Who nominated them, and how they voted...

[Skinner]

Key:
Supreme Court Justices who were nominated by Republican presidents are in [font color="red"]red[/font].
Supreme Court Justices who were nominated by Democratic presidents are in [font color="blue"]blue[/font].

List of Justices who voted to STRIKE DOWN caps on total campaign giving:
[font color="red"]John Roberts
Samuel Alito
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas
Antonin Scalia[/font]

List of Justices who voted to KEEP caps on total campaign giving:
[font color="blue"]Elena Kagan
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Sonia Sotomayor[/font]

[handmade34]

1. K&R

....

[zappaman]

2. Kinda says it all, don't it?

[kelliekat44]

139. Thomas is the sorriest excuse for a human as I ever knew. nt

[RainDog]

3. k&r n/t

[cali]

4. and that is a powerful point.

[Enthusiast]

74. The point is those justices in red are Fascist.

They believe money should trump democracy.

These are bad people.

They would hurt a helpless kitten or a puppy and enjoy the suffering.

They are traitors to the founding spirit of this nation.

They are not fit to be on the bench. No bench. Even the Group W Bench. There are better father rapers on the Group W Bench than these Republican appointed Fascist so-called justices.

[FSogol]

5. Kick and rec. This is why voting Democratic in EVERY election matters.

[cali]

14. we don't agree on much, but that we do agree on- at least when it comes

to the Presidency.

* I live in Vermont. We have an active 3rd party which is even further to the left than the dems here- and we've got the leftiest dems in the country. Voting for Vermont Progressive Party members, who are in both houses, does NOT mean repubs get in. In fact, repbublican is such a frowned upon concept/party, that several repub legislators are switching to independent.

[sufrommich]

6. The endless money they've just rewarded their comrades

will keep the court conservative,I'm afraid.

[PowerToThePeople]

7. Fascists suck..

[Enthusiast]

75. They have no positive attributes.

The only good Fascist is a..........................................

[Jefferson23]

8. Should be made into a poster for 2014 campaigns. n/t

[blue neen]

11. Good point.

n/t.

[think]

13. +1 /nt

[LuvNewcastle]

31. It definitely should be shown during the campaign.

The Democrats, if they had any real organization, would portray themselves as the party of reform. I'm telling you, that's what people want. They are fucking sick of the way our government has been conducting itself, and they want to see some real change.

That's what people voted for in 2008, and they didn't get it, or they didn't nearly enough. Half-measures aren't going to work anymore. Democrats should be willing to really turn the heat up in this election. Bring up Bush and everything about his disgraceful administration and tie it to the Republican Party. Make sure people hear that there would be change already if the Republicans weren't blocking it at every turn. Name every important bill they've blocked. What do Democrats have to lose, after all? If Democrats are going down, they at least need to go down fighting.

[Jefferson23]

45. Yea, there is no advantage in using a subtle approach. I would prefer we first state what we

are for, but I totally get your point.

[Enthusiast]

76. "that's what people want"

Right on!

We can get specific too. We can say, "We are for getting the money out of politics."

A majority of Americans are with us. No one likes where the country is now.

[BeyondGeography]

9. And we have people here who say keeping the White House doesn't matter

Right here, right now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024769000#post15

[sufrommich]

15. Burning stupidity on display,for sure. nt

[Enthusiast]

79. Oh, it totally matters.

That's why we do not want Hillary Clinton. Because we want to solve problems like money in elections, education and trade policy.

[dbackjon]

89. And you really think she would appoint a Scalia?

You are out of touch with reality

[bluestate10]

152. You can't reason with a person that writes such shit. Spend your

time working on convincing Democratic leaning Independents to get out and vote instead of sitting at home, at least then you will be dealing with someone that is capable of broad analysis.

[treestar]

47. Some people really know how to shoot themselves in the foot

Or their alleged selves.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

122. Sad

[bluestate10]

151. As far as I am concerned, people that have that view are beyond stupid

and we shouldn't waste time on them, infinitely more will be gained by working to get Democratic leaning Independents excited about voting.

