For those who say they won't vote for Hillary in the GE: The Supreme Court

NJSecularist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-04-08 08:48 PM
Original message

For those who say they won't vote for Hillary in the GE: The Supreme Court

It is absolutely absurd for any liberal to say that they will not vote for the Democratic nominee if Hillary is nominated as the candidate of the Democratic Party for the general election.

Why?

Reason #1:

Hillary is a liberal.

She is more liberal than her husband and is just as liberal as Barack Obama, no matter what the netroots tells us.

Reason #2:

There are possibly 3 Supreme Court seats opening within the next 4 years: Ruth Bader Ginsberg, John Paul Stevens and David Souter.

What do all three of these justices have in common? They all represent the liberal side of the court. If all three of them leave during a Republican administration, then their successors will likely be appointed by a conservative. Since the Court is already leaning conservative, and it already has 4 conservative members, adding 3 more conservative justices will tip the court to the right for a couple of decades. Just imagine the Warren Court... but flipped to the right. This should be a nightmare to anybody who values women's rights, Roe vs. Wade, gay rights, etc.

Reason #3:

We do not want more Samuel Alitos on the court.

Justice Alito is Bush's most recent Supreme Court nominee. In his short two years on the Court, he has already set back many liberal causes. Just a few example:

�Upheld an unconditional ban on a midterm abortion procedure that Congress called "partial birth." The decision abandoned the view of a 2000 case that such a ban was unconstitutional without an exception for when a physician believes it's best for the mother's health.

� Limited the reach of a 1969 case that said students do not "shed their constitutional rights � at the schoolhouse gate," by allowing principals and teachers to discipline students for messages that undercut anti-drug policies.

� Struck down programs in Louisville and Seattle that used students' race as a factor in school placement to build diversity across a district. The majority narrowly interpreted the breadth of a 2003 case endorsing the use of race in higher education admissions for campus diversity.

This is one of the hallmarks of the Roberts Court. John Roberts is, of course, Bush's other Supreme Court nominee. All 4 liberals dissented in Louisville and Seattle racial integration cases, but we simply did not have enough liberals on the court to get a majority. Justice Breyer, a member of the liberal part of the court, famously stated the following about Louisville racial integration case, entitled Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1:

"It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much," Breyer said.

He was, of course, referring to Samuel Alito and John Roberts, Bush's two appointees.

Reason 4:

Hillary's husband appointed two liberal members of the court

You can lambast Bill all you want for his transgressions in office, but one of his lasting legacies are his two great liberal Supreme Court nominees. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer vote reliably with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court.

Reason 5:

There are several very good liberal justices that are in the running for a nomination if a Democratic president is elected.

Meet Harold Koh:

Harold Hongju Koh is Dean of Yale Law School and Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law.

He began teaching at Yale Law School in 1985 and has served since 2004 as its fifteenth Dean. From 1998 to 2001, he served as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Before joining Yale, he practiced law at Covington and Burling and at the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice.

Dean Koh is a leading expert on international law and a prominent advocate of human and civil rights. He has argued before the United States Supreme Court and testified before the U.S. Congress more than twenty times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hongju_Koh

Koh has testified before the U.S. Congress more than a dozen times. In January 2005, Dean Koh, along with Franklin Pierce Law Center dean John Hutson, testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to the appointment of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general of the United States, because of his alleged role in attempting to provide legal guidance to the U.S. military justifying abusive interrogation practices, including that the War on Terror "renders obsolete" and "renders quaint" aspects of the Geneva Conventions.

He is also extremely passionate about gay and abortion rights.

Meet Elena Kegan:

http://ms-jd.org/dean-elena-kagan-harvard-law-school

Kagan came to Harvard Law School as a visiting professor in 1999 and became Professor of Law in 2001. While on the faculty, Kagan has taught administrative law, constitutional law, civil procedure, and a seminar on the law surrounding the presidency.

From 1995 to 1999, Kagan served in the White House, first as Associate Counsel to the President (1995-96) and then as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council (1997-99). In those positions she played a key role in the executive branch�s formulation, advocacy, and implementation of law and policy in areas ranging from education to crime to public health.

A leading scholar of administrative law, Kagan�s recent work focuses on the role of the President of the United States in formulating and influencing federal administrative and regulatory law. Her 2001 Harvard Law Review article, �Presidential Administration,� was honored as the year�s top scholarly article by the American Bar Association�s Section on Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, and is being developed into a book to be published by Harvard University Press. Kagan has also written on a range of First Amendment issues, including the role of governmental motive in First Amendment doctrine, and the interplay of libel law and the First Amendment. Her works in progress include a new casebook on administrative law.

Kagan launched her scholarly career at the University of Chicago Law School, where she became an assistant professor in 1991 and a tenured professor of law in 1995. In 1993, Kagan received the graduating students� award for teaching excellence.

She is an avid supporter of gay and abortion rights also.

With all of this at stake, why would any Obamabots decide to sit out if Hillary was the Democratic nominee? :crazy: :crazy: