The idea of bush appointing Supreme Court justices makes me sick

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

to my stomach. Seriously.

I feel sicker about that than any other aspect of a possible "second" term. Don't SC justices rule on a lot of social issues? How many spaces will come open in the next four years?

When I let my mind wrap itself around the idea of three or four hard-core right-wing justices on the SC, I just feel....despondent. That's not a strong enough word, but it's all I've got.

Is it going too far to think women's reproductive rights could possibly be rolled back with a court like that? That GLBT rights wouldn't ever be a possibility with a court like that? That separation of church and state would be further eroded?

On the plus side, it's a great argument for a person considering voting for bush who is socially liberal (yes, I know some). When I bring up all that, they start thinking Kerry looks pretty good.

[freedom_to_read]

1. makes you wonder

why Kerry hasn't brought up the SC in his campaign yet. seems like he could score some points with it.

[Jacobin]

2. Well, think about it. Turnabout is fair play

Supreme Court appointed Smirk. Now he can appoint some of them!

:-)

Seriously though, that is one horrendous nightmare to consider

[Mr Blond]

3. This is why we stay postitive and keep working!!

We MUST take control of the Supreme Court. We're currently going through the longest period in history with no justices retiring...The longest by a WIDE margin!! I expect at the VERY least 2 retirements and maybe 4 or more.

Keep up the good fight!! John Kerry for a Progressive Court!! :)

[BamaLefty]

4. Yuck... conservative judges!

I can't imagine that right-wing nutjobs that Bu$h would appoint over the next couple of years. I'm sure he could find some quack WAY to th right of Scalia to throw on there.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

9. I can imagine them

and it scares me silly.

And I'm NOT easily scared.

[grannylib]

5. Keep hammering that point. Gore said it well at the DNC: We must not

let the SC choose the next president, and we must not let this president choose the next SC.
It's a CRUCIAL issue. We could backslide by decades, if not centuries, with that horror scenario.
Yikes. Gives me the willies too. I talk about that issue a lot with people I meet; it's huge. Young women in particular need to think about the gains that have been made over the last 35 or so years, and how far we still have to go; then compare that to how far backwards another Shrub administration and an even-more conservative SC could take us.
Gaaggghhhhh!
Nauseating. Terrifying.

[Mr.Green93]

6. don't worry

even if he wins he will get zero judges through the senate. They don't have the 60 votes so nothing will happen.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

11. Depends on what happens in the mid-terms doesn't it?

I mean imagine it: bush is re-selected. Then in the mid-terms they get the 60 votes they need in the Senate.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where the hell is that passport???

[Mr.Green93]

12. they are more likely to lose the senate at midterm

[maxwall]

7. There are already 3 hard right justices -

--- Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia.
Add ones in the place of Stevens (oldest justice) and O'Connor (looking for retirement excuse), and you have an UNBEATABLE 5 justice majority for the hard right.
That thought, as a 3rd year law student, scares the hell out of me. If that were to happen, I might as well just pack my bags and forget the 1/4 mil I've spent on education.... Move to Canada...
So yes, bring this up to everyone who is waffling about voting for Kerry. Or even thinking of voting for Bush.
Our mantra must be: Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court.
THAT is the reason this is the most important election of our lifetimes, because they're lifetime appointments.

[CityDem]

13. Most likely scenario

Rehnquist and O'Connor will retire within the next two years. If Bush* wins, he may be able to replace Rehnquist with another conservative, but it will be challenging to put a conservative on the bench in place of Sandy. The dems have the ability to filibuster, but this better not happen during the mid term elections because the media will skewer us. I doubt Stevens will retire unless Kerry is elected. Ginsberg has had health issues, but she seems to be ok at the moment.

[lunarboy13]

15. Stevens is 84...

He may not last another 4 years through Bush. Plus, his wife is hoping he retires soon. Stevens is the most liberal justice on the bench, so it's crucial that Kerry be elected so that the most liberal justice isn't replaced by a more conservative one. Just that one person switches the dynamics of many 5-4 decisions. Rehnquist and O'Conner have both hinted they want a Republican President to name their successors, so if Kerry is elected, they will likely try to hang on for another term. If we can keep the WH for 8 years, Rehnquist and O'Conner might be facing the same age issue Stevens is now. It is crucial, absolutely crucial that we win the WH this election. If Bush is re-selected, we could see a decline in basic freedoms and rights that will last for a decade or more.

[WI_DEM]

8. Kerry must begin to make this an issue

it is one of the most potent ones out there especially with independent swing voters.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

10. Zaktly

I know some people who are considering bush ONLY because they are somewhat fiscally conservative (like HE is!!! RIGHT!) and because of the whole terror/national security thing, BUT they are pretty leftist on social issues.

When I bring up the Supreme Court scenario, it gives them the willies, too. I've won three votes for Kerry that way. Two of them went so far as to put a Kerry sticker on their car, they were so freaked out by the Supreme Court issue.

[MaineDem]

14. I'm with you on this

This was a big issue for me four years ago as well.

Thank goodness a few Supremes appear to be sorry they ever appointed him and were smart enough to hold off retirement. It'll never go another 4 years though.

We cannot allow Bush to make these appointments. I fear for the United States and our Constitution. And that's not just hyperbole.

[RichardRay]

16. REALLY important issue

We've got SCOTUS justices hanging on by their fingernails so that they won't have to be replaced by a Bush nominee, but they can't hold on forever, heck some of them may die in the traces if they have to go on much longer.

I don't think Kerry nominees would get a smooth ride, but I think he could nominate judges who are at least neutral and hope to get them through a Republican controlled congress (which I think it likely we'll still have). OTOH, Bush nominees would likely be 'judicial reactivists' none of us want to see on the bench and they could be rammed through unless the D's wanted to get very nasty (filibusters, etc.) and had the support of at least a few moderate R's.

If GWB gets to select a few justices and gets the wrong folks on the bench it won't matter for YEARS who wins an election - the path will be set and it won't be leading to a nice spot.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY