This election IS ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT, make no mistake about it

[still_one]

The stakes our tremendous

The Supreme Court involves itself in civil rights, privacy rights, illegal wars, whether corporations are individuals

That encompasses everything that we are concerned with:

The war in Iraq
Social Security
Medicare
Civil rights, there have already been decisions to whittle away at Brown vs. The Board of Education, under the roberts court
privacy rights
separation of church and state

and much more

bush has appointed roberts and alito

Kennedy has shown no consistency, but at least he is NOT an ideologue as roberts, alito, scalia, and thomas

Stevens is 87 years old, and has been holding on for a Democratic president. Ginsberg, Breyer, and others are in their seventies

Every republican candidate has said they will appoint judges like scalia and thomas. That is the same thing bush said, BELIEVE THEM

No matter who our candidate is in 2008, voting Democratic is an imperative.

[Jade Fox]

1. Thanks for reminding us. n/t

[AX10]

2. K/R

[antigop]

3. Appointees have to be confirmed by the Senate .... n/t

[still_one]

11. Yes they do, which is why we need to control Congress also

but if we don't have a Democrat in the White House, you can be sure that any Supreme Court nominee from the republicans WILL BE LIKE SCALIA AND THOMAS

That is not a scare tatic, that is what they said

You can also be sure that if that happens, civil rights will be reverted back to the states.

Privacy rights will be disgarded, and illegal wiretaps will have no problem

The executive branch, will be the ultimate power, with Congress irrelevent. You may argue that is already the case, but it is nothing like what will occur if a republican wins. Once the court turns completely far right, the Republic is gone

[antigop]

18. And which of the candidates have aggressively fought illegal wiretaps? n/t

[antigop]

19. And which of the candidates voted for the Patriot Act? n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Congress needs to impeach all the judges who voted majority for bush v gore.

Then they need to only confirm replacements who aren't going to rule based on Republican political goals.

[still_one]

12. It is far easier to have Democrats controlling all three branches

so we can act from a position of offense, than from a position of defense

[John Q. Citizen]

20. That's great in theory, but I can't vote for war, so I'll just have to do what I can.

And I think if Hill get the nomination, we are going to lose anyway.

So it's good to have a back-up plan

[still_one]

47. You don't have any argument from me, except we don't know who the nominee will be

If you haven't looked, the polls in Iowa and NH have tightened up quite a lot

This potentially could go right down to the convention

Could get really interesting

[saltpoint]

5. Agree. It is a huge, overriding issue.

Stevens will certainly step down.

There could be 2 or more new appointments to the Court.

I want a Democrat making those appointments.

[still_one]

13. It really scares the hell out of me. Things could get a lot worse /nt

[saltpoint]

14. That's true. We have to push harder than ever before a year from now to

keep people like Giuliani and Huckabee and Romney away from real power.

[antigop]

6. And the Supreme Court -- NOW - is "open for business" (pro-corporate)

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042040.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily

With controversial rulings on abortion and campaign finance, the current U.S. Supreme Court has waded into some of the most explosive issues in American politics. Under the leadership of new Chief Justice John G. Roberts, the high court appears to be on the verge of rewriting vast tracts of settled Constitutional law. But there's another important emerging feature of the Roberts Court that has not drawn nearly as much attention: its sympathy to business.

<edit to add> A pro-corporate Dem can appoint a pro-corporate judge just as easily as a Repub can.

[spotbird]

7. Yep. nt

[antigop]

8. So the solution is--- don't vote for a pro-corporate Dem. n/t

[antigop]

22. We need to make sure that the nominee is NOT pro-corporate.

<edit to add>

pro-corporate: anti-worker, anti-consumer, anti-small shareholder

[still_one]

34. Then work to insure that your candidate is the nominee, but whoever wins

the nomination, that person has my support

[still_one]

10. There is NO question where the Democrats stand on civil rights,

The rights of privacy, seperation of Church and State, and so many other issues

Illegal wiretaps, Gutanamoa, issues such as Terry Shivo, competition among the media, the environment, etc

If you saw the last Democratic debate, there was no doubt where the Democrats stood on the Supreme Court, and there IS A DIFFERENCE

[antigop]

15. There is NO question that some Dems are pro-corporate. n/t

[abq e streeter]

17. Agree 100%

I am to say the least, NOT an HRC fan, and becoming more disappointed with Obama, and to some extent , even my preference, Edwards lately, but the Supreme Court is too important to let any repub appoint any more justices. I will vote, no matter how reluctantly, for any Democrat next year.... ANY.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. I tried to point that out on a thread a while back and got flamed

Some DUers refuse to believe that a judge can be progressive on social issues, but not when it comes to regulating business. Like there are no attorneys or judges who belong to the DLC right now who could be appointed to SCOTUS.

