointed justice by a Democratic-appointed justice?

83 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
For those whom the SCOTUS is not a sufficient reason to vote for HRC in the GE (Original Post) BzaDem Jun 2016 OP
A Better Reason to Vote for Bernie FreakinDJ Jun 2016 #1
No thanks I'd rather win the in the ge Ohioblue22 Jun 2016 #7
Can you show us any proof that Bernie would lose a GE? pinebox Jun 2016 #19
Bernie hasn't been dragged thru the media's mud. He went and called himself a socialist who wants Ohioblue22 Jun 2016 #23
So in other words you have nothing pinebox Jun 2016 #25
Bernie would drive record shattering youth turnout in the GE MillennialDem Jun 2016 #26
Yea sure he would. The youth doesn't vote. They love to rally, party , gather in great crowds and Ohioblue22 Jun 2016 #33
Youth vote in the general election. MillennialDem Jun 2016 #35
Uh, history says otherwise. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #52
Uh, history shows us Romney, McCain, Bush won voters over 45 convincingly icecreamfan Jun 2016 #60
About half of 18-29 year olds showed up in 2012 (nearly the same as 2008). Only about 5% more (55%) MillennialDem Jun 2016 #63
I notice you left out the percentages for older voters. Just a little over half the Exilednight Jun 2016 #69
Hmmm. So there are three million more people over 65 than there are Bernie supporters. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #77
Yes when you compare 35+ vs 35- (or 45+ vs 45-) the older demo wins, because there are more MillennialDem Jun 2016 #79
So you make over $250k? Lazy Daisy Jun 2016 #57
This reminds me..... moose65 Jun 2016 #65
Trump couldn't beat Goldwater in a GE FreakinDJ Jun 2016 #20
Ahh. . Fresh Brockian Meat! Trajan Jun 2016 #80
yes 840high Jun 2016 #28
^^this^^ amborin Jun 2016 #82
Bernie is a sure win against Trump. Hillary isn't. avaistheone1 Jun 2016 #2
Let's assume HRC is the nominee, for the sake of argument. What are your answers to the questions? BzaDem Jun 2016 #4
Clarence Thomas. reddread Jun 2016 #3
What in the world is wrong with fear? BzaDem Jun 2016 #9
they are governing with fear reddread Jun 2016 #12
I just asked two questions. It is telling that no one has answered them yet. n/t BzaDem Jun 2016 #18
If going back in time is a valid argument for not voting D party BootinUp Jun 2016 #10
By the first 2 replies, I sense that the faithful are not yet ready for logic. nt BootinUp Jun 2016 #5
Supreme Court rulings usually last far longer than the policies of most WH's. blm Jun 2016 #6
+1 BootinUp Jun 2016 #11
she won't make it to the general. Cobalt Violet Jun 2016 #8
If removing money from politics is a priority (and it is)... Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #13
.+1 840high Jun 2016 #29
Like Bill's nominees, both of which voted against Citizens United? n/t BzaDem Jun 2016 #38
this really has nothing to do with the primary. reddread Jun 2016 #14
It mentions HRC, so it can't go in GD. n/t BzaDem Jun 2016 #16
at least you admit... HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #15
Do you support your principles because you actually want progressive policy to be enacted? BzaDem Jun 2016 #17
...interesting... HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #24
If you disagree with the premise, surely you have an answer to 1 and 2? n/t BzaDem Jun 2016 #36
...games... HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #40
What is the point of legislation if it just gets struck down? BzaDem Jun 2016 #54
this is where you're 'decades' time line kicks in... HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #61
Congress can't act AT ALL if their legislation is struck down. BzaDem Jun 2016 #76
Pretty damn weak argument when our current and popular President can't get a nomination approved. Todays_Illusion Jun 2016 #21
Exactly! peace13 Jun 2016 #32
That is ridiculous. If we win the Senate, the nominee will be approved quickly. n/t BzaDem Jun 2016 #37
That's a big if. peace13 Jun 2016 #41
The Senate does not have districts drawn by politicians. BzaDem Jun 2016 #46
No, but Ohio Dems blew the dust off a Governor that did not get reelected and are propping him up. peace13 Jun 2016 #58
How does a Texas or California vote for Hillary instead of Jill Stein affect the SCOTUS? Boogieman Vote2016 Jun 2016 #22
How does any single vote, even in Florida? No one vote will ever matter. MillennialDem Jun 2016 #27
I have a third question for you nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #30
A liberal USSC is a necessary condition to any hope the US has against climate change. BzaDem Jun 2016 #39
THat is a nice fantasy nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #42
Do you know anything about the USSC? BzaDem Jun 2016 #44
Whatever dude nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #45
Someone is certainly living in a fantasy. BzaDem Jun 2016 #48
Fully related nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #49
Not if you know anything about the USSC, or about the current Democratic nominees decisions. BzaDem Jun 2016 #51
Clintonism is NEOLIBERAL all the way nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #53
Making one bad decision in hope of a good one to follow or.... peace13 Jun 2016 #31
SCOTUS is to the democrats what Roe v Wade is to the republicans. CrispyQ Jun 2016 #34
What is wrong with "scare tactics"? Seriously? BzaDem Jun 2016 #43
Nothing, as long as they work nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #55
I see an error in my post, so let me restate it. CrispyQ Jun 2016 #62
Would you have said the same thing about Bill Clinton's appointees when they were appointed? BzaDem Jun 2016 #72
2020 is probably more important in the long term for SCOTUS appointments icecreamfan Jun 2016 #47
How could you possibly argue that? The next president fills the Scalia vacancy, at the very least. BzaDem Jun 2016 #50
Because there are 9 spots, and I think liberal-ally spots are likely to come up post-2020. nt. icecreamfan Jun 2016 #56
I have a third question nichomachus Jun 2016 #59
That is the real fear. BillZBubb Jun 2016 #66
I can't even begin to imagine that Hillary's appointments will be any different than StevieM Jun 2016 #68
Bill Clinton (at whom there is no shortage of vitrol from the left) appointed two justices who have BzaDem Jun 2016 #74
Sonia Sotomayor replaced David Souter who was appointed by G.H.W Bush Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #64
As I mentioned in my response to lumberjack_jeff, while that is technically correct, Souter was BzaDem Jun 2016 #78
I think the question you are trying to ask is "when was the last time a conservative justice was StevieM Jun 2016 #67
This is a great thread, and none of them can even come close to answering those questions. YouDig Jun 2016 #70
LOL. Post 71. JimDandy Jun 2016 #73
2009, actually. Sonia Sotomayor replaced GHW Bush appointee David Souter. lumberjack_jeff Jun 2016 #71
Fair enough, and thanks for answering. Though if you count Souter, you also have to count Kagan BzaDem Jun 2016 #75
People really need to stop wasting time on the purity crowd. They are not worth it. LonePirate Jun 2016 #81
If Garfield is what we get (another corporatist) then my answer is: Betty Karlson Jun 2016 #83
 

