what do we do about blue dogs?
in part this is inspired by a thread or got heated arguments with someone who, come election time, would still be considered a comrade in arms. However this person defends the blue dogs that sided with Neil Gorsuch. Time and time again, there is a debate about whether or not the primary people who do stab the party in the back, or to work with them because admittedly they are in a red state where the Republican Party usually has some psychopath to the right of Adolf Hitler ready to run. Because I'm angry at the blue dogs, I usually get labeled as simplistic.
The problem is while we understand that Red America is not democratic, there are some battles that we really could use the support of the blue dogs on, ones that do go ahead and change the way the country works. It's one thing for a certain senator from West Virginia to always cheer for coal mining. Despite the number of black lungs his voters cough up, West Virginia has decided they want coal. Okay, some of us do not have to like that, and if global warming kicks in, some of us will go ahead and point the folks in West Virginia and say" you know it wasn't worth it in the end" but, we can at least see that we can disagree on that for now and try to work on it in a Democratic administration. This Supreme Court justice is long term damage, let me say it again, the damage was done to our constitutional process when the Republicans deliberately try to prevent Pres. Obama from doing his constitutional duty. It was his duty, not just the right. Even if whoever the opposition party picks turned out to be a pink unicorn with a sparkly halo, the damage to the very Constitution of our country has been done. It's one thing to go ahead and debate coal mining, it is another to make the Constitution worthless. That is above and beyond any election.
Now, it certainly does not help the matter that this person that is picked is someone who has been to the right of the current court. this very week, the Supreme Court ruled against him because he felt that disabled students needed barely above the minimum.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/us/politics/gorsuch-education.html?_r=0
http://www.salon.com/2017/03/22/supreme-court-unanimously-overruled-neil-gorsuchs-strict-interpretation-of-a-law-while-he-testified-at-his-scotus-confirmation-hearing/
Now please note the people who made this ruling against him: Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, we are talking about a unanimous rejection, or even the people who were part of the Scalia Vanguard thought this man was to far to the right. Let's also not forget this is the man responsible for the Hobby lobby decision, which gave employers the right to deny birth control on religious grounds. He is a young man, and he is set to go ahead and affect the Supreme Court potentially for decades. Let's put this in on his terms: today's teenage girls will have to deal with this man well into their silver years, and they will be the ones who get hit with the consequences of an abortion ban.
Of course, trying to primary a blue dog is impossible, in part because the very blue dogs often conspire with her GOP friends so that the GOP can have a lot of slack. However, if you are going to go ahead and ask people like myself, but much more importantly, that 18-year-old young woman that is going to go ahead and spend the rest of her life dealing with everything from her body being controlled to the effects of global warming, you need to now answer a question: what mechanism do we have to make sure that on key issues we do not get stabbed in the back, that we at least get half of the mythical loaf rather than no crumbs. I gave a certain senator from West Virginia some leeway, because we can debate about coal and another administration. However, if this Supreme Court justice gets in, not only do we empower a right wing ideologue, we basically tell every Republican Congress out there that even if a Democrat gets elected in 2020, all they have to do is hold their breath and throw a temper tantrum and they will ensure that no Democratic president gets the right to pick a Supreme Court justice. That is not local politics that is the Constitution, and if we cannot defend the the Constitution, if we cannot defend the right of a Democratic president to fulfill the duties under back Constitution, which is also a nice way of saying if we tell the GOP that we can see the right to have any say in picking a Supreme Court justice, then we are worth nothing as a party.
= new reply since forum marked as read
is my guess