[enlightenment]

10. Thanks, Skinner.

I was just getting ready to look for that information.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. In red and blue

Clear as day . . .

[jwirr]

16. Another nail in the coffin of the gop. More proof that they are deliberately destroying the USA.

[Brigid]

20. Not a nail in the GOP's coffin.

A nail in democracy's coffin.

[jwirr]

22. Well I was hoping this would smarten the voters up.

[pnwmom]

62. How is being exposed to an unlimited number of Rethug ads going to smarten voters up?

[dickthegrouch]

72. Excellent question

My problem is, they "had" to do this otherwise they'd have been voting their way of life right out of the window. It should be voted out of the window, but they are far too invested in their own wealth and power to vote against their self interest.

Term Limits for Supreme Court "Justices". NOW!

[Hoyt]

68. I wish, but it is not. There are lots of people who think the decision is patriotic, and similar BS.

All of us here see it as destroying the USA. The millions of right wingers, see it as preserving their vision of America, demented as it is.

[joshcryer]

17. Great post!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

19. Didn't we already know this? What am I missing? nt

[handmade34]

50. "What am I missing?"

that the majority of people need visuals

[Cha]

114. That some people desperately need reminders that the Dems are not the same as recons and

Skinner is laying it out there in red white and BLUE.

[freshwest]

144. So did Bill Maher. He defined the reason Democrats exist. We have a mission:

In The Great Divide Between Democrats and Republicans, Some Words From Bill Maher To Remember...

"Democrats in America were put on Earth to do one thing... drag the ignorant, hillbilly half of this country into the next century, which in their case, is the 19th."

~Bill Maher

[Cha]

148. Excellent fresh! the Supreme Court and Global Climate Change to name another

extremely importantly DIFFERENCE between Dems and Neanderthals.

[joshcryer]

115. "There is no difference between the parties," is the common theme.

[Octafish]

18. Money trumps democracy.

And peace.

[UtahLib]

21. The good (blue), the bad (red) and the ugly (red) for America. nt

[Autumn]

23. Those five red names? They need to be impeached

They are completely corrupt. This process is not working.

[defacto7]

161. I strongly agree. n/t

[Brigid]

24. I don't know what more need be said.

[Ichingcarpenter]

25. Please also note the democrats that voted fo

John Roberts
Samuel Alito
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas

It ain't pretty.

John Roberts... 22 Democrats voted for him


Samuel Alito 4 democrats


Antonin Scalia
All democrats voted for him


Clarence ....11 democrats voted him in.

[Autumn]

30. Oh wow. The only one I had really followed was Thomas

That was disgusting enough. I had to look that up about Scalia because I just didn't quite believe you. confirmed 98–0 on September 17, 1986

[JoePhilly]

34. 1986 was a long time ago ... back when a President's nominees tended to sail through with little

problem.

[Autumn]

35. Obviously 1986 was a long time ago.

[Ichingcarpenter]

37. So it doesn't count....

lol..........

[Autumn]

40. Blows the mind doesn't it.

Just Scalia shows that this supreme court is outdated and changes need to be made. They should not be appointed for life.

[JoePhilly]

38. I think if the Dems who let Scalia sail through back then had any idea Scalia

would be little more than a political appointee, they'd have voted differently.

This is one of the areas the founders missed. They thought a life time appointment would make one more likely to rule objectively. Scalia demonstrates that's not the case at all. And Republican Presidents since Reagan have made sure to appoint ideologues.

[bullwinkle428]

41. Robert Bork?

[JoePhilly]

46. That's part of why I said "tended" to sail through.

To get a lot of push back, a nominee had to really stand out on some issue. Bork did. And his support / opposition in the Senate didn't follow strict party lines.

Kennedy's nomination, which replaced Bork's, also passed unanimously.

