2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat Happens Bernie Gets Elected and Has Chance to Pick Three to Four Supreme Court Justices
One of things that people forget is that Bernie Sanders win is that Supreme Court could have potential radical shift to the progressive left. If Scaila, Thomas, and Kennedy step down in that term (which I highly, highly doubt but poor health might force them), the court would have sharp turn to the progressive left. This might seem to pipe dream but it would be great.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)The clown car has no chance of getting anyone in for at least a decade.
Also, things are radically changing- who thought we'd get such a firm decision in favor of SSM?
daleanime
(17,796 posts)is how quickly.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And if he is nominated, the only way for him to lose against any of the Republicans running, is if a bunch of Democrats jumped ticket to join the Republicans.
sheshe2
(83,793 posts)demosincebirth
(12,541 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)The Supreme Court recently ruled 9-0 that workers must work without pay in a ruling that even Forbes criticized. It's time we get a liberal on the court.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/12/09/supreme-court-rules-that-amazon-can-put-workers-through-security-for-25-minutes-a-day-unpaid-why-thats-wrong/
Hillary is owned and therefore she will pay back those she owes.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)would appoint centrists?'
If you consider Ruth Ginsburg a centrist, you won't be satisfied with anyone Bernie could get approved.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)ones and on the role of government.
If Bernie is elected, we get the kind of judges that FDR threatened to appoint, liberal on all issues considering the time, the era.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)This idea "Oh, a Republican congress won't work with a Democrat they consider a far-left socialist"
News Flash: They consider ALL Democrats far-left socialists, and they won't work with Hillary any more than they would with Bernie.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)than Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, Bill's appointees, or than Obama's appointees.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I suppose we could debate which candidate stands to generate more enthusiasm, right now it is mostly in the realm of the hypothetical.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Seems likely since they have a majority right now.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)so people should vote for the primary candidate that best reflects their values through the concrete issue-oriented positions they have taken, eh.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)there is one more aspect: who has the best resources to win the general?
At one point that appeared to be Hillary. She still is ahead but Bernie is stronger than I thought he would be. So anything could happen.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Robert Bork was the last rejection (1987). Before him, two of Nixon's appointees were outright rejected. A few other nominations, like Abe Fortas (for chief justice) and Harriet Miers, were withdrawn.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)And Republicans have a LOT of seats to defend for the 2016 election. They don't have a senate majority locked up by any means. If we have someone that inspires the electorate to come out, like I believe Bernie will help do, that could help a big push in Democratic wins in the Senate then too. As long as we don't have DINO DWS trying to hard to screw the Dems in being able to do this.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)An inspirational candidate who wins will have coattails for Senate elections, and the Republicans have to defend many more seats than the Democrats.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Other than breathing, she had no qualifications.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)No previous Senate has tried to filibuster almost every significant bill that the President proposed, but that's what the Republicans have been doing ever since Obama was elected. Senator DeMint announced that their sole legislative priority was to block anything proposed by Obama, and he made good on his promise.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But Bernie is humble enough to ask the American people to pressure Congress for him.
Hillary has said she would deal with Congress if elected. She is not calling for the kind of change in the role of the voters after the election that Bernie is calling for.
That is one of their big differences. They see dealing with Congress after the 2016 election very differently. Bernie is going to invite voters to be part of the process. Hillary will do her business as usual if elected.
One of the big decisions we voters have to make is which future we want with regard to how we interact with and participate in dialog with our members of Coongress.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Can someone please give te rules on when Bill's record can be attributed to Hillary and when it cannot. Thanks!
Vattel
(9,289 posts)edited to add: I love Ginsberg.
edited further to add: Breyer is really mediocre.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)Gothmog
(145,344 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)The laws on what is considered payable work are so clear that a 9-0 ruling ensued. The SC can only interpret not invent laws, and the interpretation of what work is was obviously very simple. It's not pleasant and not fair in that exact case, but it's the law as written.
demosincebirth
(12,541 posts)Bernie Sanders is running as a Democrat.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)demosincebirth
(12,541 posts)Sanders will not change the world or the U.S. unless we change the congress. So, you're pissing in the wind if you think Sanders is some kind of messiah. I just hope we get a Democrat elected and I don't care who.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)that is beholding to big money ... well you could vote for Trump!
marble falls
(57,114 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)moobu2
(4,822 posts)They'll never confirm an extreme socialist lefty ever.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)It's been so good to us.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)hating Bernie for having "betrayed" them when he can't accomplish more than anyone else has against Republican intransigence.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)This is no reason to keep the status quo.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)He'll have to compromise to get anything done and that's where the wheels come off. He cant compromise so nothing at all will get done. I doubt they'll even confirm his cabinet nominees or his court appointments.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Electing Bernie is only the beginning. It's a revolution to restore America and give it back to the people.