[antigop]

25. Thank you. n/t

[tbyg52]

9. As were the last two. K&R nt

[Perry Logan]

16. You mean we should think twice about calling our leaders traitors & cowards? Now there's a thought.

[ourbluenation]

21. every one of the dem candidates would appoint liberal judges.

as opposed to conservative judges. I agree 100% - for me there is no other issue that comes close to this. which is why I can't make up my mind about who to vote for in the primary...the more electable candidate or the more principled liberal with much less of a chance in the general. too much at risk so I'm leaning towards the more electable.

thx for posting this.

k & r

[still_one]

33. I also have not made my mind up who I will vote for in the primaries

but there is no doubt in my mind that it will be whoever our Democratic nominee is

and yes, in 2000 there was a difference between Gore and bush, and there is a difference between our candidate and the republican candidate. Those who say the Supreme Court is already gone, or that it doesn't make a difference not only have no idea what they are talking about, but are blind to what happened in 2000

[GenDem]

24. You are so right!

Our future and our children's future depends on these appointments. The impact is huge!

[PoiBoy]

26. Excellent point..!!

I remember Barbara Streisand made a plea on the Rosie O'Donnell Show before the 2000 election that THAT election was all about the SCOTUS... the network made a huge stink about Rosie giving Barbara that soapbox, but now she's been proven absolutely correct...

Your point is very well taken... we need to re-take control of SCOTUS.... ASAP..

[donheld]

27. If we forget that we're in deeper trouble than we know n/t

[still_one]

36. It really is the last chance. If you have a chance, read The Nine

by Jeffery Toubin

[book_worm]

28. So was '04--and what happens? Bush wins and appoints 2 new Justices

including the CJ. We can't allow anymore losses on the court.

[still_one]

44. Yup, very scary /nt

[weeve]

29. So true !

And this is EXACTLY why we must nominate the most electable Democrat ... NOT the most divisive, the one who 50% of the electorate will not vote for in a million years. Whatever Hillary's good points are ( they're hard to nail down since they're always changing ), this is more important than her or the "Clinton dynasty". Dems need to go with the MOST electable candidate, not the least ( especially since the voting machine issue have NOT been resolved in any of the key battleground states ). So while there are other candidates that I may prefer, John Edwards is by far the most electable of the bunch. He can win in states that would have to be automatically marked off, with Hillary as the nominee.

[still_one]

46. I didn't intend this thread to be for any particular candidate

but I will say this, the Iowa and NH primary polls, indicate that it is an open race

[JNelson6563]

30. It irks me that some count on this

to guilt everyone to vote for someone they don't particularly like.

Julie

[still_one]

40. No, support whoever you want in the primary, but in 2008

if any Democrat does not vote for the nominee, after the repulbicans have said they wR appoint judges like scalia and thomas, then this country deserves no more chances, and that includes woman's rights, civil rights, and all the other issues that are slowly being challenged

I highly recommend the book The Nine, by Jeffrey Toobin. It objectively looks at what the stakes are

Why am I pushing this, is it for a particular candidate, NO

[JNelson6563]

58. You misunderstand me

I didn't mean it toward you personally and I wasn't talking about people pressuring others to vote a certain way in the primaries.

I'm talking about those who think their candidate is inevitable. That whole "fall in line" mindset. It is irksome. I did my duty and fell in line in 04 though I was not very enthusiastic about it. Worked my guts out only to have that betrayal at the end (concession before all the votes were counted).

Now I will be expected to do the same again. I grow weary of it. Especially if our nominee is Clinton who is famous for bending over backwards to appease the reich-wingers so they are less brutal to her and hubby (though it never works, when will these "brilliant" Clintons learn????).

Julie

[Blashyrkh]

31. TALKING POINT!!!!!

This is at least the 6th thread I have seen recently telling all loyal Democrats to shut the fuck up and vote for Hillary.

[still_one]

37. HOLD IT!!! I NEVER TOLD ANYONE TO STFU. First of all I am NOT a Hillary supporter

right now I am tending toward Edwards in the primary, but WHOEVER OUR NOMINEE IS will get MY VOTE in 2008

Talking POINT????

When someone tells me that THEY WILL APPOINT JUDGES LIKE SCALIA AND THOMAS, I LISTEN!!!

ARE YOU DEAF?

[Blashyrkh]

48. I'm not talking about you personally.

Just that this is at least the 6th thread making this exact point, in exactly the same way. The implication is always Hillary has the nomination and she will do right by the SC, and that's why you should just shut up and vote for her. Even if the SC is the only reason you have to vote for her, just do it.

This won't be the last time, and it won't be last. It's another talking point. We point out RW talking points, lets call out the LW ones as well.

Don't get too defensive now.

