Only Eight Years of President Hillary Can Take the Supreme Court Away From Conservatives
Michael TomaskyThere will be more Hobby Lobbies and Citizens United if Democrats don’t get a lock on the White House and pack the bench for a generation.
We learned a lot about this Supreme Court on Monday. For one thing, its conservative majority thinks that a for-profit company selling plastic flowers is legally the same thing as a religious nonprofit doing charity work in accordance with its scriptural beliefs. But I really mean we’ve learned about the Court’s modus operandi, and it portends terrible things for the future unless that conservative majority is reduced to a minority. I say to despairing liberals today: It can be so reduced, and all of this judicial activism—all of this legislating from the bench—can be overturned.
It’s clear now across a number of legal areas that the Court’s conservatives pick their spots very carefully. They’re playing the long game. They’re like a lion toying with a captured springbok. You’ve seen it on the Discovery channel: The lion captures the prey and toys with it for a while—minutes on TV, but in real life sometimes hours—before actually consummating the kill.
So it has been with the conservative majority. Across numerous areas, from abortion rights to affirmative action to voting rights to campaign finance to school desegregation, the Court’s majority, whether led by William Rehnquist or John Roberts, has generally taken things kind of slow. A decision here will chip away at that particular right, a decision there will roll the clock back a few years but only a few. The result has been a bit of a paradox: a majority that is decidedly radical in its aims but a bit gradualist in its methods.
Voting rights provides perhaps the best example. In a 2009 case, the Roberts Court upheld the Voting Rights Act by 8-1 (Who are you thinking the “1” was? Prize if you guessed Clarence Thomas.) Roberts, writing for the majority, noted then the Court was ducking for the time being the big questions of constitutionality: “Whether conditions [faced by black voters in covered jurisdictions] continue to justify such legislation is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today.” Four years later, of course, the majority sunk its great canine teeth right into the Act’s neck, in Shelby County v. Holder.
more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/30/only-eight-years-of-president-hillary-can-take-the-supreme-court-away-from-conservatives.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
I live in Georgia, and I have to tell you that the state is not quite trending blue yet. I am hopeful that Michelle Nunn's candidacy will at least force the Republicans to spend resources here which could weaken them in other Senate races such as in North Carolina, Arkansas, Alaska, and Colorado.
It is imperative that our party base understand that national elections are held every TWO years, and that staying home during midterms is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Because of the weak turnout in 2010 (a redistricting year!), the congressional seats are so ridiculously gerrymandered that the Republicans will most likely control the House until the 2022 elections.
Nov. 2, 2010 is a date which will live in infamy. Saddest part is, we did it to ourselves. 
Of COURSE I'd love to see that! But we're going to have to win at least the next two (and possibly three) presidential elections to see that happen. If Republicans take over, the conservatives will control the court for the next 30-40 years. 
I'm sick of the purists who write post after post stating that they will not vote for Hillary if she's the nominee. They can go screw themselves.
Since I was old enough to vote I have voted for men who I a) thought had a turnip's chance in hell to win the presidency, but were better than the Republican option or b) men who didn't inspire me at all, but again, were better than the other option. The only one I voted for who I actually liked, was Bill Clinton.
So all these whiners can just suck it in and think of the larger picture. Come 2016 I will vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter whether it's a human, animal or plant form.
I know for many Hillary is not the first choice or even the best choice for president. But she is a far cry better than any republican candidate based on the Supreme Court status alone.
with my assery running it's course! 
Sometimes I'm just 'coy in my snark' - can't help it!
And get caught - I always laugh! 
My laughter got me out of more trouble with my dad than I care to mention! 
FFS. 
West Virginia is a very backwards state where religion is kind and coal is queen. 
At least he has opposed the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and proposed some sensible gun regulations, so he's not an entire "DINO" like many of the old southern Dixiecrats were. Joe Manchin is the best you can hope for from West Virginia at this time.
My time for purity tests is during the primaries where I will fight for the best candidate to run as a democrat for president. But in the end the general eleciton I know this - A Democrat on their absolutely worst day ever is still a far cry better than any republican.