FreakinDJ

(17,644 posts)
1. A Better Reason to Vote for Bernie
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:51 AM
Jun 2016

HRC wants to keep Obama's Conservative Republican nominee, which was nothing more then an "Olive Branch" to the Republican controlled Senate.

Bernie is right, all appointments to the SCOTUS need to pass the litmus test of "Overturning Citizens United"

 

Ohioblue22

(1,430 posts)
23. Bernie hasn't been dragged thru the media's mud. He went and called himself a socialist who wants
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:27 PM
Jun 2016

To raise our tax rate to 60% so we can be just like Denmark . Now he didn't actually say those words but he said something similar and the Media will beat us over the head with stuff like that

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
25. So in other words you have nothing
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:59 PM
Jun 2016

The tax rate? You really want to go there? We can. Denmark is the happiest country in the world and also is constantly one of the best places in the world to live. We are not not nor have we ever been. People there don't struggle like we do and despite higher taxes, they also get 30-45 PAID vacation days a year. While you scream tax rate, it's technically cheaper because there is really no health care costs for consumers. Do you realize that people who work at McDonald's in Denmark are paid a living wage and also have a union?

Sorry but once the facts come out, people have a tendency to see the light.

 

Ohioblue22

(1,430 posts)
33. Yea sure he would. The youth doesn't vote. They love to rally, party , gather in great crowds and
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 01:18 PM
Jun 2016

Make lots of noise but when November voting time hits and they have to go out where it's not a rally party it's just them all by themselves standing in a line in the cold waiting to vote , they dont. Or let's say then haven't.

icecreamfan

(115 posts)
60. Uh, history shows us Romney, McCain, Bush won voters over 45 convincingly
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:46 PM
Jun 2016

The only reason Obama won was because voters under 45 aren't like the racist, sexist, wealthier majority of boomers and the voters under 45 voted for President Obama overwhelmingly. Look up the exit polls.

