Priorties for the next four years

[theboss]

After so many threads screaming at Democrats for not fighting well, everything, I've been wondering what our priorities should be. Basically, what are the issues that the House and Senate Dems need to go to the mattresses on. As a minority party, I don't think it's wise to stop everything the Repubs do over the next four years. It's ultimately futile and I don't know if being the "Obstructionist Party" is the right strategy; it didn't work well for Newt Gingrich.

I think we need to choose our battles. Here are the three areas where lack of Dem resolve will cause me to post one of the "Obama/Hillary/Kerry/Feinstein/Feingold/etc. is dead to me posts:"

1. Supreme Court Justices. No Scalias. No Thomases. Scalia probably has 15 years left on the Bench. Thomas is going to be on the Bench for the next 25 years. If they get two or three clones over the next four years, we are well and truly screwed. We are going to get conservative Justices; there is probably no way around that. But they need to be in O'Connor mode if nothing else.

2. Social Security. We need to treat this like the Republicans did HillaryCare in 93 and 94. Just destroy. Nothing gets passed. Status quo all the way, baby. For God's sake, don't get suckered in like Kennedy on No Child Left Behind that Bush can turn into a PR victory while destroying a liberal sacred cow.

3. No more wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are enough for one decade. (And even though I don't think it's likely, this also means no draft for more wars).

That's it. That's my list. The next four years are going to suck and suck royally. But we will get through them. And we need to minimize the damage.

[DrGonzoLives]

1. You're right

Number one priority is judges. Period. That's what you save the big guns for. Rehnquist will be gone, possibly O'Connor (who is, at least, a sometimes swing vote), which means at least two nominees for SCOTUS are coming down the line, with Scalia likely to be nominated for Chief Justice.

[Ian David]

2. If we deal with the judges, I suppose abortion and gay marriage will be ok

At least, I hope so.

[theboss]

5. That's the plan

In all honesty, the Rehnquist Court has not been horrible on lifestyle/speech type issues. I mean, it came out in favor of sodomy.

Where it's been terrifying is tearing down New Deal/Commerce Clause issues. That trend is going to be hard to stop completely.

Also, those kinds of decisions don't have the immediate horrifying impact as a Scalia-penned reversal of Roe v. Wade, which I am sure he has sitting in his lower right-hand drawer right now.

[theboss]

3. I can honestly live with Scalia as Chief Justice

He's been de facto chief for years anyway. It's not a position of such great power that we need to challenge it.

But if you end up with two 45-year-old Scalia disciples on the Bench . . . Sweet Fancy Moses!!!

[DrGonzoLives]

4. That's the danger

The Chief sets the tone for the Court, always has. That's why Scalia must be stopped from taking the top spot.

[theboss]

6. Setting the tone and writing the decisions are two different things

Ultimately, the Chief Justice is just one vote. Besides it's hard to imagine Scalia being even more aggressive than he is now.