[Enthusiast]

81. Just how bad was he?

All but wearing the Iron Cross.

[Blue_Tires]

61. Roberts was the really big shock at the time

But Senate dems in those 2004-06 years were the most toothless and slavish "opposition" party in history...

[Enthusiast]

80. Excellent point.............nt

[Cali_Democrat]

93. Obama opposed both Roberts and Alito

Good for him.

[Ichingcarpenter]

96. Ted Kennedy lead the charge

and yes Obama did good.

[Cali_Democrat]

98. Damn I miss Ted Kennedy. nt

[polichick]

95. This is important - often Dems are complicit in the corporate takeover.

[Cha]

118. Yes, Russ Feingold voted for John Roberts.. not the point of the OP.

[Ichingcarpenter]

124. So Senate votes don't count?

Could have fooled me

Russ was also the only senator
to vote against the Patriot Act.

And you should acknowledge that.

[Cha]

127. I said it wasn't the point of Skinner's OP.

[Ichingcarpenter]

128. Oh you speak for skinner now?

good thing to know.

[mzmolly]

125. No Roberts or Alito to approve

had a President Gore been the nominee. I often wonder why those who don't use their own votes wisely chasten others for doing the same.

Please note - the majority of Democrats voted against both.

[Ichingcarpenter]

126. I gave the data

Please note

Senate votes have consequences
I acknowledged Skinner's post by giving it one of the first nominations.

I don't care for third rail democrats
who give in to republicans.

ANY NEITHER SHOULD YOU.

[mzmolly]

138. I don't care for third rail liberals.

I wonder if the dems who voted to approve the nominees in question also believed "there is no difference...."

[DCBob]

157. Completely irrelevant.

Creating a huge stink and blocking any of those RW assholes would have resulted in what??

Answer: another RW asshole.

[ecstatic]

179. The point is, you want your side to be the one making the NOMINATIONS

There's zero chance of a liberal justice being nominated by a right wing president, no matter how many filibusters etc. take place. While I don't agree with those votes, had they filibustered those nominees, other RW thugs would have been nominated in their place. There's no way around it if there's a republican president. I'm sure the more liberal justices received republican votes as well.

[Trust Buster]

26. Alito's opinion in the Citizen's United case was that.......

.........transparency of donors would be self-regulating. The Democrats tried to pass the Disclose Act and the Republicans filibustered it. The Republicans are also resisting IRS efforts to add transparency to the tax-exempt status of PACS. Republicans LOVE their "dark" money. Alito was either naive or patently dishonest. You make the call.

[Jackpine Radical]

29. Alito is not naive.

What does that leave?

[Enthusiast]

83. I'll make the call.

Alito was a liar.

Even if we had complete transparency Citizens United still usurped our democracy.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

27. Kick n Rec n/t

[hrmjustin]

28. Voting is important and voting for democrats is important.

[billh58]

32. This same right-wing Gang of Five

have pushed majority opinions through on other nefarious decisions as well. Until we Liberal Democrats can take back all three branches of government, Americans will continue to suffer from right-wing greed and corruption.

[Avalux]

33. I know it's wrong to wish for unfortunate accidents....

but for the love of this country, I wish at least one of those names in red would meet one.

[ladjf]

59. The loss would immediately be replaced by another "like minded" judge.nt

[sufrommich]

65. No,it wouldn't. Obama would never replace

any of the right wing nut SC justices with another right wing nut. That's ridiculous.

[ladjf]

78. I wasn't implying that Obama would appoint a right wing judge.

But, the Republicans would delay his appointment for as long as the law would allow, with the hopes of rep lancing Obama with a Republican.

