2016: It's the Supreme Court stupid

[bigdarryl]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/19/1377580/-The-2016-election-is-not-about-the-presidency-It-is-about-the-Supreme-Court

[RKP5637]

1. It definitely is!!! n/t

[msanthrope]

2. Kick. nt

[HereSince1628]

3. It's ALWAYS about the Supreme Court which means it's always about the Senate & the Presidency

Because while a president can nominate a person to serve as a justice, the nominations must be confirmed by the senate.

That's the way our system is put together.

So it's not just about fear of Scott Walker or Ted Cruz, it's also much about senators such as another Wisconsin horror like Ron Johnson.

[bigdarryl]

10. Not like this as you see most of them are approaching 80 years old mainly the Conservatives on the

Court so that's why it matters who gets elected in 2017

[HereSince1628]

16. Carter got shut out but the pattern is pretty consistent since that time

Ronald Reagan 3
George H. W. Bush 2
Bill Clinton 2
George W. Bush 2
Barack Obama 2

[Romeo.lima333]

4. glad to see people catching on

[cali]

5. whatever. that's true in the general election. it's bullshit in the primary

and we are no where near the general yet.

[Dustlawyer]

6. Imagine the difference between Bernie Sanders picks for SCOTUS vs. Hillary's.

Wall Street friendly types like our AG Eric Holder who did not prosecute anyone for all of the banking fraud of the last 6 years, as well as the financial crash would be Hillary's type. Bernie would find more Notorious RBG types!
I get tired of attempts to manipulate me into supporting another corporate Democrat. Yes I will vote for her if and when she wins the Primary, but no I won't until that day happen So!

[MissDeeds]

7. Well said

Cabinet appointments need to be considered too. I would feel much more comfortable with Bernie Sanders making those decisions than HRC.

[DCBob]

12. I suspect Senate confirmation would likely be difficult for Bernie's picks.

Given how the Rethugs block anything that even resembles liberalness.

[Unvanguard]

14. It would probably make no difference.

For at least two reasons. First, any Supreme Court nominee has to be confirmed by the Senate, and the sorts of people who are confirmable will not be that ideologically diverse (especially if the Senate is controlled by Republicans or if the Democrats control it by only a few seats). Second, in the sorts of highly ideological cases at issue here, what matters is the median vote on the Supreme Court, not whether the left-leaning justices are very left-leaning or just fairly left-leaning.

[seabeyond]

15. bring me either. that is fine. just do not tell me voting/election/supreme crt does matter. nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

8. It's about: WAR, ECONOMICS, JOBS, CLIMATE CHANGE

This single issue voting is short sighted.

If the next president continues
the trend of expanded armed conflict
and destabilization,
SCOTUS won't make any difference.

If the public is plunged further
into poverty and austerity rules the day,
SCOTUS won't make any difference.

If the nation is vastly
under-employed or unemployed,
SCOTUS won't make any difference.

If the global climate continues
to degrade, as we witness
mass extinctions,
SCOTUS won't make any difference.

As mentioned above,
without the SENATE,
NO SCOTUS.

Single issue voting is the worst kind of voting.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I stand with bigdarryl

NT

[closeupready]

11. You told me it was the economy. Make up your mind.

Signed,

Stupid

[jeff47]

13. Yes, I find "stupid" to be the most effective tool at convincing people to join your cause.

[Scurrilous]

17. K & R