Home | About | Donate

Election 2016 and the Importance of the Supreme Court


#1

Election 2016 and the Importance of the Supreme Court

David Morris

Many of us disagree with Hillary Clinton on a number of issues, in some cases intensely. But there is one overarching reason we should be vigorously supporting her election: The future of the Supreme Court is at stake.

An ardent Bernie supporter to whom I expressed this sentiment responded that the wounds are still fresh. Bernie’s legions “are not ready to be told (as they are every four years) that the election ‘is’ of ‘should be’ or ‘must be’ all about the Supreme Court,” he asserts.


#2

This is the exact same argument in EVERY presidential election. You have to vote for these corporate-run candidates that were shoved down your throat because the supreme court could tip.

Every president for the past 30 years has had 2 justices on the court. This one has a shot of having 3-4.

While the supreme court is a major issue, the larger issue is that the Democrats are pushing this country further and further right by their constant capitulation to big money'ed interests. They don't even pretend to fight for things that would help the majority of this country and only focus on what will help their big campaign donors. Electing Clinton, the original architect of this rightward shift, will only ensure that we get another 8+ years of selling out the 99%.

The court is not the reason that we repealed glass steigel and blew up the economy, or are pushing for more war with Syria/Russia/Iran/China, or sold american manufacturing off to places that pay $1/day, or started a new Jim Crow by putting millions of black people in jail for minor offenses. Those were all the Clintons, along with so much more.

Give me a break on the supreme court arguments - start nominating candidates who will fight for the people we will support them. until then, goodbye democrats and your lesser evil crap.


#4

Well then. I guess the DNC shouldn't have cheated in order to install the weakest candidate. It makes the argument from political blackmail even less reasonable than before.


#6

When Justice John Paul Stevens (appointed by GOP President Ford in 1975) retired in 2010 ALL pundits, left and right, agreed that he was at that time the most progressive justice on the Court at that time, despite two Clinton and one Obama appointees serving in 2010 (Carter never had the opportunity to make a SCOTUS appointment).

Obama appointee Elena Kagen who replaced Stevens is less progressive than the two Clinton and one previous Obama appointee.

The SCOTUS appointment argument that held water four decades ago is no longer valid.


#8

It is like people are either easily manipulated by appearances or they simply cannot take the long view. All those who shout 'Vote Jill' now even though she cannot win because they think it will help build a third party four years from now are forgetting something.

Four new hard right conservative justices on the Supreme Court is VICTORY for the right over the long term. So what if there were a third party if four new ultra conservative justices dismantle our constitution and create a truly corporatized state. Imagine forty years of conservative decisions?

The openings on the Supreme Court are the big prize in the battle between the reactionary right oligarchy and the progressive populace.


#10

The article is a fallacy.

The fact is the Government of the United States of America has shifted far to the right and towards the Corporatists.This includes the Democratic Party itself which is filled with people that would have been quite comfortable as a Republican under Reagan.

It follows that the current crop of Democrats under a MS Clinton are likely to appoint to the Court the same type of person Reagan would have.That the current existing left leaning judges are approaching senility only shows they were appointed at a time when there were Judges of this sort to appoint and a President that would do so.

With an Obama , as example ignoring the Constitution and promoting more wAr abroad via executive orders , why on earth does anyone believe he would nominate a judge that would rule his acts not constitutional?

Ms Clinton's only interest in voters rights, is that she hopes the voters that lose said rights will vote Democrat if those rights restored. She has no interest in their well being.

It my opinion there will be no difference as to the type of judge nominated by a Republican or a Democrat outside things like gay rights or women's rights. Given both parties will pursue the corporate state and expanded state power, any gains in this area will be one step forward and three back. I do not think women will think victories won if they suddenly have equal rights in a world run by the corporations and suffering endless wars and run away environmental damage.

All that can shift the Supreme Court is a shift in the mindset of those in power. This can not happen with Democrat or republican.


