Alternet
Many progressives 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.
During the next four years, the new president will likely nominate not only Scalia’s replacement but also an additional 3 new justices. Since 1971, the average age of retirement for a Supreme Court justice has been just under 79 years. Ginsburg is 83, Kenney is 80, and Breyer will be 78 in mid-August.
We know the numbers, but many don’t seem to truly grasp their central importance to our work. Indeed, only at 11:15pm on the first day of the Democratic Convention was the status of the Supreme Court briefly mentioned. Many of Bernie’s supporters appear willing to jettison the Court because of their distress over Hillary Clinton’s behavior or some of her policies.
HOW THE COURT HAS CHANGED OUR LIVES
9 comments:
Why the assumption that Clinton's neoliberal appointees will be a bed of roses?
Also, why didn't the DNC consider risking the appointment of justices before subverting the process?
And WTF is with surrendering the stalled appointment process, anyway?
Sick of this shit, far beyond the power of words to express. If the system is broken this badly, then let's make it official.
THAT hoary chestnut was it ?
you servile water carriers for Empire need to come up w better propaganda...
from a liberal perspective, i place cliton as infinitely more likely to defend Empire and use nukes than the neo-hitler du jour...
she aint doing shit but entrench and enable Empire, and that most especially includes supreme court nominees...
stupid dem'rat sycophants been scaring voters for generations about supreme nominees, and they have INVARIABLY turned out to be crap choices pre-caving to conservatard whims...
My favorite Supreme Court fact: Clarence Thomas's YOUNGER brother died of a heart attack 15 years ago.
So yet another vacancy is quite possible . . .
Is it the Jill Stein voters that hand the election to Trump or the Clinton and Trump voters that keep the country from going down a much, much better path?
Why shouldn't everyone shake off the touted need to vote for one of "only" two bad candidates! Maybe this is the pivotal moment when we all need to grow up!
Love Dr. West's question: What if you only had a choice between Donald Trump and David Duke? Won't it come to that if we continue to vote the lesser of two evils? The frog gets boiled, eventually, because the water only gets hotter by a few degrees each time.
Clinton is not David Duke but she is representing bad policies that lead where we do not want to go! So why vote for Clinton?
Jill Stein may only get on 47 of 50 ballots, but voters in the other three states could write her in and she could get enough votes to win.
To make it an easier choice on election day, 100 days from now, lets let her and Gary Johnson debate with the rest if Trump can get the debates to dodge around the NFL schedule, and get the Green and Libertarian policies before the country.
Cheers, Tom
I am still not voitng for Empire, vote Jill Stein Green Party
The Supreme Court is already 8-0 plutocrat in the McDonnell case. Trump could make it worse but that is compared to no Supreme Court at all or no life on earth when the nukes are dropped on Russia. If elite crimes are not prosecuted why have a court? Trump's Court would be so unpopular that finally there could be a Congressional counter coup against the Court oligarchy. Something the Dems will never do with their moderate Garlands and religious belief in judicial supremacy.
every four years, EVERY four years! "Supreme court!" "Supreme court!" "Supreme court!" and then Obama pushes for Merrick Garland....what? what am I voting for again?
End Times – When Supreme Court justices just don’t matter
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/07/end-times-supreme-court-justices-just-dont-matter.html
We can rest assured that both Clinton and Trump would supply us with Supreme Court justices who will help the oligarchy empty our wallets. They may differ, according to who appoints them, on culture war issues, whose main purpose is to distract us while we are being fleeced. Divide and conquer has always worked to the disadvantage of the 99%.
Post a Comment