[jeff47]

121. That would be just fine. A 4-4 tie means this ruling doesn't happen.

(If the SCOTUS rules in a tie vote, the lower court's ruling stands)

[Avalux]

73. No, Obama would appoint the replacement. n/t

[certainot]

36. today's successful limbaugh boycott efforts would have kept thomas off the bench if used then in

defense of anita hill, who was attacked by limbaugh in very similar terms as sandra fluke.

it would have changed the whole political landscape the last 20 years, along with the "acceptability" of supremes, if limbaugh had been jumped on then, taken seriously, and he and the hundreds of think tank scripted blowhards following in his footsteps hadn't been give a free speech free ride.

never mind.... just dreaming

[LiberalEsto]

39. In other words, Republicans HATE democracy

and will do everything in their power to destroy it.

[barbtries]

69. that's right

it's really true, not just a slogan. people need to really understand that republicans are willfully destroying our democracy.

[Enthusiast]

86. They actually have destroyed our democracy.

[barbtries]

112. i don't want to believe

that it can't be restored. but today is not a good day for that.

[Enthusiast]

113. Oh, it can be restored. But we must first overcome voter suppression and apathy.

Then the Democrats, when they are elected, must make voting reform a top priority.

And when they do this, they must keep corporate influence to a complete minimum.

Because corporations have proven time and again that they have no respect for the democratic process.

[Enthusiast]

85. They appear to prefer some weird kind of Machiavellian Fascism.

One with record setting wasteful military spending and cronyism. A nation with tens of millions of dirt poor people willing to work for nothing and beholden to their betters.

[Arkansas Granny]

42. Well, color me surprised. . . . . . . . . . . . . not.

[mountain grammy]

43. 5 red justices corrupt to the core bought and paid for. Hobby Lobby is licking their chops

to use Greg Palast words a vulture's picnic.

[SunSeeker]

44. K & R

[rustbeltrefugee]

48. Our outrage

Our outrage is mainly kept among ourselves. I only learned about this from this site. The media has said nothing of it. I promise I will bring this up at work to the righties that I work with and they will know nothing of which I speak. They will be railing against ACA, but this, which just eliminated our democracy for all intents and purposes, will be new news to them. I'm not advocating for violence
but....

[2banon]

64. Nina Totenberg on NPR was covering this story just a bit ago.

I often refer to NPR as National Pentagon Radio, especially the past decade. Supreme court Justice is Nina Totenberg's beat. It will also be given significant attention on PBS News Hour tonight.

If the rest of the Media isn't covering it, well it's not in their interest is it? After all striking down campaign laws is a huge boondoggle, making "Election Season" all the more lucrative than ever.

[rudolph the red]

49. Really brings home the importance of voting

[handmade34]

52. and

helping all of our friends and family to vote!!

[rudolph the red]

55. Indeed!

[stage left]

51. k&R

[OmahaBlueDog]

53. I can only hope that at the end of this term, Bader-Ginsburg and Breyer (if no one else) retire.

That way, the President can at least nominate two more justices before the 2014 mid-terms, and we can keep that blue number at at least four.

I still hold out hope that President Obama can nominate replacements for Kennedy and Scalia.

[TDale313]

54. K & R

[Tarheel_Dem]

56. It matters who's in the White House.

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. Which, graphically, underscores ...

why voting "D" (even Blue-dog D) is so very, very important.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

136. Exactly

A majority of D's gives us control (ie allows us to set the agenda) in the respective legislative body.

[freshwest]

142. Nailed it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

58. The GOP justices do nothing but promote the GOP ideology. Thank you for posting this nt

[msanthrope]

60. The Midterms matter. nt

[whatchamacallit]

63. Point taken. n/t

[Savannahmann]

66. It is also the confirmation

Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito were confirmed by a Senate that was Majority Democratic. So Rethugs nominated them, but Democrats confirmed them.

We did prevent the confirmation of Bork, but not all of them.

[SalviaBlue]

67. K&R

[CaliforniaPeggy]

70. Thank you for this. It really brings the message home. n/t

[DeadLetterOffice]

71. K&R

And THIS is why, in the WH at least, the crappiest Democrat will always be better than the best Republican.