 

MillennialDem

(2,367 posts)
63. About half of 18-29 year olds showed up in 2012 (nearly the same as 2008). Only about 5% more (55%)
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:47 PM
Jun 2016

of all people showed up.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
69. I notice you left out the percentages for older voters. Just a little over half the
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:14 PM
Jun 2016

Entire eligible population votes.

If under 30s made up about half the electoric, then the other half has a larger margin by which they didn't show up. The only age demo Hillary consistently wins is the 65 and over.

 

MillennialDem

(2,367 posts)
79. Yes when you compare 35+ vs 35- (or 45+ vs 45-) the older demo wins, because there are more
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 04:01 PM
Jun 2016

of them.

But if you break it down by generation instead, millennials will make up the plurality of votes by generation in either 2016 or 2020 (ie they will overtake boomers soon).

Unless you can appeal to both Gen X and boomers or both boomers and silents in one go, politicians are going to have to start catering to millennials very, very soon.

 

Lazy Daisy

(928 posts)
57. So you make over $250k?
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:41 PM
Jun 2016

Because a tax rate of 60% would need an income of over $250k yr. For those of us who would be in the 39% area (which would include healthcare) it would be welcome.

If you make that kind of money, you and I live in vastly different worlds. You are unable to comprehend what is happening and why people are railing against the status quo.

And Bernie has been getting dragged, from the get go. When they did cover him it was to be dismissive, or ridicule him and call him crazy in a polite way. You think Trump got that "Crazy Bernie" all on his own?

moose65

(3,164 posts)
65. This reminds me.....
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:52 PM
Jun 2016

of something Michael Moore said on Bill Maher's show a week or two ago. Sure, people in those Scandinavian countries pay taxes at a slightly higher rate than we do. But think of all the other things that we pay: health insurance premiums and extremely high deductibles and copayments that the Danish people don't have to worry about. We also pay sky-high prices for drugs and many of us are saddled with college loans that the Danes don't have to worry about. When all is said and done, we end up paying a LOT more than they do.

 

reddread

(6,896 posts)
3. Clarence Thomas.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:53 AM
Jun 2016

maybe Poppy nominated him (since the guy they really wanted ended up on corruption charges)
but Biden made him a SCOTUS justice.
and Hillary hired Anita Hill's hitman.

that whole gag is so hollow.
vote for your interests, not some internet fearmongering.
why do you want to scare Democrats?

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
9. What in the world is wrong with fear?
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:56 AM
Jun 2016

If a child doesn't play with matches due to fear of getting burned, is that a bad thing? All of this "don't scare people" is really saying "don't bring up true points that are inconvenient to my position."

 

reddread

(6,896 posts)
12. they are governing with fear
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:57 AM
Jun 2016

and matches have nothing to do with it.
sorry if that question doesnt resonate.
true points?
if you insist.

BootinUp

(46,928 posts)
10. If going back in time is a valid argument for not voting D party
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:57 AM
Jun 2016

then I blame all the non-existent lefties who let Biden win for the Senate in the first place. No, I blame them for the whole D party Senate.

blm

(112,920 posts)
6. Supreme Court rulings usually last far longer than the policies of most WH's.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:54 AM
Jun 2016

And I have ZERO trust in anyone who claims that SCOTUS is NOT a compelling reason for them to vote for a Dem president. Fvck them and their deliberate ignorance.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
13. If removing money from politics is a priority (and it is)...
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:58 AM
Jun 2016

...then there's no reason to expect Hillary's choices to be any better in that area than Trump's. The SCOTUS argument for Hillary should begin and end with social issues, not economic ones.

 

reddread

(6,896 posts)
14. this really has nothing to do with the primary.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:58 AM
Jun 2016

maybe you should self delete and find the right forum?

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
15. at least you admit...
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:00 PM
Jun 2016

HRC isn't a liberal/progressive with these 'questions' you pose

It's odd the flurry of posts with these 'which is worse' republican light or republican crazy....

That's the choice being offered... so just toss your DEM principles aside...

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
17. Do you support your principles because you actually want progressive policy to be enacted?
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:06 PM
Jun 2016

Or because you will be able to say you are principled?

If the former, surely you have an answer to questions 1 and 2?

