Why the Majority Matters

[mr715]

The Senate has the power to consent to the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

If you want a liberal Supreme Court Justice, you need a majority of the Senators to vote for that person (and by convention, a majority of the Judiciary committee).


Why do the Democrats need to hold the Senate? So Obama can appoint HIS choice for the Supreme Court, and not a compromise candidate.


Simple enough?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. There are definitely other reasons as well (but SCOTUS nominees are very important)

The ability to set the legislative agenda and prevent annoying and harassing *investigations* as well are pretty damn important reasons too. The best part about these things is that they don't require a certain number or progressivedems or conservadems- just a numerical majority of Dems period. While I loathe most of the Conservadems, the least that we can do is keep the Republicans from being able to REALLY stymie President Obama like they did with President Clinton- although how they were able to get away with spending millions of dollars *investigating* fake and/or trumped-up "scandals" involving President Clinton, Hillary, and his administration all the while claiming that THEY were the party of "fiscal responsibility" simply renders me stupefied. :banghead:

[mr715]

2. The individuals on this board...

that want the democrats to lose the majority are the ones complaining about the democrats compromising too much.

The only way to get OUT of compromise on the Supreme Court appointment process is to maintain our majority.


The biggest deal is setting the rules, controlling the agenda, setting committees, and who gets the nicest office.



MR

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. I tend to share your pragmatism

A "bad" Democrat is almost always 10X better than the "best" Republican and I'd rather that WE set the Congressional agenda instead of them. Unfortunately, not a lot of people here consider all of the ramifications ("the forest for the trees" as it were).

[KoKo]

3. That's why losing even the DINO's at this point is not good.

I don't know why our Party isn't being more agressive. We just stand by and watch all this going on, it seems. Byrd and Lautenberg might not make it to re-election. Who knows who else will decide to resign and the Party machine should be working full time to identify candidates who are vulnerable. Where is that Tim Kaine? And, Harold Ford just doesn't cut it...we can do better.

[mr715]

5. There are no DINOs

Democrats are Democrats.

Its a label, not a title.

I agree 100%.




MR

[T Wolf]

6. First - Obama has not and will never nominate a real liberal for the SC. Center-reich

is about as good as we will get from this WH.

Second, they have done shit with their "majority" and do not deserve to keep it, unless they do a complete turn-around and actually accomplish some positive things in the next nine months.

They have kept their powder dry for ever. It's long past time they actually fired off a few rounds - just to see and hear what it sounds like.

[mr715]

8. Here are the things wrong with your post.

1. Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. This is a legal and governmental office, not a political one. He should not be judged by appointing a qualified, intelligent, and legalistic justice. And she tends to agree with the liberal line.

2. Center-reich? A Nazi allusion.

3. The majority has passed a stimulus bill, SCHIP, and appointed a number of lower judicial offices. None of this would have been done with a Republican majority.

4. If the Democrats lose the majority, NOTHING will get done until Obama loses in 2012, when the Democrats will have a harder time holding seats. Then we'll have a single party state with a weakened and demoralized opposition.

[KoKo]

13. But who will be blamed if we lose this Fall and in 2012?

Who? Our Party, Our Message? Our Politicians? Our President? Or....the Republicans. :shrug:

[mr715]

14. Does it matter?

We lost in 2000 and it was whos fault?

Gores? Liebermans? The Media? Bush? Cheney? Florida?

We lost in 2004 and it was who's fault?


If we lose in 2012, we will lose in 2012 and we will complain for awhile about a stolen election. But its bull. If we lose, we lose. It doesnt matter why.

[KoKo]

15. Unless you know "Why" ....how can you move forward and fix problems?

:shrug:

[mr715]

16. What answer are you looking for?

Its all Herbert Hoover's fault.

The majority matters, and its ridiculous for democrats to favor sacrificing some of their best statesmen for ideological purity.

[polichick]

7. What's the difference between Obama's choices and "compromise candidates?"

That said, I'm all for keeping a Majority - but it's a mute point if the leaders refuse to use their power.

[mr715]

10. Hopefully we won't find out

Would you prefer Justice Ginsburg get replaced with another Justice Ginsburg or another Justice Sotomayor?




MR

[FrenchieCat]

9. I agree, and those who pretend not to understand the difference

don't understand anything, period.

See my new sig. That's what I'm talking about.
This is no game. We must work to keep majorities in both houses,
period. Everything else is pure bullshit.

[Oregone]

11. HIS choice for the Supreme Court may very well be a compromise candidate

[mr715]

12. Triangulation

If perfect is 100 and Obama wants a 50, we'll end up with a 50 if we control the Senate.

If perfect is 100 and Obama wants a 50, we'll end up with a 20 if we lose the Senate.

Losing the Senate means we lose our ability to force his hand.




MR