SCOTUS and the future POTUS

[MineralMan]

President Obama will appoint someone as a justice. That much is clear. Many will feel that the person he appoints is not progressive enough. That much is predictable. The Senate will block the appointment for as long as they can get away with it. That much is sure.

Bottom line is that we may well have a 4-4 SCOTUS for some time, perhaps even through 2016. There's a fair chance that the Senate will successfully block our President from successfully appointing anyone. If we're all smart, we'll use that obstructionism to make sure that their blocking this appointment leads to a Democrat being elected in November. If we're smart.

All things considered, I'd prefer that the new justice was appointed by a newly-elected Democratic President after an election which puts a Democratic majority in the Senate. That is a real possibility. Problem is that there's also a possibility that our inability to work effectively together as a party, could result in a Republican win in the White House race and with our being stuck with a slim majority for Republicans in the Senate. That's also a real possibility.

That second possibility is the one that scares the crap out of me. It's an undeniable risk. It's the worst possible scenario, as I have been writing for some time now. A federal government with all three branches controlled by Republicans is a fearsome thing. A newly-elected Republican President, whatever his name, along with even a slim majority in the Senate, would quickly appoint another Scalia to the SCOTUS. The consequences of that could change the course of US history in ways that damn us all.

Once again, as I have done many times, I'm going to plead for Democrats to cease fighting internally. If we divide in 2016 over a presidential candidate so deeply that we fail to elect the eventual nominee, we will set the stage for the second scenario I described above. The risk is real. It is a frightening prospect. Either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would appoint an outstanding replacement for Antonin Scalia. With a majority in the Senate, that appointment would be confirmed.

On the other hand, my fear of a Republican sweep in November leads me to hope that President Obama will be able to find someone to appoint who can be confirmed. That way, even if we stupidly refuse to work together to elect a Democratic President, we will, at least, not have some reactionary asshat sitting in Scalia's chair in 2017. At this point, I fear that we will collectively screw our selves into losing the election in November. It is looking more and more that way to me, and I see no sign of the cooperation that will be needed to win.

So, let's hope that President Obama can, as his second term comes to an end, appoint someone who can be confirmed. It may be our last hope for not plunging into a world that is a disaster for years to come. Or, maybe we can see what is happening and work together to elect whichever Democrat is nominated. I'll certainly be doing that. I desperately hope enough people will join in that effort to succeed. I'm less than optimistic, though.

Choose wisely, Mr. President. Find someone who can be confirmed. Then, if we manage to pull off a win in November, there will be additional appointments to make in our new Democratic President's first term, I'm sure. Think long and hard, Mr. President. Use your best judgment and make that your primary focus during the rest of your term. Please.

[underpants]

1. #JudgeReinholdforSCOTUS

[PonyUp]

16. Yeah!

[elleng]

2. Thank you.

pleading for 'Democrats to cease fighting internally. If we divide in 2016 over a presidential candidate so deeply that we fail to elect the eventual nominee, we will set the stage for the second scenario I described above. The risk is real. It is a frightening prospect. Either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would appoint an outstanding replacement for Antonin Scalia. With a majority in the Senate, that appointment would be confirmed.'

[MineralMan]

4. No. Thank you.

I don't think we're fully aware of the risk we face. We should be.

[malthaussen]

3. How do you separate "fighting" from fruitful discussion?

A lot of people are claiming they will refuse to vote in the election if "their" candidate doesn't make the grade, but are they just being hyperbolic? One may grumble all he pleases before push comes to shove, as long as he pulls the correct lever in November (assuming the voting machines aren't too badly rigged). Calling for people to "stop fighting" can easily be conflated with "sit down and shut up," especially by people who think it is a proper tactic to take everything personally.

Rather than appealing to people to stop fighting, which can easily be misconstrued, I'd be more inclined to wish (on a star, alas), that they would stop taking every question as a personal attack on "their" candidate, and somehow by extension on themselves. Passion is all very well, but this is politics, and ultimately that means a matter of opinion. To be mortally offended by another's opinion is, IMO, a indication that one has lost all sense of proportion.

-- Mal

[MineralMan]

5. Here's the thing. I have to take people at their word.

I don't know any DUers personally. If someone says they will "sit it out" or "write it in," I take them literally.

In this country, presidential elections turn very easily one way or another. The vehemence people are using to express themselves in the Democratic primary race is far from encouraging. In fact, it's a bit frightening.

We could very, very easily lose in November. So easily that I'm surprised people don't seem to be recognizing that.

[Fumesucker]

6. Skinner fell for the recent Swiftboat attack on Sanders

Now you would think that Skinner of all people would know enough to be wary of the M$M, not buy everything they say at face value and yet there he was buying the lies and it took a lot of arguing by better informed DUers before he reluctantly conceded he was wrong.

Meanwhile there were dozens of OPs on DU spreading the lie, that's a good part of where the hostility is coming from.

[MineralMan]

7. The hostility predates that by a great deal of time.

You never saw me getting involved in that photo thing. It's a meaningless argument. I won't participate.

I'm watching the primaries. I support one of the candidates. I'll be fine, though, if the other candidate gets the nomination. I'm not attacking anyone who is running. I'm watching.