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
24. ...interesting...
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:29 PM
Jun 2016

you're assuming that my principled stance disallows the option to 'want progressive policy to be enacted'

this is the meme pushed by HRC that she's the only DEM candidate that can 'get things done'... I disagree with that and your premise

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
40. ...games...
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:14 PM
Jun 2016

(1) what bearing does that have on question #2?

(2) 'decades'? why not get the other branch DEM controlled with liberal/progressives that will legislate the change now?

You're focused on one branch, again you admit HRC isn't a liberal/progressive with these 'questions' you pose and badgering about getting a response to these same 'questions'

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
54. What is the point of legislation if it just gets struck down?
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:31 PM
Jun 2016

Like all the campaign finance regulation, that (newsflash) was LEGISLATED, and then completely struck down by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision of Citizens United?

 

HumanityExperiment

(1,442 posts)
61. this is where you're 'decades' time line kicks in...
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:46 PM
Jun 2016

Congress can act much quicker than SCOTUS, it take political will to get politicians to do the bidding of an engaged public

I'm not waiting on HRC to do the 'right thing' she's too immersed within wall street and special interests, she'd act too slowly, I'll take this 'fight' to the congress and roll the dice there

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
76. Congress can't act AT ALL if their legislation is struck down.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:58 PM
Jun 2016

You seem to be operating under a misunderstanding. I am not talking about having the SCOTUS actively pass policies, and comparing that to Congress. Courts don't actively pass policies. They rule on cases, some of which strike down legislation.

Congress could pass a bill banning corporate expenditures in elections tomorrow. Someone would go to court immediately, and get a stay, because that would clearly violate citizens united. Who cares about how quick a problem can be "solved" by Congress if their law is struck down?

 

peace13

(11,076 posts)
32. Exactly!
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 01:11 PM
Jun 2016

If President Obama does not succeed in replacing Scalia, that is it. We will never have a Dem selection again. Never.

 

peace13

(11,076 posts)
41. That's a big if.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:15 PM
Jun 2016

In Ohio we got the same sad choice that does not look hopeful. We have districts that are so convoluted that a dem would be lucky to win. Chances are slim and hard to see.

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
46. The Senate does not have districts drawn by politicians.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:24 PM
Jun 2016

Senators are elected statewide. Republicans are defending several seats they could only win in the 2010 midterm wave. There is a reasonably good chance we will take the Senate.

And frankly, if you actually want progressive policy enacted, it is a bit ridiculous to argue that the President doesn't matter if there is any chance of taking the Senate (since winning both is a prerequisite to a liberal USSC, and therefore any hope of progressive policy in the future).

 

peace13

(11,076 posts)
58. No, but Ohio Dems blew the dust off a Governor that did not get reelected and are propping him up.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:41 PM
Jun 2016

He was already defeated once! We could actually have picked someone with a chance to succeed and help gain majority. As far as the SCOTUS goes. If the rules are followed the President can appoint a temporary judge at a minimum. In my opinion this should be done. The entire situation makes the President and the Dems look weak and totally inept.

My original point was that if we do not follow what the law directs the ability of the next president to implement the law as written becomes even more difficult. Sorry if I was not clear.

 

Vote2016

(1,198 posts)
22. How does a Texas or California vote for Hillary instead of Jill Stein affect the SCOTUS? Boogieman
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:24 PM
Jun 2016

isn't scarey.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
30. I have a third question for you
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 01:06 PM
Jun 2016

Because I have been told by many millennial voters...how much do you think the USSC will matter once climate change enters, and it will current trends, the point of no return? Some in tje science community believe we already did by the way

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
39. A liberal USSC is a necessary condition to any hope the US has against climate change.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:13 PM
Jun 2016

One week before Scalia died, he was the 5th vote to stay all of the Obama administration's climate policies that are required by the Paris agreement. The stay will only expire after the Supreme Court decides the underlying issue next year. If Scalia is replaced by a like minded justice, it is game over for the climate.

That by no means is saying that the USSC is a SUFFICIENT condition to addressing the issue. But it is an absolutely necessary condition.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
42. THat is a nice fantasy
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:16 PM
Jun 2016

given who is going to be elected. You think a neoliberal will appoint true liberal judges in the mold of the Warren court?

For the record, I do not expect Trump do to that either.

But I expect NEITHER to appoint people who will help in that account. As I said, the kids see this. They are quite bright. They do not think highly of either of them. And do not trump me. It ain't gonna work.