[Zorra]

77. That is the only reason any decent person ever really needs to always vote for the Democratic

candidate for President.

[Botany]

82. FYI

But we have reason to hope

Scalia ..... 78

Kennedy .... 77 78 in July

Thomas ..... 66 in June .... and he acts like a very old man already.

Roberts ...... 59 but he might have some health problem

Please remember the demographics are brutal to the GOP from here on out into
the future ..... even in red states

[Firebrand Gary]

84. K&R

[Dalai_1]

87. Kick!n/t

[Gothmog]

88. If a Republican wins in 2016 and gets to replace Kennedy

We can say goodbye to Roe v Wade. In addition, I would not be surprised to see the SCOTUS strike down Section 2 and 3 of the Voting Rights Act.

[AlinPA]

106. Absolutely. We can say goodbye to the Civil Rights Act. All of it.

[DCBob]

146. Im convinced striking down the voting rights act is a key part of their takeover strategy.

These bastards know they cant win national and some state-wide elections legitimately.

[lark]

90. I really really hate them,

the Supreme Court that killed democracy and stomped on the dying carcass. The Felonious Five can go fuck themselves.

[Bobbie Jo]

91. BINGO- Elections have consequences.

K&R

[dsc]

92. Hard to believe that in our lifetimes we had such Republicans

as Brennan, Blackman, Stevens, and Souter serving and on the downside such Democrats as White. I think we can safely assume never again will we see the likes of those justices appointed by their respective parties.

[daleanime]

94. K&R....

[1000words]

97. Keep supporting Third Way candidates

I'm sure it'll get better.

[Cha]

116. I see this whole thing went right over your "third way" head like it has anything whatsoever to

Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 10:09 PM - Edit history (1)

do with the OP.

[bluestate10]

153. Don't waste your time. There are other options available besides

trying to convince a person not to shoot democracy in the head because of their perception that they are far purer than anyone else.

[Cha]

155. Oh, I'm not trying to convince the purists.. just letting them know their little

tap dancing top spinning routine isn't fooling anyone but the ..

[2banon]

99. Skinner, I don't know if you noticed, but Thomas wouldn't have made it through were it not for Biden

And Scalia well.. every single Dem voted along with the Repukes.

That has to be pointed out.

That said, it is important to understand how significant SCOTUS is and to hold that alone as the prize in every election.

[1000words]

101. ^^^This^^^

[Zorra]

102. A Dem POTUS means never having to confirm a fascist for SCOTUS. nt

[2banon]

109. True. Let's move to remove Thomas and Scalia for legal and ethics violations before it's too late.

[Iliyah]

137. For one thing Thomas should always recuse himself when anything is up for consideration

concerning Obamacare because of this wife. Its called conflict of interest.

[JI7]

103. a Dem Pres would not nominate Scalia , if Biden was PRes he would not have nominated Scalia

sorry, but this is like claiming a republican president would have nominated the more liberal justices because there may have been some republican senators who voted to confirm them.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

105. I agree. It's an absurd suggestion. nt

[2banon]

108. Of course that's true.. I didn't say Obama or any Democratic Party member for that matter

would have nominated these cretins. My point was that we need to be vigilant regarding all nominees to SCOTUS, which until IF and when there's ever a change to a term limit, these people in for their entire life - unless of course they choose to resign.

Scalia and Thomas should have been removed from SCOTUS for legal and ethics violations. Apparently our Democratic party leadership have no interest in doing so, even when they have the majority.

[DCBob]

150. You really think they would have nominated someone reasonable as an alternative??

Get real.. they probably would dragged out an even bigger RW asshole.

[Cha]

119. "But But But.. Russ Feingold voted for John Roberts so the OP is

invalid "

[fascisthunter]

111. Which Means we need to vote for more Liberals and Progressives

that we need to rid the corporate tools who undermine our party.

[2banon]

129. agree n/t

[JI7]

132. like Russ Feingold who voted to confirm ?

