To all those that "refuse" to vote for Hillary in the General: what about the SCOTUS?

[RiverStone]

I share your disdain for the DLC! This post is not to repeat the (why I don't like Hillary mantra). I think most of us have that memorized. I don't want her either...but,

I will grant her one benefit of the doubt - that she would at least appoint a judge to SCOTUS that would preserve choice and not further erode our personal liberties.

It may be the only reason I could justify a vote for her (if she is our nominee), but it is a damn good reason.

So for those of you who say that there is "no way" you would EVER vote for Hillary in the General - a question: Do you think she would appoint a more progressive or even moderate judge then any rethug president?

We are very probably looking 2 new SCOTUS appointments over the next 4-8 years. Having another rethug president would ensure a RW SCOTUS for at least a generation!

[WA98296]

1. Why do you ASSUME she would do any such thing? She said she MIGHT

relinquish SOME of the powers Bush has usurped. Then again, she might not.

[RiverStone]

6. Your right, an assumption...

Do you think she is DINO all the way?

Would she listen to advice from Bill?

I'm making an assumption that compared to Rudy/Mitt/Fred, she would appoint someone NOT in the mold of Shrub's rightie federal judges. Like I said, I'm giving her the benefit of doubt.

May my question be not longer relevant next September...

[WA98296]

29. That is what those politicans you mentioned bank on: Assumptions. Don't accept them...

Make them state exactly where they stand, then vote on ISSUES based on what they SAY they will do.

As long as republicans like Hillary Clinton KNOW that the most democratic voters will vote for a "proclaimed" demcratic candidate rather than the GOP candidate (largely based on assumptions that she will act like real democrat once elected)...well, then we'll keep getting a full slate of neo-cons and republican-lite DLC candidates from which to choose.

[mmonk]

2. Something I have to consider but I detest blackmail.

[RiverStone]

11. As long as the corporations control the candidates we elect...

You will be blackmailed.

I'm not justifying it - I'm stating fact.

Is a vote for a lessor evil still worth something?

p.s. Well, by "we" I mean OUT THERE. DU would elect Dennis.

[mmonk]

17. Hard question.

When we get some benefit out of it, I'll let you know.

[Blashyrkh]

31. "Is a vote for a lessor evil still worth something?" No. Never.

If the system cannot provide candidates that represent the views of the constituency, then the system itself has no way to represent those constituents. Why support a system that will NEVER support you?

[bonito]

3. I'll vote for the candidate who will restore the constitution

Without that in place corruption rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. This remind me of the arguments for voting for Ron Paul.

Compare and contrast "Ron Paul's terrible, but he'd end the war," with "OK, yeah, Hillary, but think of the Supreme Court!"

[Horse with no Name]

5. What about our country? The Constitution? Does SCOTUS trump those?

Not to be pedantic, but I really don't see Hillary as anything except more of the same which we sorely do not need.

[RiverStone]

8. Which gets back to the question...

Which you answered.

You see no difference between Hillary and the rethug status quo.

I'm simply trying to gage if some folks are so opposed to her candidacy - that they see not a sliver of light separating her from them.

I see that sliver - it's not much, but it is enough to vote for her if she is my only choice. And I think she would appoint a more acceptable judge to SCOTUS.

[Horse with no Name]

12. I don't see a sliver of difference. Not one.

But I guess if we can just vote for a place keeper--Hillary would do just fine.
I just don't expect anything progressive out of her Presidency, but I do expect more goodies for the corporations.
I guess as long as she doesn't start euthanizing liberal/progressives, we are ahead. Whew!

[Odin2005]

19. The Constitution only fuctions as SCOTUS interprets it.

Therefore, concern about SCOTUS is EVERYTHING when it comes to the Constitution. This is for sure, Hillary won't be nominating Scalia clones.

[Toots]

7. Hillary for Supreme Court Justice......I could accept that idea just fine..

Oh you mean who would she appoint not her for Justice....:silly:

[TwilightGardener]

9. What if Bloomberg runs? He's pro-choice. So, if that's the only reason

to vote for Hillary, it's not a very good one.

[RiverStone]

13. Not just choice...

Executive powers, church/state, habeas corpus, illegal wiretapping...etc.

Gawd, I've never been in a thread defending Hillary - but I guess ultimately I see her presidency as more DEM then any rethug. Even if it is rethug-lite, I just don't see her quite in the same mold as the RW wackos.