[still_one]

50. sorry, I over-reacted. I really am not pushing any candidate

I am definitely not a Hillary supporter, and do not know who I will vote for in the primaries yet, though I am leading toward Edwards, I am still very undecided

Incidently, if you look at the polls in Iowa and NH, it is an open race, no matter what the MSM trys to tell you

[Blashyrkh]

51. No problems. I just felt like I've read this all before here.

[mod mom]

32. Which is exactly why we need a POPULIST NOT A CORPORATIST doing the selection!

[still_one]

35. Fine, but whoever our candidate is, he or she MUST WIN.

If for nothing else, corporate influence or not, there is a much better chance that WE THE PEOPLE can influence the Democratic candidate than the other side

[antigop]

60. The Senate still has to confirm any appointments. n/t

[antigop]

59. Exactly, mod mom, exactly! n/t

[Hosnon]

38. The Supreme Court is the primary reason why the benefits of voting for the Democratic nominee

override the costs of not doing so. I'll take a moderate Democratic nominee and a non-conservative (i.e., not right of moderate) Supreme Court over a liberal (i.e., left of moderate) Democratic nominee and a conservative (i.e., right of moderate) Supreme Court.

And, no, these are not the only two options, just the two most likely.

Edit: Content.

[still_one]

41. Couldn't agree with you more. /nt

[trayfoot]

39. Absolutely RIGHT!

Thank you for reminding us of the importance of this election!

[still_one]

42. Debate, rebutal, fight for whoever your candidate is, but we must unite in the end

I haven't even decided who I will vote for in the primaries yet, but no Democrat should stay home from voting this time

[mmonk]

43. More than just the court though that is important.

Many democrats did not make a stand earlier regarding the court. I think its important to pick the right democrat as well. We need real change and swift change. No status quo.

[still_one]

45. You are so right. Many Democrats in Congress, and still today are not making

right choices. I cannot believe that they are not aware of how unhappy people are. It is reflected in the polls

Your points are well taken

[lateo]

49. No, it isn't.

It is about much, much more than just the SCOTUS. Restoration of the Constitution is far more important than worrying about the SCOTUS. Restoration of the Fairness Doctrine is also another important and necessary task that needs to happen. There are plenty other things that need to be fought for too so don't think just because I don't go further in mentioning them they don't exist.

It seems to me that the people who are screaming about the SCOTUS are the ones saying "get behind the Dem candidate even if you don't like them".

I did that with Kerry and look what it got me. I will not compromise my principles ever again. And I certainly will not do it for some mock Democrat.

[still_one]

54. My friend all those issues most likely will go to the Supreme Court

Highly recommend the book The Nine, by Jeffrey Toobin

[cali]

57. it is about more than the SC, but the most efficacious

route to restoration of the Constitution is through the SC because the job of interpreting the Constitution is delegated to... that's right, the SC. How anyone posting here can fail to see that is mind boggling. In fact, Constitutional rights are decided by those who interpret the Constitution.

[sss1977]

52. 2008 is only about one single thing...

So it doesn't matter who the candidate is, what they think, the actions they've taken, the words they say, the concepts in which they believe, or how they stand on any of the issues no matter how important they are to you personally.

This is a presidential election of the United States. All that matters is the letter D in parantheses after someone's name. It's us or them, good or evil, black or white.

What's that? You consider yourself a person of principles? Well, kick those to the curb my friend, all that matters is the letter D...

:sarcasm:

We're not even past the primaries yet. At this point, I don't even want to think about being forced to vote Hillary.

[still_one]

55. First of all I am not pushing any candidate, and if you look at the latest polls

in Iowa and NH, it is an open race. Of the three leading candidates, no one has it in the bag

I was just referring to the Supreme Court, which incidently covers most of the issues that we are concerned about, from Iraq, to civil rights

All of the Democratic candidates will NOT choose judges like scalia and thomas

So the issue that should be facing Democrats is who they believe is best for the country, and has the best chance to win the general election.

I never said you should be forced to thing about voting for Hillary. What makes you think she is going to be the nominee? The only ones, other than their supporters, are the MSM media who have said it is going to be Hillary and rudy

Funny, but no matter what the rag media says, it isn't in the bag for the repugs either

Remember this is the same media who were an accessory to the illegal war we are in now

They are not counting the young people, and they will make all the difference

[Initech]

53. Abso-fucking-lutely!

If we get another Repuke president and he gets enough justices to carry out their wet dream - the overturning of Roe V. Wade, then we can pretty much kiss the rest of our freedoms goodbye.

[still_one]

56. Let's just nominate the best candidate, who is strongest on the issues

and then lets get out the vote so we won't have to worry about that nightmare

[mdmc]

61. I wonder which neocon will get to choose the next justice

HRC or some puke...

[Kablooie]

62. That's better tha the last two elections that have been about courting the extremes.