[fascisthunter]

133. Well, You Got me There

but I'll vote for a progressive or liberal before I vote for a known corporate candidate. I'll guess my chances of getting someone who represents my values are greater that way. All in all, being informed about a politicians views and what they support are key. It's not a guarantee, but it's better than blindly voting for someone.

[JI7]

134. hahha

[Cha]

117. Oh right.. Skinner wouldn't have "noticed" that.. which has nothing to do with the point in

his OP.

Here's another one for you.. Russ Feingold voted for John Roberts.

[Hippo_Tron]

158. Using the Senate to block nominations based on ideology has serious consequences

You've seen those consequences on display for the past 6 years as Republicans have basically blocked every single Obama nominee that they possibly can.

And even IF a Democratic Senate pulled its weight to force a Republican President to nominate a moderate nominee, a moderate nominee would vote like Kennedy who is almost as bad as the right wingers. A Republican President will not nominate Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Elana Kagan. They won't even nominate David Souter or Sandra Day O'Connor in this day and age, and they sure as hell won't nominate John Paul Stevens.

In order to get good justices we need a Democratic President, end of story.

[2banon]

160. Of course, but you're preaching to the choir..

I've been watching these proceedings for decades. my original points remain. When we have the power to block the most odious, then we should. We did with Bork, and should have done with Thomas. Scalia was a known snake in the grass, yet he slithered in with a unanimous vote. I just don't understand the resistance to block when appropriate.

Editing to add, and I really don't understand the reluctance to impeach and indict sitting justices that do not recuse themselves whenever there's a blatant conflict of interest, and/or ethical and legal wrong doing. Both Thomas and Scalia in that regard.

[questionseverything]

177. thomas did not report money given to his wife by tea baggers for years

impeach and indict is good by me!!!!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

100. goddamn effing pukes.

[AAO]

104. I could prove how many good swear words I know, but whats the point now?

Someone has to retire or die, or democracy is doomed.

[steve2470]

107. excellent point nt

[Stellar]

110. I know this sounds harsh but,

I wish some of those Republicans would come up missing!

[OKNancy]

120. Wrote in another thread, but will repeat: Hillary voted against Alito and Roberts n/t

[Cha]

130. Good on her, Nancy and so did the current President.

[spanone]

123. it's the legacy of Presidents. it's the shit that keeps on giving.

couldn't be clearer.

[blm]

131. It's a shame you should even feel the NEED to post this.

The 'no difference' trolls have been working overtime to damn this nation to a fascist future.

[bluestate10]

154. I said fuck the "no difference" people in the 2010 Gubernatorial

election in my state when the "no difference" crowd would have happily elected a republican if Independents hadn't stepped up big and re-elected the Democrat, with help from sane, true Democrats. My state dodged a Scott Walker bullet, the republican is a carbon copy of Walker.

[Cha]

156. Bing-GO! Yeah, I wonder why Skinner felt the need to state the Obvious on THE

Democratic Underground Board? Hmmm

thanks blm The "no difference trolls" are full of ignorant bullpucky.

[ecstatic]

181. Either they're trolls or

the leftwing equivalent of Sarah Palin.

[William769]

135. Kick & highly recommended.

[blkmusclmachine]

140. DEMS helped CONFIRM many of the baddies, too. Just pointing that out.

[sheshe2]

141. Kicked and Recommending!

[BumRushDaShow]

143. K&R

[baldguy]

145. Anyone who says Democrats are the same as Republicans has LOST THEIR FUCKING MIND!

[Liberal_in_LA]

147. Ralph nader

[bluestate10]

149. Your fact still won't convince the DUERs who vote their "principles"

regardless of the threat. If a republican comes after President Obama, we could end up with a 9-0 red court one day soon. If a Democrat takes the Presidency after President Obama, we have a chance of finally building a permanent blue majority.

[NYC_SKP]

159. This is, above all other things, we need to GOTV! (nt)

[Rex]

162. Ugh.

Republicans... Just hand the keys to the city, to the highest bidder! Only one degree away from being total barbarians.

