The Debate Question That Should Scare Us All to the Polls

[babylonsister]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-debate-question-that-should-scare-us-all-to-the-polls-w445738

The Debate Question That Should Scare Us All to the Polls

It's not getting as much attention as Trump's "nasty woman" remark, but the Supreme Court question was a huge deal
The outcome of this election will determine the makeup of the Supreme Court for a generation or longer.

Daniel Acker/Bloomberg/Getty
By David S. Cohen
20 minutes ago


snip//

Right out of the gate, moderator Chris Wallace asked the candidates who they'd appoint to the Court. Clinton explained that she wants to see a justice who cares about equality and would take money out of politics, while Trump reiterated that he's put forth names of people who are effectively Antonin Scalia clones. Then Clinton expressed her support for Roe v. Wade and sensible gun control that respects the principle of the Second Amendment, and Trump said he'd appoint justices to the Court who would certainly overturn Roe and that he agrees with a robust interpretation of the Second Amendment.

We didn't really learn anything new about the candidates' positions here, but never mind that. What matters is that millions of Americans got a reminder that, depending on who wins this election, either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will get to shape the Supreme Court for a generation or longer.

snip//

So, if you care about the Supreme Court, you have to care about the down-ballot Senate races. Democrats currently have 46 Senate seats. They need to have a majority of 51 (or an even split of 50-50 if Clinton wins, since her vice president would be the tie-breaker) in order to control the Senate and confirm her pick for the Court.

These close Senate races – in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada and elsewhere – are thus hugely important. If you want Roe upheld, reasonable gun control laws in place, gay rights protected and Citizens United overturned, then you need to do everything you can to support the Democrats in those races and not just focus on the presidency. If you want abortion outlawed, unfettered gun rights, gay rights rolled back and Citizens United protected, then you should support the Republicans in those states.

It's that simple. Both the president and the Senate will control this important issue and determine whether the Supreme Court will ever have a fully functioning set of justices again.

Wednesday's debate, while giving us little new about where the candidates stand, finally drove home this point.

[tonyt53]

1. Many people have no idea about the importance of the SCOTUS to ALL Americans.

Hell, even if the Senate ends up at 50/50, the VP is the tie breaker. Plus, there are a few Republican Senators that think more of the country than do Trump and his supporters, and the Senate leadership. Those SCOTUS rulings, like Roe v Wade in 1972, have a lasting effect.

[still_one]

2. Absolutely babylonsister. There will be at least two SC nominees that will be appointed by the next

President, perhaps three, and if nothing else was accomplished by the next President, that would be more than enough.

[CincyDem]

3. I hate to say it but...

... ole Chris Wallace came out of the gate like a rocket with this one. In a phrasing I'm sure intended to stoke up the right wing base, framing the SCOTUS issue as one that could define the country for many years to come...that was a pretty strong start.

And it seemed to me that it came within one word of working.

When asked about overturning Roe, all DJT had to say was "yes". Short sentence, no positioning, no waffling. Just "yes". It would have elicited a spontaneous orgasm among evangelicals across the country. But, as is always the case with asshat, he missed his mark.

Instead, HRC was amazing at taking the question and helping everyday voters understand why SCOTUS is personal. Her approach to the abortion discussion moved it from a front page social issue to a critical, and private, family issue. I came away from that discussion feeling like she made abortion a personal issue more so that any politician in the past 30 years.

Anyway - good that Wallace started our there.

[Stuart G]

4. k and r..nt

[Wounded Bear]

6. Full agreement here...

for decades, Repubs (conserves) have been decrying the appointment of "activist judges" to the USSC. Meanwhile, they have done their level best to pack the court with RW ideologues.

Time to fight back with some more moderate judges.