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
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Those who refused to vote for Hillary in 2016, and VP Harris in 2024, are complicit in the Supreme Court we have today. [View all]SleeplessinSoCal
(10,412 posts)37. An actual conspiracy that the people ignore.
So much easier to engage in class warfare.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
61 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Those who refused to vote for Hillary in 2016, and VP Harris in 2024, are complicit in the Supreme Court we have today. [View all]
lostincalifornia
Aug 2025
OP
Those who encouraged others to vote third party, or to vote "uncommitted" and not vote in the general...
Oopsie Daisy
Aug 2025
#2
That ideology's First Commandment is Both Sides Corrupt, so it doesn't matter who's president.
betsuni
Aug 2025
#48
And that by not voting for Kamala Harris the court will get even worse.
Eliot Rosewater
Aug 2025
#30
Absolutely, and we would have a different DOJ also. What seems to be missing is that many of the same folks that
lostincalifornia
Dec 2025
#59
That is exactly right, and if I was a betting man, they will before the sociopath leaves office.
lostincalifornia
Dec 2025
#60
Yes and since I am looking back at a pattern, let me point out Bush v Gore, bollixed up by Nader & decided by SCOTUS
Hekate
Aug 2025
#40
Simple, it will include any SC court judges in the next two years, and
lostincalifornia
Aug 2025
#10
I think you are right. They sure don't want a possible Democrat in the WH when they retire.
lostincalifornia
Aug 2025
#38
Thanks. If you're new you're lucky you weren't here for the great purge of 2015
LT Barclay
Aug 2025
#18
Welcome to DU. I, for one, am pleased to have you here. It was a bete noire with me, some decades ago.
NNadir
Dec 2025
#61
This has been the goal of the Federalist Society for the last 25 years since Leo took over.
paulrevere2018
Aug 2025
#22
Once I might understand (although really dumb) but twice - just plain ignorance.
walkingman
Aug 2025
#27
True. They can't say they "didn't vote" just because they didn't cast a ballot in those races.
Beartracks
Aug 2025
#50
The makeup of the Supreme Court was/should have been reason enough to vote for Hillary Clinton.
3catwoman3
Aug 2025
#51