[Cha]

163. Let's Hear From Sen Russ Feingold on Why He Voted For John Roberts..

snip//

"He told the committee, "Judge Roberts's impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an ideological agenda to the position of Chief Justice of the United States and that he should be confirmed."

And, why Senator Ted Kennedy didn't..

"In explaining his decision to vote against Roberts, Kennedy specifically mentioned Feingold's pointed questioning of Roberts.

Recalling the discussion of the Roberts's efforts to block the strengthening of the Voting Rights Act when the nominee served in Ronald Reagan's administration, the Massachusetts senator noted that, "Both Senator Feingold and I tried to find out whether he came to agree with the strengthened Voting Rights Act after President Reagan signed it into law. Even when Senator Feingold asked whether Judge Roberts would acknowledge today that he had been wrong to oppose (limits on the ability of minorities to seek protection under the Voting Rights Act), he refused to give a yes-or-no answer."

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0923-25.htm

And from then Senator Barack Obama..

snip//

"I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn't like bullies and he sees the law and the court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124390047073474499

Thanks Skinner.. so much attempt to deflect from the difference between a gop and a Dem President and the reality of what kind of person a Dem President nominates for SCOTUS and what kind a Republican President does. I thought I would bring some quotes from Dem Senators on why they did or didn't vote for Bush's nominee, John Roberts.. for an example of why it's vitally important who the President is .. as to whom these Senators will be voting for..

[BlindTiresias]

164. Hate to break it to you

But the supreme court has more often than not directly acted against the interests of the people and only does the right thing when pressed. Expecting the simple drive for more democrats to reverse this is trivially true but getting there over a long enough time is a forever war: It literally cannot be won.

[Cha]

165. Aren't you just a ray of pessimism. and, you're not "breaking" anything to Skinner, fyi.

[BlindTiresias]

166. Sorry

Just what the historical record of the supreme court shows. The claim is true but only trivially so as it is largely unachievable.

[Cha]

167. We'll see what is achievable. If you have a crystal ball I maintain it's murky.

[TBF]

170. Let's see some cites on this -

show me some cases in which the majority goes against the people (and I want the breakdown of who appointed the judges).

[BlindTiresias]

173. Ok

The supreme court was extremely hostile to FDR's new deal policies until he threatened to pack the courts. They did not change position out of the goodness of their hearts but were expressly coerced into upholding the laws necessary for the success of more or less the entire foundation of the modern Democratic party.

[TBF]

174. That's a description -

not a court case.

Look, this activist court has given us Citizens United and now McCutcheon. I can only imagine what they will do with Hobby Lobby. Trying to suppress the vote by indicating that it doesn't really matter who is appointed to the court is not a position I welcome. Maybe others are fine with it but that is how I read what you're writing. And we need to GOTV to stop these horrific decisions if for no other reason - we can not risk another Scalia being appointed to the court.

[BlindTiresias]

178. What?

I was pretty sure that the supreme court hostility to FDR was common knowledge to anyone who spent any time studying constitutional law and supreme court cases?

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan
Carter v. Carter Coal

More or less any supreme court ruling in the time of FDR before 1937 dealing with FDR's new deal policy initiatives was hostile to the concept and needed to be directly coerced in order to start supporting the laws. You saw similar hostility to Theodore Roosevelt among the supreme court. Simply put the supreme court is NOT a friend of the people and has done more harm than good by a large margin.

My point is nuanced: You can not rely on the highly unlikely event you can get enough supreme court justices on the bench as it is highly unpredictable and requires many things to line up perfectly. It is an important component but not the sole component.

[TBF]

180. I'm not a con law scholar -

that is why I asked for cases. I understand what you are saying now and that's fine. Right now however you will see that folks on this site are not happy with the way the cases are going and we have an election coming up. Even though it's unpredictable as to when judges will be appointed (and of course how long they will serve) we'd like to be in the best possible situation and that means getting out the vote.

