2016 Postmortem

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)

21. Reagan and George Bush 1.0 selected SC justices.

Fri Nov 27, 2015, 11:44 AM

Nov 2015

Bush's son took the election years later.

The Supreme Court is often the lasting legacy of a presidency.

It's not just about winning. Losing matters, too.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

140 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

SCOTUS POTUS! [View all] MineralMan Nov 2015 OP

Yes, absolutely vital. MBS Nov 2015 #1

Analysis and facts trump knee jerk, though. Please see Reply 34. The reality is much more merrily Nov 2015 #44

I couldn't agree more DesertRat Nov 2015 #2

'm with you 100% on this. lark Nov 2015 #3

With control over all three branches, MineralMan Nov 2015 #5

Same old scare tactic sermon. Verse 2 99Forever Nov 2015 #4

Well, see, I don't pay a lot of attention MineralMan Nov 2015 #6

Sure, but sometimes you worry that the person behind you might slip on the banana peel merrily Nov 2015 #43

Actually, I'd stop and pick up that banana peel, to MineralMan Nov 2015 #65

As would I, especially if I had a tissue handy to try to avoid exposing myself to biohazards. merrily Nov 2015 #71

"I have no power to delete your OP" ????? Who are you, the Censor Wannabe? libdem4life Nov 2015 #98

You do have to follow the subthread before you can go into even seemingly honest faux outrage. merrily Nov 2015 #107

No, I don't. libdem4life Nov 2015 #131

But, you would delete it if you could? MineralMan Nov 2015 #106

Good grief! Please see Replies 107 and 72. I would have thought that you, of all people, merrily Nov 2015 #110

What does this even mean? NurseJackie Nov 2015 #7

It means don't vote Dem lark Nov 2015 #8

Ick! NurseJackie Nov 2015 #9

It means the same old tired bullshit isn't cutting it anymore. 99Forever Nov 2015 #14

Not participating is participating, NurseJackie Nov 2015 #23

Who the fuck said anything about "not participating?" 99Forever Nov 2015 #48

Enjoy your tantrum. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #52

Whatever "nursejackie." 99Forever Nov 2015 #82

There are no shortcuts to the perfection being sought. (I doubt that "perfection" actually exists.) NurseJackie Nov 2015 #91

I did say a fucking thing about "perfection?' 99Forever Nov 2015 #95

It wasn't necessary. Your meaning and intentions are clear. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #111

Well kewl, you kicked that strawman's ass! 99Forever Nov 2015 #129

Maybe not pinebox Nov 2015 #113

"If you can't answer the question, leave the room." � anonymous SusanaMontana41 Nov 2015 #57

...^ that 840high Nov 2015 #103

More Clarence Thomas or Scalia types treestar Nov 2015 #63

Unrec. PowerToThePeople Nov 2015 #10

I agree lark Nov 2015 #11

OK. Do whatever you wish. MineralMan Nov 2015 #13

+1 840high Nov 2015 #104

So true, but we need more like the Notorious RBG! Dustlawyer Nov 2015 #12

I agree. I hope for the best possible appointments. MineralMan Nov 2015 #16

You will accept? LOL! merrily Nov 2015 #42

"Bernie is much more likely to appoint another RBG than Hillary." Bleacher Creature Nov 2015 #20

Would not happen today, and certainly not with Hillary. Her Donors would NEVER Dustlawyer Nov 2015 #25

So this doesn't matter, of course... yallerdawg Nov 2015 #45

You and your silly little facts! Bleacher Creature Nov 2015 #59

You know how fond Hillary is of 'Citizens United.' yallerdawg Nov 2015 #69

Speaking of myths...Hillary's alleged hatred of Citizens doesn't seem to extend much beyond the fact merrily Nov 2015 #117

Ding! MineralMan Nov 2015 #67

Hmm. Of course, only one candidate is living his opposition to Citizens and has made the same merrily Nov 2015 #114

If money influences elections... yallerdawg Nov 2015 #125

You're trying to have it both ways: merrily Nov 2015 #126

This chart is the soft, dark money. yallerdawg Nov 2015 #127

Even straw peeps deserve this day off: I didn't say the SCOTUS decided Citizens to help Hillary. merrily Nov 2015 #130

Sometimes you just have to give up trying to explain it to them. Major Hogwash Nov 2015 #140

Citizens United is not all of the problem. Dustlawyer Nov 2015 #139

important... handmade34 Nov 2015 #15

And in 2014, as well. MineralMan Nov 2015 #17

people ask me handmade34 Nov 2015 #27

Thanks for adding your thoughts. MineralMan Nov 2015 #40

So you've already given up. Sad. Elmer S. E. Dump Nov 2015 #46

So handmade34 Nov 2015 #50

I can read. Elmer S. E. Dump Nov 2015 #56

No, our inaction was the culprit. The culprit was the problem Truman identified in 1948, GOP Lite. merrily Nov 2015 #41

Control of the SCOTUS is critical Gothmog Nov 2015 #18

It is always a key issue. MineralMan Nov 2015 #19

Reagan and George Bush 1.0 selected SC justices. yallerdawg Nov 2015 #21

There is much to lose. SCOTUS is just one of those things. MineralMan Nov 2015 #22

Reagan selected one of the most liberal Justices ever to sit on that bench. See Reply 34. merrily Nov 2015 #39

You never know, right? yallerdawg Nov 2015 #49

That's far from what Reply 34 says. However, I think I am far likelier to be merrily Nov 2015 #51

which is one of the reasons 3rdway types are resented so stupidicus Nov 2015 #24

That really doesn't make a lot of sense, MineralMan Nov 2015 #26

that's not my fault stupidicus Nov 2015 #31

"what would we do without you eh" MineralMan Nov 2015 #33

Actually, it makes much more sense than your OP. merrily Nov 2015 #38

Bullshit Corporate Threats, "vote for Hillary or the Supreme Court gets it...". whereisjustice Nov 2015 #28

