It's the Supreme Court, Stupid.....

[veracity]

Why in hell isn't this the rallying cry of the dems? At least FOUR Supreme Court Justices wil be appointed by the next president....and packing the court with right wing zealots is on the agenda for Bush. Whay is this not a major issue in this election? The Court right now teeters on a 5-4 seesaw on almost every major decision. So much rides on the makeup of the Court...and I hear nothing at all from any of the candidates. Is it me? May I'm missing it....

[Torrey Pines]

1. I don't think you're missing anything.

I just think that the candidates are busy beating eachother up and not giving as much focus as they probably should to Bush. The Supreme Court is not an issue that divides the candidates. I'm sure that as the year goes on, we'll be reminded often of the importance of this issue. ;-)

[Democrats unite]

2. One they have to get pass the Senate...

Even though we don't control the Senate and alot of people here don't like Daschle, they have been very good at keeping the fanatics off the federal bench! Remember the 30 hour marathon?

[Powerlock]

15. Ok

So what if we lose our ability to filibuster? Some people think we would have to lose a bunch of seats, but that's not true. Factor in the "democrats" who won't support a filibuster (like miller) and you will see it is a very real possibility.

It will all depend on this election and 2006.

The risk of losing the courts is very real.

[tedoll78]

3. YES!!!

YES YES YES YES YES! A thousand times YES!

God, it pisses me off to see so many picky voters out there, especially when we can bet good money that anyone from Kucinich to Lieberman will put good judges on the bench!

YES!

Candidates, listen up: this is my ONE overriding issue. I will tolerate a LOT of disappointment, but if you ever betray me on Supreme Court nominees, I will abandon you in a heartbeat and make you pay for it for the rest of your political life!!!

Liberals-->
Souter: good health, as far as I can tell
Ginsburg: history of cancer. In remission now, but also under surveillance for a relapse.
Breyer: good health. Relatively young.
Stephens: the one I'm most worried about. In his 80's. Poor health. Waiting for a Democrat in the White House. Wife begging him to retire. I have nightmares about waking-up to the TV announcing that John Paul Stephens has died. God, it scares me to death!

Swingers -->
Kennedy: really good on gay rights, and better than expected on abortion rights. good health.
O'Connor: frequently rumored to want retirement. Imagine her being replaced by a Scalia! Nightmare!

Fascists -->
Rehnquist: getting up there in age, he's rumored to want retirement also.
Thomas: follows Scalia's orders 99.9% of the time
Scalia: the most evil one. More likely to cite the Bible than the Constitution. Frequently ignores the text of the 1st and 4th Amendments. I can imagine him upholding concentration camps for homosexuals, justifying it on "public health concerns." Complains about pay, but seems like he'll be there a while.

You name an issue, and I can connect it to the Supreme Court. It all ends there. Congress can pass as many crappy laws as they want, but a good liberal supreme court will knock-them down 99% of the time. We all know that legislation that's the most remotely controversial ends-up there before it's allowed to take effect.

veracity, you've really got me started now. wowza.

A good Supreme Court justice will pay dividends to our cause for as long as 30 or more years - look at the havoc that Rehnquist has wreaked upon us since the early 70's! For liberals, a good justice or two are the gifts that keep on giving and giving, year after year!

Hell.. I think this is SO important that I pledge to bump this thread every day until the election. I'll vote for a turd over Bush if the turd promises me a few more Breyers.

This is a plea to all progressives, Greens, Democrats, left-of-centers, liberals, fair-minded folks, inteliigent people, lovers of Liberty.. please remember the United States Supreme Court!

BUMP. For our future!

[spooky3]

4. I completely agree that this is frightening and OUGHT

to be a relevant issue, but I thought it was a good issue in 2000 also. After all, the more senior justices were only slightly younger then and might have retired 2001-2004. Unfortunately, the voters didn't seem to agree, or at least, not enough of them did. So I think the Dems ought to point this out more forcefully, but I am not optimistic that it will resonate with many voters. Maybe this is because the candidates can't really state the case as bluntly as it deserves to be stated; then, it would look as though they are being crass ("Justice X is too old/going to pass on...") or they could alienate some voters who aren't really following things and might agree with Kennedy/Scalia/Rehnquist on one case or another, but might otherwise like one of the Dem candidates. I throw up my hands, not understanding why this doesn't alarm a lot of people; but then, I don't understand why * isn't scaring more people witless.