[TBF]

183. "Simply put the supreme court

is NOT a friend of the people"

Have had some time to look at this further as I am not convinced that all hope is gone and that the Supremes are just bound to the corporations - and I found this entry:

Warren Court

The Warren Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States between 1953 and 1969, when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. Warren's predecessor Fred M. Vinson (b. 1890) had died on September 8, 1953 after 2,633 days in this position (see here).

Warren led a liberal majority that used judicial power in dramatic fashion, to the consternation of conservative opponents. The Warren Court expanded civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power, and the federal power in dramatic ways.

The court was both applauded and criticized for bringing an end to racial segregation in the United States, incorporating the Bill of Rights (i.e. including it in the 14th Amendment Due Process clause), and ending officially sanctioned voluntary prayer in public schools. The period is recognized as a high point in judicial power that has receded ever since, but with a substantial continuing impact.

Prominent members of the Court during the Warren era besides the Chief Justice included Justices William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, and John Marshall Harlan II.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Court


So, any comment on that from you?

[BlindTiresias]

184. Yeah

The Warren court was part of some truly exceptional courts and largely followed on the heels of the progressive movement that reigned from 1941-1969. Just like the New Deal period that preceded the Warren Court this should be understood as something of an aberration and something one really should not rely on happening again due to peculiar historical circumstances. Probably the most important factor among these is the progressive liberal but especially the socialist/communist movements as well as large scale union advocacy is dead, gone, and is likely never coming back. Without that kind of strong opposition using a radical, alternative model of society as a replacement you can expect more courts like the ones the Hughes court and Taney court.

It should be noted that this progressive renaissance only lasted about 28 years, actually ending before the Warren court itself ended, which is now less than the right wing resurgence now approaching forty years in duration. This should be extremely disturbing to leftists and should make one very weary of arguments that state the right wing will just naturally fade away. Not only are they here to stay, but they have essentially won as even Democrats argue on their terms and all indicators point to a -more- right wing society, -more- right wing policies, and -more- right wing supreme courts with the Democrats desperately trying to play defense but largely unable due to a total lack of alternative framework and an unwillingness of the Democratic leadership to build one.

[SunsetDreams]

168. DAMN!!!

This seriously pissing me off. I am so sick of hearing the parties are the same. BULLSHIT!

[Cha]

182. Hey Sunset.. :(

http://theobamadiary.com/2014/04/03/rise-and-shine-789/

[Progressive dog]

169. So if we want more decisions like that one,

we should keep trying to convince Democrats that both sides are the same. If we don't want more decisions like that, we could work for Democrats by what we say, rather than against them.
If a justice should retire while a Democrat is still President and the Republicans take the Senate in 2014, think about what will happen.

[Cha]

171. KIck

[cer7711]

172. Time to Change the Number of Sitting Supremes?

Last edited Thu Apr 3, 2014, 03:03 PM - Edit history (2)

Time for President Obama to pull a modified FDR?

Announce that his administration is going to work to increase the number of sitting Supreme Court Justices to, oh . . . say 20.

Then work to get at least 10 new solidly progressive/liberal-ruling justices on the bench. Or at the very least professionals trained in the law who won't continually side with power against the people, each and every time they rule.

Not going to happen, of course. But seriously, folks--we're running out of options here . . .

What's the next ruling going to be? "Sexual thoughts are people, my friend!"

[TBF]

175. It's definitely been discussed before. nt

[Auntie Bush]

176. If only Kennedy didn't vote with the unfair/lousey/Republicican Justices.

The sad thing is even if Ginsburg and Breyer retired we'd still only have 4 voting for Democrats. Damn, If only Gore hadn't been screwed out of the presidency! We not only wouldn't have the idiot five SCJ but we wouldn't have all the wars either...not to mention the deficit. It's sickening how he and Cheney screwed America. I get sick thinking about it.