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
44. Do you know anything about the USSC?
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:22 PM
Jun 2016

Because you are plainly wrong here. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Bill Clinton's appointees are not in the mold of the Warren court. Did any of them vote to suspend Obama's entire climate policy? For that matter, has any Democratic appointee ever?

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
48. Someone is certainly living in a fantasy.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:27 PM
Jun 2016

It isn't me. I'm not the one arguing about "neoliberal policies" and other completely unrelated topics in a conversation about whose appointees are more likely to strike down progressive legislation as unconstitutional.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
53. Clintonism is NEOLIBERAL all the way
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:30 PM
Jun 2016

sorry charlie

I know you probably do not know what that term means, but the revolt against that philosophy is ongoing, Americans will be the last ones to know though

 

peace13

(11,076 posts)
31. Making one bad decision in hope of a good one to follow or....
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 01:08 PM
Jun 2016

....make the decision that leads to many good ones to follow. With Clinton there is the if and the hope. With Sanders the country is back on path. The better question is why would you vote for someone who will not get you where you want to be?

CrispyQ

(36,231 posts)
34. SCOTUS is to the democrats what Roe v Wade is to the republicans.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 01:24 PM
Jun 2016

A scare tactic to get you to vote for them.

I'm not confident that someone who came up with the Hillary Victory Fund & how to buy off superdelegates is going to overturn CU.

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
43. What is wrong with "scare tactics"? Seriously?
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:18 PM
Jun 2016

If you actually care about Roe v. Wade (or Citizens United, or Bush v. Gore redux, or the EPA's clean power plan, or anything else where all Democratic appointees vote the same way and are outnumbered), then isn't it a GOOD thing to point out how not voting for HRC is throwing that all away? Why would you want to suppress that information?

More generally, if there is something to be feared, what could possibly the a problem with pointing that out? Obviously if you don't care about any of these things, you might not want the subject brought up. But if you actually do care about it, what is wrong with bringing it up?

CrispyQ

(36,231 posts)
62. I see an error in my post, so let me restate it.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:46 PM
Jun 2016
I'm not confident that someone who came up with the Hillary Victory Fund & how to buy off superdelegates is going to appoint the type of justice who will vote to overturn CU.



In other words, what Nadin said.

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
72. Would you have said the same thing about Bill Clinton's appointees when they were appointed?
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:40 PM
Jun 2016

Because they already voted to overturn CU.

icecreamfan

(115 posts)
47. 2020 is probably more important in the long term for SCOTUS appointments
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:26 PM
Jun 2016

Also, I'm not impressed with republican-lite Garland types Hillary is ok with appointing.

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
50. How could you possibly argue that? The next president fills the Scalia vacancy, at the very least.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:28 PM
Jun 2016

The SCOTUS issue hasn't been this clear cut in decades.

nichomachus

(12,754 posts)
59. I have a third question
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:46 PM
Jun 2016

What in Hillary's past experience or current group of friends and advisers leads any sane person to believe she will appoint a progressive to the court?

Hillary takes advice from and praises war criminals, corporate fraudsters, neoliberal warmongers, and an assortment of shady characters. When she encounters a true progressive, she finds some way to put them down.

Frankly, I can't see the Crown Princess of Wall Street appointing anyone but corporatists to the court.

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
66. That is the real fear.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:55 PM
Jun 2016

Given her past, the chances of her appointing progressives to the court is low. Given her unpopularity, even if she wins the GE, the repubs will control the Senate. She'll be boxed into selecting other conservaDems to the court. I could even see her offering up a "moderate" republican as an olive branch to the right.

StevieM

(10,499 posts)
68. I can't even begin to imagine that Hillary's appointments will be any different than
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:07 PM
Jun 2016

Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayer, Elena Kagan, or Merrick Garland.

There is no reason to believe that she will have a different approach than Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.

Besides, where would she even get these judges from? Most of her nominees will come from Democrats on the lower court, all of whom have been placed there by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
74. Bill Clinton (at whom there is no shortage of vitrol from the left) appointed two justices who have
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:44 PM
Jun 2016

already voted to overturn Citizens United.

To be clear, I don't agree with anything you said about Hillary. But even if I did, there is a huge practical difference between a judge and a politician. In terms of economic issues, Democratic appointees defer widely to government regulators. There is no history in the modern (last half century) democratic party of a Democrat appointing a justice who is anti-campaign-finance, anti-abortion, or anti-regulation.