I see. Well... MineralMan Nov 2015 #30

but but that makes no SENSE!!!!! stupidicus Nov 2015 #35

+1. Please see Reply 34. merrily Nov 2015 #36

Well said MissDeeds Nov 2015 #53

I have been "SCOTUS" voting SCantiGOP Nov 2015 #29

Thanks! MineralMan Nov 2015 #32

Terrorist politicking is what I call that tactic. merrily Nov 2015 #34

OK. Call it what you like. MineralMan Nov 2015 #37

" " " " MBS Nov 2015 #61

Thanks. I tend to agree with you. MineralMan Nov 2015 #64

At least you supported your post with something, so kudos for that. However, I must disagree with merrily Nov 2015 #78

I did call it what I like and saying "I disagree" without more does not impress me much. merrily Nov 2015 #73

Frankly, my goal here on DU is not to "impress" you. MineralMan Nov 2015 #75

Since you've succeeded in not impressing me by not providing facts or analysis, I guess you've merrily Nov 2015 #79

You'd prefer that Donald Trump appoint the next few Supreme Court Justices since.... George II Nov 2015 #68

It's so flattering to me when you have to twist my post that much to put a hole in it. Thanks! merrily Nov 2015 #72

Huh? Your argument makes no sense to me MaggieD Nov 2015 #70

If you agreed with me, I'd feel honor bound to triple check my facts. merrily Nov 2015 #74

I don't care if we agree - I'm just here to point out.... MaggieD Nov 2015 #81

LOL! If my reasoning were so bad, neither you nor George would have to work so hard to pretend I merrily Nov 2015 #83

Wrong again MaggieD Nov 2015 #86

Soooo very ungrateful and it's only the morning after Thanksgiving, too! nt merrily Nov 2015 #87

Don't deflect MaggieD Nov 2015 #89

Deflect from what now? Isn't your having even a small point a precondition for my deflection? merrily Nov 2015 #92

Many feel obligated to reject anything that does not comport to their idea of perfection. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #85

I agree - but rarely have I heard such a foolish reason MaggieD Nov 2015 #88

I think ginsberg will retire after a Democrat win in '16. 7962 Nov 2015 #93

If she were going to retire after a Dem win in 2016, I think she would have done so by now, giving merrily Nov 2015 #94

Thats very true. And i guess its too late in the term to do it now. 7962 Nov 2015 #99

Or, it may be that she views this as serving for life, just as the Constitution specifies. merrily Nov 2015 #112

I remember when Congress used to be like that. 7962 Nov 2015 #121

Now, they only pretend to fight in the chamber and they don't go out to dinner afterward. merrily Nov 2015 #123

Ha! 7962 Nov 2015 #124

I'm having trouble recalling a time when NOT voting proved to be SUCCESSFUL� NurseJackie Nov 2015 #47

Yup. I agree. MineralMan Nov 2015 #54

Be afraid! Be VERY AFRAID!! Elmer S. E. Dump Nov 2015 #55

When I read your subject line... katsy Nov 2015 #58

President Obama would make a fine SCOTUS justice, MineralMan Nov 2015 #60

Brilliant indeed! What a fascinating idea! NurseJackie Nov 2015 #62

Maybe then a flotus scotus? katsy Nov 2015 #76

Nothing legal preventing it. 7962 Nov 2015 #96

And nobody likes scholars. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #102

Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn't seem to be worried. nt antigop Nov 2015 #66

Kick, and good luck Hekate Nov 2015 #77

Choosing the SCOTUS is important but so is feeding the 50 million Americans currently living rhett o rick Nov 2015 #80

You are exactly right! yallerdawg Nov 2015 #84

Quixotic. NurseJackie Nov 2015 #100

Sad that you rationalize the acceptance of 50 million Americans in poverty. I guess that's what one rhett o rick Nov 2015 #133

That was a comment on the rational likelihood of success ... NurseJackie Nov 2015 #135

Where would we be today if our founders had that attitude. The fight for freedom is going to be rhett o rick Nov 2015 #136

My world view is panoramic and three dimensional... NurseJackie Nov 2015 #137

It is not a zero sum thing in any way. MineralMan Nov 2015 #109

I am disappointed that you think that mentioning your disappointment would have any rhett o rick Nov 2015 #132

the Dem faction that gave us Thomas has no business lecturing us about SCOTUS, not since 1991 MisterP Nov 2015 #90

That's a potent zinger! TryLogic Nov 2015 #97

this same faction interferes in primaries even when the challenger's ahead, endorsed a third party MisterP Nov 2015 #122

our safety net is the senate restorefreedom Nov 2015 #101

All the more reason to GOTV. MineralMan Nov 2015 #105

most definitely. many people are focused on presidency, restorefreedom Nov 2015 #108

SCOTUS is important & I'm not interested in supporting pro-Citizen United stances pinebox Nov 2015 #115

Hillary Clinton has stated that opposition to CU would be MineralMan Nov 2015 #116

She's "clear"about a lot of things pinebox Nov 2015 #118

Yes, she is. I'm done with this subthread. MineralMan Nov 2015 #119

Have fun! :) pinebox Nov 2015 #120

Here is to Chief Justice Obama. nt kristopher Nov 2015 #128

OK. I agree on that much. n/t. Ken Burch Nov 2015 #134

Hocus Pocus: by Focus... Motown_Johnny Nov 2015 #138