#11

This fool obviously doesn't want to accept that Hillary is a conservative. She will pick a Supreme that is very pro business and pro war. You can take that to the bank.
More fear tactics are a waste of time. The spell has been broken. The reason the court is so conservative is because conservatives Clinton's and Bush put them there. If the Dems had not shifted right when Bill was in office they could have stopped a few but they didn't.


#18

And electing a Republican won't? That can't be your argument, can it? That Republicans are to the left of Democrats? Or are you seriously suggesting that one of those two parties won't win the presidency?

Because that's the way it is. Trump or Clinton WILL be the next president. Whine all you want, but don't kvetch about Citizens United, because apparently the Supreme Court doesn't make a difference in you world, only Democrats do.


#19

Actually, you're saying it to every person in the USA who will have to live with the decisions a right-wing Supreme Court makes. Punishing others because you're pouty about Sanders? That's why the Left is in absolute disarray in the USA. Selfish politics like yours don't ever win a thing, ever.


#20

" ... there is one overarching reason we should be vigorously supporting her election: The future of the Supreme Court is at stake."

Get real, Mr. Morris, the IDIOT BANSHEE is NOT going to appoint any better SC judges than that worthless, DROOLING moRon did when he appointed scurrilous scalia; in fact, I would argue that the Habitually Repulsive Criminal is already well on her way to full-blown Alzheimer's even now! And that means we can expect a full court of idiot scalia's!


#21

So all those 5-4 decisions were in my imagination? No. No they weren't.

There are real differences on the Court. Indeed, Citizens United was a 5-4 decision, but you're telling me they're all the same? I'll stick with reality, thanks.


#22

It is like people are throwing tantrums over the Dems rigging the game. Reading these posts it almost sounds like people were taken by surprise by the dirty tricks but we all saw but didn't protest at the time except online. It is easy to vent and attempt to manipulate others about issues when you post a comment. Many act outraged who aren't citizens and cannot vote but pretend to be Americans concerned with issues.

Sure people may feel they have a stake in what happens in an American election even if they are citizens of another country but when it comes to living under those issues in America they don't have to feel the effects like we do. It isn't that someone shouldn't offer their opinion but ethics demand doing so without making it seem like you are American yourself.

Whether it is foreign policy or Supreme Court appointees, progressives who complain about deceit and manipulation should be honest themselves to other progressives.

Four new Scalias or Rhenquists will drastically change this country. There is no comparison to any other issue for AMERICANS. Look at how the Supreme Court changed things with Citizens United? Imagine a court which is overwhelmingly biased towards the right that remains seated for thirty or forty years.

Enough with the tantrums. If you seriously wanted to see Stein elected then work to build a third party in the next four years. Voting for her now when it is totally symbolic will quite possibly be the worst of all possible results... an ultra right wing court appointed by a fascist. Vote for her when she can win but not when only we can lose to Trump.


#25

Bernie voters could negotiate with Trump for an evenly liberal/conservative SCOTUS in return for our votes. To choose a court that stands for democracy, not oligarchy.


#26

Just stop with the fear mongering. It's just gushing from those Democrats who have foisted upon us the most unpopular, most unethical candidate in recent history, and now you expect us to fall in line out of fear? How often have millions of young people, and those sidelined and marginalized by the corporatocracy, come out en masse to support an uninspirational candidate, out of fear? Just think of Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, John Kerry, and even Al Gore. It's not going to work. Bernie Sanders had a ground game; he had harnessed the energy and enthusiasm of almost an entire millennial generation. It has been snuffed out by the strongarming and dissent suppressing tactics of the Clintons and their very own DNC.


#27

The Republicans in the Senate will play hard ball with any Clinton nominee. They will delay and delay some more. They will deny candidate after candidate, assuming she sends progressives up for confirmation, and that is assuming a lot, until Hillary sends a candidate they will approve, a milquetoast mush. I doubt Hillary will have any coat tails in this election and will be facing a hostile House and Senate because both bodies, more likely than not, will be controlled by the GOP. Triangulation here she comes, with Bubba by her side, think of the salivating corporatists ready to deal.