The bottom line is that one of the two will be the nominee. I'm looking beyond the convention at this point. I'm working on local, state, and legislative offices and their candidates. I only get one vote for the presidential primaries and have virtually no influence on the outcome, so I'm watching primary races as they develop.

I will be supporting the Democratic nominee, as I always do, as part of my effort to elect Democrats to as many offices as possible. I don't overestimate my capabilities in that effort. I'm a very, very small player in politics. I probably account for a couple of dozen people going to the polls who wouldn't have without my encouragement. That's it.

I'm on DU because I am intensely interested in Democratic Party politics. If you think I'm talking only to Sanders supporters in my request for a scaling down of the venomous attacks, you're wrong. I'm talking to everyone, because I know that solidarity will be required to keep the Republicans from gaining control.

Hostility in primary races where there are only two candidates is toxic, possibly fatally so. I'm encouraging the scaling down of that. Perhaps you disagree with my opinion. OK.

[Fumesucker]

9. Just the most recent example of a long series of incidents

It seemed to rather blatantly show just how easy it is for the M$M to insert "facts" into the historical record that are 180 degrees opposed to the actual reality. If it wasn't for major pushback from the grass roots that lie would have become the "de facto" record.

We see a lot of it here and as someone who has lived through most of the stuff that gets discussed on DU I don't like seeing facts distorted and outright denied.

No one dot in a pointillist painting makes the entire image but the image is there nonetheless.

[Gothmog]

8. The Democrats could use this issue to win back control of the Senate

[MineralMan]

10. Yes, we could, but we must work together.

Right now, we're not doing that. Unless we can do that, it will all be wasted. That is my primary point.

Confirmation bias is leading us to believe that we are invincible for some reason. We are not. We can lose. We have lost many times. I think there's a strong chance that we will lose again in 2016. If we do, it will be because we cannot work together. I think that is painfully clear, and I'm not seeing any resolve to do that.

My focus has now turned away from the Democratic presidential primary race. That will reach its own decision in due time. I can't influence it. There's another thing coming up. It's a much larger event. It's even more important.

I can no longer participate in infighting within the Party. It is unproductive and works toward a Republican victory in November. I won't be part of that. I can't. That goes against every part of me.

Either Hillary or Bernie will be the nominee. I'm fine with either. I can support either. Both would be good Presidents. I'm out of the fighting over that. I'll leave that to everyone else. I'm good with the outcome, either way.

[Fumesucker]

11. Were you helping push back against the recent false story on Sanders?

Sticking together is a two way street, if you want me to have your back you must also be willing to have my back.

Time has already retracted the story and people are still arguing about it and the writer here in GD-P.

Plausible deniability is such an interesting concept, John Lewis' vague and unpolished statement, the "discovery" that the picture was "fake". Now we find that the writer of the story originating the lie is in a long term relationship with a Clinton staffer, what an "amazing" series of "coincidences".

[MineralMan]

12. I'm not playing, Fumesucker. I'm out of the

petty disputes that don't matter in this primary season. As I said, I'm out. You decide, along with everyone in the rest of of the states. I'll support the choice the voters make. If you want to fight, go right ahead. I'll wait. I'll be watching the primaries.

You go right ahead and focus on old photos and old memories. I don't have time for that now. I'm out of this nonsense.

I'll be right here, working on GOTV planning. You do whatever you want. We'll have a nominee. What I hope is that whoever it is can win in November. That's my goal.

But, you just carry right on with the infighting. You'll have to do it without me.

Sanders? Clinton? Whatever. I'll be on the nominee's side after the convention.

[Fumesucker]

13. Swiftboating a candidate is not a "petty dispute"

Try again.

[MineralMan]

14. You try, Fumesucker.

Try as hard as you can. I'll be here, waiting to find out who the nominee is. I'll be following the primary elections and working with some folks on GOTV planning for November.

Good luck with your goals. I'll be there to support your candidate if he gets the nomination. That's a promise.
Good luck to Clinton supporters, too. I'll vote for her at my caucus. If she wins the nomination, I'll be on her side then, too.

[Jim Lane]

15. Quite true. Republican Senators up for re-election in blue states must be aghast.

Republican Senators running in states Obama carried twice already knew they were targets.

The Republicans would love to be able to oppose a nominee on some basis that didn't make them look partisan, like Douglas Ginsburg's past marijuana use. Unfortunately for them, Obama will surely nominate someone who's been carefully vetted for skeletons in the closet.

Grassley is probably safe, even if he continues his obstructionism, but Ayotte (NH), Kirk (IL), Portman (OH), and Toomey (PA) might feel some pressure to vote with the Democrats on this. Even McCain (AZ), who's facing a credible challenge from Ann Kirkpatrick, could suffer some blowback if she can hit him over blocking the appointment.

If Republicans hold firm on the SCOTUS seat, the result might be to help the Democrats retake the Senate.

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. Better be anti-death penalty.

Bernie would appoint someone anti-death penalty.

[whatchamacallit]

18. As the primary is a contest

we will continue to fight for our respective candidates, and therefore fight each other until it's decided. Sorry, it comes with the territory.