If you're worried about the wheels coming off, not having wheels to begin with is not the solution.
treestar
(82,383 posts)if you really wanted real change you'd know who was running for Congress and be debating about that with equal exertion.
But no as usual people think they can depend on the Presidency alone.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Knock it off with the right wing rhetoric.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I don't think you can argue that Larry Lessig is more or less liberal than someone like Goodwin Liu but the types of rulings each is likely to make as progressive jurists are vastly different because they view rights, obligations and the law in substantially different manners.
I can't see Hillary ever appointing someone like Lessig to SCOTUS (because he believes among other things that the DMCA is unconstitutional) any more than I can see Sanders appointing someone like Liu that simply does not share his fiscal progressivism.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)They have a majority now and they only need 40 to prevent a sharp turn to the left.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)rather than pre-selecting nominees that please the powers that be. Both of Obama's choices were more conservative than the justices they replaced. Bernie has principles and a long history of fighting for them, I for one would love to see him appointing justices. If nothing else he could make the RW go public with their obstruction and that would be another thing to help sink them in the eyes of the voters. You don't get what you don't fight for.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Who doesn't love Ruth Ginsburg? Bill Clinton, the "centrist" appointed her.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... by now. I think her holding back on that is a commentary on how she doesn't feel confident that someone replacing her would be liberal enough with current leadership both in the White House and on Capitol Hill.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)And WE would put the pressure on.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)With the exception of TPP/TPA, which most non-corporate Democrats HATE, he's really not worked hard to "negotiate" on bills and appointments he makes, to try at least to set the bar higher for someone or something better being returned in a compromise.
Bernie will be more hard-nosed in negotiations than Obama in the right areas like SCOTUS nominations. He might not get someone like an Erwin Chemerinsky or a Marjorie Cohn approved in congress, but he'd try to nominate someone like them that has a better more liberal perspective to start with, to force the Senate to at least accept someone more reasonable, and not someone that has any kind of ties to corporate influences.
sheshe2
(83,793 posts)Let's quote Bernie here.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance
Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reminded the progressive media gathered on Capitol Hill today that single-payer health care reform was dead before it started in the Senate.
"It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that's it," he said, addressing a topic central in the minds of many who the bloggers and left wing talk show hosts gathered for the 4th annual Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit in Washington reach everyday.
Sanders is among the few in the Senate not afraid to say he supports government-run, universal health care. But his calls for such a program have gone unanswered, much to the chagrin of progressives who still feel it is the best way to solve the nation's health care crisis.
Sanders said it was still possible for single-payer to come to the U.S. eventually -- but he said the road will not begin in Washington. If a state like California or Vermont ever instituted a single-payer system on its own, Sanders said, it would eventually lead to national adoption of universal coverage.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance
Guess what. Vermont tried. They failed too.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)He didn't even start with a public option (which you conveniently don't address in your response to my contention here)! Republicans start with positions that we KNOW Democrats would never touch voting for. But they do that to negotiate hard with corporatist dems, and they win out.
The problem with corporatist dems is they they try to "appear" liberal, but they gladly sacrifice things like not even negotiating single payer and a public option, because their corporate backers don't want it, even if the voter base DOES!
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)soapboxing about obstruction.
Soften the up with as radical as you can find and then after duking it out sigh and send over someone about as as far left. Rinse and repeat.
Look at the radicals they have today. God in heaven didn't come and plant them there, same thing applies to liberals. Provide no other option except for even more liberal.
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)its far fetched -- but not impossible.
Just sayin'
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)But I've noted a trend in trying to make people think of Bernie and radical. What b.s.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Can you just imagine how freakin' liberal his selections to the Supreme Court would be?
Man, oh, man, that would be like heaven on earth!!