[TwilightGardener]

18. True, the other things you've mentioned still fall under SCOTUS, but

how a justice will rule on each of those things is unpredictable--look at Poppy Bush, appointing Souter, who turned out to be not quite the conservative. It's a weak argument to vote for someone, ultimately. It works for me, because I would like more progressive justices, but it won't work to most people who aren't deeply invested in politics--most people vote for whom they trust or want to have a beer with.

[RiverStone]

14. oops - dupe.

[leftchick]

10. I don't trust her to appoint a progressive or a moderate judge

I do trust her to appoint a pro-business judge, so no fucking way is she getting my vote. EVER!

[cali]

16. just out of curiosity,

if she does win, and does appoint a liberal/progressive justice, will you admit you were dead wrong? Or will you insist that the person she appointed doesn't meet your standards?

[Odin2005]

21. Then I guess you won't be posting here anymore if she is nominated.

Because working against the Dem candidate = you get tombstoned.

[leftchick]

22. oh really

:eyes:

[bonito]

30. Take this brother

May it serve you well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought Peace

[angstlessk]

15. I have already purchased the largest strongest clothspin in the history

of the universe and will use it to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election, should she win the primaries.

[Zavulon]

38. I need to know where to get one of thise.

Also, does it come with a locking plastic bag big enough to hold the stomach contents of a guy who weighs 225 or so? If not, where do I get one? I don't trust twist ties.

[aikoaiko]

20. I really don't believe any of them --- saying they won't vote for HRC is just political posturing

for most, albeit but not all.

I have faith they will do the right thing and vote for the Democrat even if it is HRC.

[bpeale]

26. you can call it what you want. i won't vote for her & you can take that to the bank.

[stranger81]

23. I still say that ship has sailed . . . . the time to do something about the SCOTUS

was when Robert and Alito were pending confirmation. Unfortunately, our party leaders chose not to fight those battles.

[lateo]

24. What about it?

This sort of lame fear mongering needs to stop. There is far more at stake here than seats on the SCOTUS.

[bpeale]

25. so what? let the chips fall where they may

the DLC have a choice to make then.

[McCamy Taylor]

27. Wait. If you don't vote for Hillary, are you votinfg for Rudi? Nobody?

It is so hard for me to take seriously this "I wont for for X in the general election" stuff when we are in the primary. I mean, this is all just primary election campaign strategy designed to boost some other candidate's chances, so why are we even getting into discussions designed to change people's minds?

[Toasterlad]

28. If You're So Worried About the SCOTUS, Vote for Kucinich.

I refuse to be held hostage by Hillary Clinton or any other Democrate-Lite. If all you "Democrats" are so worried about a Republican getting in, then vote for Kucinich.

[Odin2005]

32. Kucinich can't win the general election.

If you think he can you live in naive LaLa Land.

[Toasterlad]

34. Kucinich Has a MUCH Better Chance of Winning the General Election Than Hillary Clinton.

Actually, ANY of the Democratic candidates have a much better chance of winning than Hillary. That is why she has been appointed the front-runner by the media.

[Odin2005]

35. LOL!!! You keep telling yourself that.

I remember seeing a poll posted on DU putting various Dem candidates head to head against various Puke candidates and Dennis was getting smoked by the pukes by around 10% while Hillary, Edwards, and Obama were usually within the margin or error of 50/50.

[Toasterlad]

37. Yes, Because Polls are Always an Accurate Measure of Things.

We'll see what happens.

[B Calm]

39. Sure he can, but only with your help.. Quit saying he can't win!

[scarletwoman]

33. We need to focus on Congress. Get a big enough Dem majority in the Senate and the House, and they

CAN overrule the will of the POTUS.

What's that you say? We can't count on our Congressional Dems to do the right thing? That's why we have to keep building up our forces for pushing back against bad agendas.

And even though our political system is extraordinarily corrupted, We the People still stand a better chance of influencing our more immediate "representatives" who do not reside on quite so rarefied a plane as the "President".

We have a long battle ahead of us, no matter which head of the two-headed dog of corporatism, militarism, and imperialism sits in the White House. We have to be prepared to do battle, to fight a long war to overthrow the Plutocracy. No war but the class war.

I refuse to be held hostage by fear, I refuse to acquiesce to the charade.

sw

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. What about the SCOTUS, you say? What about all the Dems who

voted to confirm Bush's appointees to it?