[tedoll78]

5. I will keep this going.

I tell it to everyone when they ask why I want the Chimp out. There's too much at stake.

[gristy]

6. Sad to say, I think the future makeup of the Supreme Court is WAY

down the list on why most folks vote for one candidate or another. And of those who care, there's probably more who look forward to a right wing Supreme Court than not. Just my 2 cents...

[DU9598]

7. AMEN

Wonderful post. I bring up this issue at every opportunity. Abortion is also one election away from extinction for decades.

[Powerlock]

16. I don't think you seem to grasp the importance of the SCOTUS

If the repubs are to advance an agenda they must get the SCOTUS. Everything they want to do from infringing the freedoms granted in the bill of rights, oppressing GLBT people, banning abortion, it all depends on the courts.

When you realize what is at stake, practically any left leaning person has a vested interest in the SCOTUS. We could literally be ONE election away from loosing it. I don't know about you, but I'm not looking forward to countless years of court precedent allowing discrimination, loss of freedoms, and other BS the repubs might want to try.

[NewJerseyDem]

8. I doubt that there will be 4

Who are they? Rehnquist, O'Connor and Stevens may retire but who would the fourth be? I thinkt that O'Connor might want a democratic senate to be in place so that a moderate would be more likely to replace her. And Stevens seems like he will stay there forever. Rehnquist seems almost certain to retire but he may want to wait until at least 2006 when he will become the longest serving Supreme Court justice ever.

Ginsburg is fairly old and has had health problems but probably wouldn't retire under a republican president unless she absolutely had to. Scalia could retire but I doubt that as well.

The court is certainly important and democrats should point out that if Stevens and O'Connor retire Roe v. Wade could be in a hell of a lot of trouble. However, I just don't think that the American people want to deal with these hypotheticals where the democrats are saying "if a justice retires and bush nominates a right winger things will be bad."

[spooky3]

9. Scalia is young as justices go.

He was born March 11, 1936, so he is just barely "normal" retirement age, and justices often stay well past that. So, like you, I doubt he'll leave. I can't imagine that someone as ideologically driven as he would step down if he thought he might have a chance to get a majority of like-minded justices on the court.

[NewJerseyDem]

12. There have been rumors about Scalia

Some in the media have reported that Scalia is interested in leaving. They have just been rumors and I don't think they are true. I don't think he would leave unless the republicans held more seats in the Senate and he could be sure that a right winger would replace him.

[H2O Man]

10. There are two huge issues at stake .....

......involving the federal courts in the next four years. If you are of potential draft age, or have a family member who is, you need to look at the Supreme Court aspects closely. There has been an attack on the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus in the past ten years, and there is no recognition for the Conscientious Objector status in regard to the draft. Many people are unfamiliar with these two building blocks of democracy. All of us should be demanding that each democratic candidate address these vital issues!

[tedoll78]

11. BUMP.

:)

[Isere]

13. Amen!

Hooray! It's the Supreme Court, Stupid! If Bush is allowed to continue his occupancy of the White House, we might as well kiss reproductive rights goodbye.

Some states, like Idaho, I believe, already have laws on the books that say that the minute Roe v. Wade is overturned anyone performing an abortion in Idaho will be charged with murder! In California, the state constitution guarantees the right to choose, so Californians will be OK, but that's small consolation for those who live in Idaho and elsewhere.

Is anyone going to the Pro-Choice march in Washington on April 25th? I will be there and hope to bring along many friends.

[tedoll78]

14. BUMP.

For our future..

[Z-axis]

17. Check, the silance seems almost palpable.

perhaps it is because they figure the right has really driven home the notion that the S.Court is too liberal and that Democrats bash perfectly good judges....yackety. Similar to their bogus but successful campaign to convince the electorate that the media is liberal.

Timidity more than anything else? If I open my mouth on court packing, the thinking may go, then the right will be up in arms about how the liberals once again want to plunge this country into an orgy of loose morals and sloppy values (as if the current court were liberal). They may feel there's a net loss of votes to open that can of worms. They forget whose worms those really are. I agree its one of the more significant issues ahead. It keeps me from being very interested in any of the current crop of candidates - long on comforting the afflicted, short on proposing anything to really end many of their afflictions.

z-axis

[spooky3]

19. Welcome to DU, z-axis!

[Hippo_Tron]

18. Again, this system of the president nominating justices is just wrong...

The future of our constitution should not be based on one election. The justices themselves should vote on vacancies.