That stupid Citizens United decision would be gone in a month!!
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Remember that Ginsberg will probably retire sometime in the near future if a D is elected. She as stated that is one of her concerns (along with the fact that she'll continue to do the job as long as she is able to). So right there that is one on our side who will need to be replaced. We gain by having someone younger who will (hopefully) last many years, but still it's a hold. It's the other ones we need to be looking toward. I would say Scalia and Thomas will probably stay on until their deaths (a day I hope comes soon because they can rot in hell). Those are the three the next president will most likely replace. Anthony Kennedy could hold on another 7-10 years. The Republicans could be hoping if they lose in 2016 that they can come back in 2020.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)The President not only has to understand and pick a lifetime SC justice, but has to recruit someone willing to take the job. The President has to understand the SC legal philosophy based on complex legal rulings. Obama did an excellent job of picking to justices and also voting against two losers! This was because of his legal training.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_Supreme_Court_candidates
The problem I face ... is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point.... In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions, ... in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.... The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.[7]
In explaining his opposition to Samuel Alito, Obama further evaluated the qualities he found important in a Supreme Court justice:
I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve. He's an intelligent man and an accomplished jurist. And there's no indication he's not a man of great character. But when you look at his record when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding Americans' individual rights.[8]
Hillary has great legal training and experience, probably better than Obama or any recent President:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
Rodham then entered Yale Law School. There she served on the editorial board of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action.[36] During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center,[37] learning about new research on early childhood brain development and working as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973).[38][39] She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital[38] and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free legal advice for the poor.[37] In the summer of 1970 she was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. There she researched migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education.[40] Edelman later became a significant mentor.[41] Rodham was recruited by political advisor Anne Wexler to work on the 1970 campaign of Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Joseph Duffey, with Rodham later crediting Wexler with providing her first job in politics.[42]
In the late spring of 1971 she began dating Bill Clinton, also a law student at Yale. That summer she interned at the Oakland, California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.[43] The firm was well known for its support of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and radical causes (two of its four partners were current or former Communist Party members);[43] Rodham worked on child custody and other cases.[nb 3] Clinton canceled his original summer plans in order to live with her in California;[47] the couple continued living together in New Haven when they returned to law school.[44] The following summer, Rodham and Clinton campaigned in Texas for unsuccessful 1972 Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern.[48] She received a Juris Doctor degree from Yale in 1973,[29] having stayed on an extra year to be with Clinton.[49]
Rodham began a year of postgraduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.[50] Her first scholarly article, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973.[51] Discussing the new children's rights movement, it stated that "child citizens" were "powerless individuals"[52] and argued that children should not be considered equally incompetent from birth to attaining legal age, but that instead courts should presume competence except when there is evidence otherwise, on a case-by-case basis.[53] The article became frequently cited in the field.[54]
As a practicing lawyer, Hillary was twice named one of America's Top 100 Influential Lawyers
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/20/us/hillary-clinton---fast-facts/
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)'legal training and experience'? I expect he'll consult with scholars and experts on most important decisions. I certainly would if I were in the Oval Office, even in areas I consider myself knowledgeable. I don't want another 'Decider' for President. I want someone who seeks out the best minds available, not somebody who assumes they don't need outside input.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)First, even if you get "advice", the buck still stops with the President. The one in charge has to understand what advice they are getting. Bernie simply doesn't have ANY practical legal experience or training, so he would be at a loss for judge nominations.
Next, Presidents certainly have to form a strong cabinet. That was one of Obama's weaknesses - he had some good advisors: Hillary, Warren, and even Biden. He also had some terrible advisors: Rahm, Duncan, etc. Obama didn't really have a great set of advice - including in some key areas like science, environment, and even health (remember the ACA rollout?). At best Obama's advisors were a mixed group. You have to know who to pick for advice, and then talk them into taking the job. Monster and Linkedin won't do for Presidential cabinet office.
Hillary has both the legal background and experience, but she also has a large group of advisors she can pick from, a large group of current endorsements from Democrats in office, and legal connections she can tap. I suspect that behind the scenes, Bill would be a big help recruiting and screening advisors, and then he would not be on the front page himself.