There is no indication that Hillary would appoint people to the right of the justices that Bill appointed (which have been very liberal).

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
64. Sonia Sotomayor replaced David Souter who was appointed by G.H.W Bush
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:48 PM
Jun 2016

So it isn't at all unusual for that to happen. What is unusual is for the Republican-controlled Senate to refuse to even consider holding hearings on an appointee.

We need better judges on the Supreme Court to protect our rights and interpret the Constitution.

What we need to enact progressive policy is a House of Representatives controlled by Democrats.

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
78. As I mentioned in my response to lumberjack_jeff, while that is technically correct, Souter was
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 04:01 PM
Jun 2016

not only a liberal justice, but one who specifically waited to retire until a Democrat was elected President.

That is not very analogous to a conservative appointee leaving office under a Democrat, unless you believe that a conservative president will appoint liberal justices in the future.

StevieM

(10,499 posts)
67. I think the question you are trying to ask is "when was the last time a conservative justice was
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:04 PM
Jun 2016

replaced by a liberal justice?"

I guess 1993 is the best answer, when Byron White, a JFK appointee, was replaced by Ruth Bader Ginsnsberg. White wasn't strictly conservative, but he was a supporter of Roe vs. Wade.

YouDig

(2,280 posts)
70. This is a great thread, and none of them can even come close to answering those questions.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:16 PM
Jun 2016

They can't even go near it. They just stick their heads in the sand.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
71. 2009, actually. Sonia Sotomayor replaced GHW Bush appointee David Souter.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:28 PM
Jun 2016

Ford appointed John Paul Stevens. Eisenhower appointed William Brennan. Harry Blackmun was appointed by Nixon.

Republican nominees aren't always bad, just usually. Certainly all three are more progressive than Obama's most recent appointee.

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
75. Fair enough, and thanks for answering. Though if you count Souter, you also have to count Kagan
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:54 PM
Jun 2016

replacing Stevens.

However, considering the entire Republican institutional appointment apparatus is set up to avoid another David Souter, I'm not sure we can stake all hopes of progressive policy on throwing the election to Trump in the hopes he will appoint another Souter (or Stevens, or Blackmun, or Brennan). They were all not only liberal justices, but they were sufficiently liberal that they timed their retirements under a Democratic president. Perhaps I should have used conservative and liberal (though I was trying to keep the question free of ambiguous terms).

The answer I was looking for was justice Byron White, who was appointed in 1962 by JFK (replacing Charles Whittaker, an Eisenhower appointee). You could also argue that because Byron White was more conservative on some issues, that Ginsburg's replacement of White should count. Though that again isn't super analogous, because White is well known to have deliberately waited until a Democrat to replace him (as he considered himself a Democrat, and did not fit neatly in the left-right divide).

So ultimately, even if you count Ginsburg replacing White, that happened 22 years ago. (White replacing Whittaker happened 54 years ago.) In other words, if you want to change the balance of the court by replacing a partisan Republican determined to wait until a Republican is in office to retire, you are talking about waiting decades. My overall point was that the idea that it furthers progressive policy in any way to pass up a once-in-several-decades opportunity is ludicrous.

But congratulations on being the first (out of many responses) to actually answer one of the questions.

LonePirate

(13,386 posts)
81. People really need to stop wasting time on the purity crowd. They are not worth it.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 04:19 PM
Jun 2016

If their insistence on purity is so strong that they are willing to overlook or ignore every other aspect of the race, then they are beyond hope. It's a waste of time and effort. Cut them loose and look elsewhere for support.

 

Betty Karlson

(7,231 posts)
83. If Garfield is what we get (another corporatist) then my answer is:
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 04:28 PM
Jun 2016

1) in FDR and Truman times, because we didn't lose midterm elections back then. Which had something to do with the absence of Third Way and the absence of "Who else are ya gonna vote for you complacent millennial lusting for racist and sexist Berniebros?" and other DWS hits.

2) first and foremost: we can enact progressive policies by not nominating someone who has 70% of the voters to her left, has more friends on Wall Street than her hedge fund son-in-law, and is loathed by 57% of the voters, thus spelling downticket disaster in the GE. That way we'd have the senate votes to confirm an actual Democrat / progressive to the Supreme Court.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»For those whom the SCOTUS...