#29

You have had 16 years of democratic presidents in the last 30. Your courts are more to the right then in 1984

For gods sake people protesting against Hilary are locked in a caged free speech zone.

Wake the fuck up. That is your reality.


#32

Lol. Yikes and then some! My friend I know you are older like me and we have seen what a conservative Supreme Court can do.mi have no illusions as to Clinton playing the moderate center position to the hilt (although she did give a pretty good speech this time. If only she did what she promised...sigh!) but I can imagine a supreme court ( to say nothing of federal benches ) filled with Scalias, Borks, Thomasesand Rhenquists sitting overlordship over the heart and soul of this country and dragging it over to the dark side for the next forty years!

Who the hell cares anymore about a symbolic vote for Jill? I love her and if somehow the Greenparty managed to build a real party presence over the next four years and I am still around then I'd vote for her but not now.mnow is just a posture not a position. People want to pretend that they are making a statement when they should have protested back when it counted and in the end they may just top this country to the dark side.

I doubt Hillary will be a catastrophe nor will she start a nuclear war. She will be another militarist Dem like Obama but tempered by the awareness that Bernie came real close for a reason (s). She will be more social justice oriented in certain ways so that's something. Trump will be a nemesis president and this country will suffer terribly from such a person. Somehow people are making excuses for allowing Trump to trample our constitution and our rights. That is real and not symbolic.

Jill in four!


#33

Citizens United happened because of a right leaning court and we all regret it. I am so sick of people playing this emotional card about their principles in the face of fascism. When do people act like grown ups and deal with the fact that the world plYs by different rules than what they think is fair. The guy will do away with the EPA and roll back climate change initiatives. He will deregulate business and a hard right Supreme Court will let him.

In all honesty Trump himself isn't all that scary but Trump appointing up to four Supreme Court justices is freaking horrendous. What is wrong with people? He could tip us into fascism and who knows what else.


#37

I happen to think that a nuclear Mutually Assured Destruction is more possible under a Trump than under a Hillary. People keep talking as if she is only just waiting for the chance to push the button once she is elected. Trump is reckless and emotionally immature in that he is used to people letting him have his way. Contrast that attitude with the real world! Hillary, for all her faults, is a matured politician and a seasoned diplomat. Yes she plays the game close to the wire but I find it hard to believe any sane individual would consider suicide and mass extinction a solution to a diplomatic crisis. Putin calculates and then moves a piece on the chess board. Say Crimea? The west calculates and moves their piece on the chess board. Say the Ukraine and NATO.

To my mind Trump is a wild card leader like in North Korea. Unpredictable and risky with emotional not well reasoned responses and moves that just may go too far.

Besides the Supreme Court vacancies ahead too.

Everybody should have an opinion about everything but let people know that you are not posing as a citizen or framing your comments in the same language as a citizen would. Online posers are endemic and unethical.


#38

The Supreme Court "threat" and propaganda is just another tactic using the politics of fear utilized by the ruling class to coerce and control the working class for the purpose of maintaining the status quo of moving further to the right all the time in favor of, and for the protection of, the ruling class.

The ruling class uses this threat against all party candidates in the electoral process. Why? To keep the electorate focused on everything other than the single issue that effects all issues: class warfare of the (capitalist, elite) ruling class against the working class.

Stop and consider that the same Supreme Court threat is used by the Republicans against Secretary Clinton ... and was especially used against Senator Sanders when he was a potential candidate of the Democratic Party. This tied directly into the threat of "socialism" for those on the right.

The politics of fear only benefits the ruling class.

The working class needs to stay focused on the real issues that determine our day-to-day life: income inequality, racial injustice, gender injustice, climate change, never-ending war, childcare, healthcare, the injustice of the entire global capitalist economic system, etc.

Your boss at work that just denied you and your co-workers an increase in wages for the third year in a row doesn't give a damn on how the Supreme Court ruled on its latest case. Your capitalist boss just cares about keeping wages (your wages) low in order to improve his/her profit.