Skip to main content

View Diary: The SCOTUS Is Extraordinary: The Right To Choose (191 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We will LOSE (4.00)
    ...if we make this solely about abortion.  At best we gain nothing.

    Make this about the anti-consumer/anti-worker/anti-union philosophy of the nominee.

    DON'T BLAME ME; I VOTED FOR CLARK

    by DWCG on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:01:59 AM PDT

    •  We were thinking the same exact thing (none)
      I posted at the same time - great minds think alike!

      "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

      by adigal on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:04:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Um (none)
      This is not a vote for President or Senator.

      I am not at all sure how you plan to prove someone is anti-consumer, anti-union, etc.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:05:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Opinions (none)
        C'mon man.

        Take Priscilla Owen.  

        Would it really be that hard to show that she was a lackey for Enron/big business and anti-consumer/anti-working man?

        DON'T BLAME ME; I VOTED FOR CLARK

        by DWCG on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:10:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It won't be Owen or Brown or Gonzales (none)
          It's gonna be some unknown.

          My dark horse? John Cornyn.

          Which, actually, gives your approach a chance.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:16:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree - it will be a dark horse. (none)
            The White House already knows we have an extensive playbook for all of the likely nominees.

            DON'T BLAME ME; I VOTED FOR CLARK

            by DWCG on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:26:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Good idea (none)
            I had just come to the conclusion that Bush would probably not appoint any of the mentioned women, but would wait until Rehnquist is forced by health to retire next term and then pick Janice Brown, after she has some time to learn a little federal law and procedure.  And couple it with his elevation of Scalia.

            This one is more of a dress rehersal since, remember, they didn't have a Supreme Court pick the first term.  So a dark horse, politician rather than a judge, known conservative but not a total loon, makes some sense.  

            Don't know if Cornyn fits the bill, but this is probably the right track.

            "False language, evil in itself, infects the soul with evil." ----Socrates

            by Mimikatz on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:58:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Cornyn? (none)
            Thanks Armando, you just made me physically ill.

            It's the RULE OF LAW, stupid!

            by Rick Oliver on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 10:35:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  That's making a big assumption (none)
          What ever happened to the law?  

          Right now the law is pro-big business, anti-consumer, anti-working man.

          Priscilla Owens et all are judges.  

          If you want to simply destroy, that's fine.

          But I think a key step in making change and progress is to stop relying on the courts to undo damage done by legitimately passed Congressional acts.

          Widening the net and asking the courts to simply act as another voice of veto is not going to solve the problem long term!

          •  Umm what's your point? (none)
            And how does it relate to maximizing on this opportunity to expose the anti-Joe Citizen policies of this administration and Congress so as to provide Democrats ammunition to take back the legislative branch in '06 so if there is a vacancy in '07 we ensure it's a moderate (among other things)?

            DON'T BLAME ME; I VOTED FOR CLARK

            by DWCG on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 10:48:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Because... (none)
              ...because destryoing a persons career so you can score political points to win back some seats is petty, and Un-American.  If the person is judicially unacceptable, untenable to you for some specific reason, fine.  But holding some random judge accountable for CONGRESS'S failures, and destroying that persons career is bankrupt.

              It's not right, and on top of all that, it's probably not a good strategy.

              •  Awww well thats nice (none)
                Lets all book our trips to Never-Neverland, where everything is merit-based, battles are fair, and people do things in goodwill.

                Sorry, I live in the REAL WORLD with REAL PEOPLE who are REALLY AFFECTED by the legislation coming out of Congress - people that lose their jobs, home, children, marriages, healthcare and lives.  So I'm NOT going to apologize for CORRECTLY exposing and exploiting differences between the two parties IN DEFENSE of the working class of this country.

                DON'T BLAME ME; I VOTED FOR CLARK

                by DWCG on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 11:15:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Snark aside (none)
                  So I'm NOT going to apologize for CORRECTLY exposing and exploiting differences between the two parties IN DEFENSE of the working class of this country.

                  Great.  But if you subvert the system by turning the courts into another version of Congress - which is what is happening by your actions and similiar actions of people around the country - then be bitching when the Democrats are a permanent minority party.



                  Judges have to act based on the legal merits of the case.  If not, they aren't good judges.  Congress is doing a piss-poor job, and if you are pissed about that, take it up with them.  Trying to stack the courts with people who you think will carry out "our" agenda is going to destroy the last credible branch of government.  