On the issue of picking SC judges, this would be one of Hillary's best qualities and also one of Bernie's weaknesses. Frankly, she probably wasn't interested, but Hillary would have made one of the best SC justices ever for someone who had not been a judge. Her legal writing has been really lauded by experts, she taught in a law school, and practiced law. Of course, there would be no chance a GOP Congress would ever confirm her. Ha, maybe she should nominate Obama to replace Ginsburg! Wow, that would be interesting.
Autumn
(45,109 posts)he will chose wisely. It doesn't take a lawyer to be a good President, it takes a smart decent human being who cares about the people.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)I just don't see endorsements from current members of Congress or major politicians. I just wonder who would even be Bernie's VP - or what relationships he would have that would allow him to create an effective cabinet. I'm sure there a people who would take a job, and Bernie might get a few economists to come along. After that, he'd have some challenges.
Jimmy Carter was a good Governor and President, and he struggled to get good advisors in Washington. That was one reason he was not effective in office. He was not a lawyer.
We know that federal judges and the Supreme Court are a priority in 2016 so a legal background would help - also immigration, several social justice issues (women's rights, voting, education). In addition to bank regulation, those are likely to be key issues and many revolve around court challenges.
I suspect Hillary already has some unannounced people picked out to tackle those problems, and some names have been mentioned in the press. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/08/why-hillary-needs-julian-castro-as-veep.html
I haven't heard Bernie address the idea of his running mate and cabinet.
Autumn
(45,109 posts)Sancho
(9,070 posts)I didn't say being a lawyer was the necessary and only criteria to be President. I'm simply pointing out that candidates have different experiences, training, and resources that would make them a more effective President.
Personality and intelligence alone is not going to get the job done.
We all want a Democratic President, because within the Democratic umbrella are candidates who support progressive and liberal government. We all know they differ on some issues.
I'm noting that the last two successful Democratic Presidents (Obama and Clinton) were trained as lawyers and it was evident in their nominations to the Supreme Court and Federal courts. President Clinton had a stronger cabinet in Washington than Obama, most likely because he had connections from his time a Governor and as a longer time as elected official. Obama rose quickly in Illinois, and did not have as many people to pick from in a cabinet. IMHO it showed.
Some of Clinton's Cabinet were pretty good folks:
Al Gore
Madeleine Albright
Lloyd Bentsen
Janet Reno
Robert Reich
Richard Riley
Andrew Cuomo
Bill Richardson
Leon Panetta
John Podesta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton
Obama had a few good cabinet members:
Kerry
Hillary
Loretta Lynch
Julian Castro
Not a strong a cabinet, and some BAD ones in there: Arne Duncan, Bob Gates, Eric Holder, Kathleen Sebelius...really Obama has had as many weak and bad cabinet members as good ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Obama_Administration_cabinet_members
Autumn
(45,109 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)is a point in Bernie's favor.
Gothmog
(145,344 posts)We need to make sure that a Democrat wins in 2016 or the GOP will control the SCOTUS for a generation. The inverse of this thread scares me. If the GOP wins in 2016 and gets to pick three or four SCOTUS justices, then the SCOTUS will be locked into being a GOP controlled entity for the next generation. That is why I think that viability and electability is a key issue and why I am supporting Hillary Clinton.
I note that Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley are each committing to select SCOTUS justices who will vote to overturn Citizens United.
For me and others, the risk of losing control of the SCOTUS for a generation is a reason to go with the most electable candidate. The issue over who will control the SCOTUS for a generation will scare many democratic voters and prevent them from supporting Sanders unless someone can show how Sanders can run a viable general election campaign in an election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will be spending another billion dollars. If Sanders wants to expand his base, he will need to convince members of the groups in the Democratic base outside of Sanders' very very narrow base that he is viable in the general election or the issue of control of the SCOTUS will work against you
LWolf
(46,179 posts)and I think he wins the GE more easily than the nomination.
He has the broadest appeal to voters outside the party as well as in, which will only help in the GE.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Yeah... good times.
Autumn
(45,109 posts)And the Bernie Bounce.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)of years ago he was being investigated for not having reported his wife's
salary on his income tax. It looked like they had the goods on him that
time, but things seem to have just died down. Does anyone know what
happened to the case?
get the red out
(13,467 posts)That would be a sigh of relief. SCOTUS scares the shit out of me.