                  The job of the judiciary is not to defend the working class of this country.  Don't forget that.
                  •  I'm blaming them both! (none)
                    Trying to stack the courts with people who you think will carry out "our" agenda is going to destroy the last credible branch of government.

                    You should get on your knees and pray that a great Democrat - Franklin D. Roosevelt stacked the court with people who shared his ideological views.

                    DON'T BLAME ME; I VOTED FOR CLARK

                    by DWCG on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 05:46:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, actually (none)
                      No, actually, I curse him for that.  And not because I hate the New Deal, but because starting a little bit before him and ever since the court has been far more politicized than it was in the first half of this countries history.



                      Popular laws that are unconstitutional should be struck.  Unpopular laws that are constitutional should be upheld.



                      The proper way to circumvent a SCOTUS ruling you don't like is to pass an amendment.  The proper was is not to rehash the case again and again and pass various skirting laws attempting to get around the ruling.



                      Unfortunately now we are very far from that.
              •  And let's not fool ourselves (none)
                Supreme Court Justice are as much legislators as the Senators who confirm them.

                DON'T BLAME ME; I VOTED FOR CLARK

                by DWCG on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 11:17:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Only because (none)
                  Only because you and your ilk make them so.



                  Unpopular laws that get to the courts deserve to be upheld.  Even if bad for individuals, or freedom, or you or me or blacks or some other group.  



                  Your beef is with Congress.  
                  •  LOL - Me and my ilk! (none)
                    I didn't start the fight, but I'm damn sure not going to back away from it, and I intend on winning it.  You're fine getting your ass kicked and that's noble.  But take the argument to your closest Ivy League campus political science class.  Meanwhile, I'll be on the street looking at the people affected by these corporate whores on the court and in our legislature.

                    And don't pretend like these nine people are just saints with their hands being forced.  No one made them end the recount of presidential ballots.  And don't even get me started with preposterous statements like this:

                    Unpopular laws that get to the courts deserve to be upheld.  Even if bad for individuals, or freedom, or you or me or blacks or some other group.

                    You sound ridiculous equating Brown v. Board to the ruling that corporations are people.

                    DON'T BLAME ME; I VOTED FOR CLARK

                    by DWCG on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 05:42:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Wrong. (none)
                      You're fine getting your ass kicked and that's noble.

                      Who says I am getting my ass kicked?



                      Meanwhile, I'll be on the street looking at the people affected by these corporate whores on the court and in our legislature

                      Let's see how your "fight every battle like it was the last, whether or not its the appropriate venue for the fight" attitude has gotten your side.  Let's see.. a big pile of nothing.  Loss after loss.  On every issue.  Everytime.  

                      You sound ridiculous equating Brown v. Board to the ruling that corporations are people.

                      What's silly and assine is pretending the court is there to fix your little problems.  It's not.  That's the job of CONGRESS.  CONGRESS.



                      Making the courts a political battle is what got us here in the first place.  

    •  not to disagree... (none)
      ...but i just saw a poll on cnn that 65% of americans want bush to appoint a judge who will uphold roe.  only 29% wants some nut who will overturn roe.  i wish i had i link, but i saw it on the tv.

      "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

      by tmendoza on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:05:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We have to capitalize on this opportunity for 06 (none)
        We've been holding on to our healthy majority in Congress using the abortion issue, have we?

        Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.  It doesn't work - its not even an issue with this nomination - so I don't know why we'd expect it to work now.

        Additionally, we've got a lot of Democratic Senators up for re-election and some weak Republican incumbents in states that don't have such clear support of Roe v. Wade.  Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Missouri.  We have to think: what would filibustering a nominee because of their position on choice do to Robert Byrd, Kent Conrad or Ben Nelson?

        Making this solely about abortion leaves the three of them with ABSOLUTELY NO cover.  So, they'll cross the aisle - they'll be forced to.

        We need to paint these bastards as anti-Joe Citizen - WHICH THEY ARE - to find some new ground to stand on in this fight, gain some populist support, and give 40 Senators cover.

        ...gotta go...Kennedy is speaking.

        DON'T BLAME ME; I VOTED FOR CLARK

        by DWCG on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:25:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site