let me make a safe prediction: a good portion of DU will be outraged by Obama's SC nomination

[cali]

The person he picks will immediately be attacked as a right winger. Obama will be attacked as protecting the status quo. It almost doesn't matter who he picks.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. if the foo shits . . . .

[cali]

3. I'm suggesting it will be a knee jerk reaction

[ChairmanAgnostic]

19. and right you are.

But, I still worry about who he will choose. A moderate would be fine, but what we really need (The collective "we" as in the USA) is an anti-Roberts.
Alito is such a worm that I suspect he will miss biting the apple at some point, and start to swallow his tail. And like an Escher lithograph, Alito will finally disappear in a flash of neverending staircases.

[ZombieHorde]

50. If the choice is against gay marriage, will the reaction be knee jerked? nt

[friedgreentomatoes]

55. If that is the case..

the gay community will care. Few others will.

ET correct spelling

[ZombieHorde]

58. You may be right, but that does not answer my question. nt

[goclark]

75. There are many others that would care.

[stray cat]

2. Not that is a safe prediction!

[CTyankee]

4. Anyone he picks would be better than anyone the Republicans pick.

I would be very disappointed if it wasn't a woman but I really don't think that is a possibility...

[CBR]

5. You are correct. It is unavoidable on DU.

[NJmaverick]

6. Based on what I have seen here, since Obama took office, I agree

it's a safe bet.

[Peacetrain]

7. Let me just say cali.. I would not be surprised

[babylonsister]

8. Yes, pretty safe.

Me, since I know this is a very serious decision, I'm not going to second guess any nominee. I know whoever is picked, a lot of thought has gone into this.

[Catshrink]

21. Yes

and by people a heck of a lot smarter than I am and who know all the considerations, legal and otherwise.

I do know that whomever is chosen, the RW will brand that person as "radical" and "outside the mainstream." I would suggest that, given the election results of '08, Jon Kyl, Newtie, etc. are the radicals and the ones outside the mainstream.

[backscatter712]

9. Yeah, pretty safe.

Still, seeing that Obama was a civil rights attorney and constitutional law professor before he started running for public office (in other words, he studied SCOTUS cases for a living,) he's probably more qualified than just about anyone else on the planet to be able to pick justices for the Supreme Court.

My prediction is that his nominee will be most likely a woman or minority, will be incredibly intelligent and well-versed in the Constitution and the law, probably won't be 100% pure liberal, but at the same time, will make Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts look like the total assclowns they are.

[Towlie]

10. Hell, I predicted something like that three weeks ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5595654#5595755

But I was referring to the general American population. I'm fairly optimistic that he'll make a decent choice from our perspective.

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. Ding! Ding! We have a winner. No more phone calls, please.

Spot on.

[NYC_SKP]

12. Bingo!: "It doesn't matter who he picks".

The President will disappoint, there will be hell to pay.

Concern will be expressed, drama will ensue.

:donut:

[lamp_shade]

13. COUNT ON IT !!!

[ruggerson]

14. Well we know he won't pick the lesbians

[cali]

15. we know that you will continue to be a one note one issue poster

[ruggerson]

17. ah the old "one note" canard

which doesn't address the substance of what I wrote, but merely attempts to trivialize what I addressed.

You are correct in that in the past few months, I have focused on the broad array of GLBT concerns, largely because we're no better off than we were a year ago and this administration needs to be public pressured - via letters, phone calls, blogs, message boards, demonstrations - any venue of communication.

To try to demean that effort, which is what one does when one castigates someone as "one note," is effectively showing contempt for the concerns of GLBT voters. My comments are addressed (appropriately) to the Obama administration. Your comments (inappropriately) are addressed to me.

I will continue to focus on these issues until this White House steps up to the plate and begins the process of doing more than offering bromides and talk. I'm damn proud to do so, and there are a lot of my GLBT brothers and sisters who feel as I do.

Sorry you felt the need to malign that effort.

[cali]

23. you wrote nothing substantive in the post I responded to. Why

should you get a substantive post back?

I'm all for pressuring the administration to do the right thing, though I think you have to be barking to think we're no better off when it comes to this admin and GLBT rights than the last.

And no, it's demeaning nothing of the sort, to point out that you're unable to deal with any issue without connecting it do GLBT rights. An example of you doing that, is in this thread.

Furthermore, GLBT rights are a concern for a lot of us who aren't GLBT. You want to create division where there isn't any. That's counterproductive as well as sad.

[ruggerson]

28. you're backtracking cali

because you know you're wrong.

I wrote a simple one line (albeit sarcastic) response about the administration, which I believe to be correct.

This unleashed an angry, snarky response directed to ME, not addressing what I wrote.

I maintain that this administration, to date, has shown cowardice on these issues.

I have, over the past few months, defended Obama on a whole host of other issues, where I thought he was being unfairly maligned. I've even written OP's defending him.

But, only when I focus on this one issue, somehow I morph into a "one note" poster.

Fascinating. It tells me all I need to know.

What's desperately sad is your visceral reaction to what I wrote.

[Ishoutandscream2]

62. That is her m.o. Ruggerson

Very hateful.

[muffin1]

27. I 'm with you 100%, ruggerson.

I was going to start by saying as a heterosexual female, I don't really have a horse in this race. But indeed I do...every GLBT person in this country who is being treated like a second-class citizen.
If women were not allowed to serve in the military, or, say, if white men with brown hair could not get married, people here would be freaking out. But gay folks...you can wait a little longer...other things are more important right now...blah, blah, blah.

I appreciate and admire Barack Obama more than I can articulate, but his stance on this issue SUCKS.

[ruggerson]

33. What's interesting is that they will use every ad hom in the book to try to discredit

people like you and I.

"One note," "purity troll," "Obama hater" etc.

I wonder if those who fought for civil rights in the 60's were derided as being "purity trolls."

Oh, well, there are plenty of folks here who see these tactics for what they are.

And you're exactly right, if these injustices were being perpetrated against other groups, the community at large would be up in arms.

:thumbsup:

[geek tragedy]

18. Yes, because he's a homophobe. You nailed it. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

20. While the president who actually signed DOMA and DADT into law is cast as a hero.

The smell of sour grapes never goes away. Neither does the corresponding cognitive dissonance.

[ruggerson]

24. no, he's not a homophobe - but he doesn't have the political courage

to nominate the best candidate if she happens to be a lesbian.

If he does, I will be overjoyed and admit that I underestimated his political backbone.

Whether the pick is straight or gay is beside the point. Whomever he picks will be better than whom a Republican president would pick.

But they floated the names of a couple of very well qualified gay women, without, imho, any intention to ever name them. Which I see as rather cynical.

I'm about as opposite as they get from being obsessed with "purity."

I'm fine with most of his foreign policy decisions (I'm actually a little to the right of him), I think Geithner is doing a good job, the Prez started to address stem cells, which he had promised to do. I am a fan of his stimulus package.

But I think he needs pushing when it comes to GLBT issues, which of course affect my family very directly and very personally.

So I will continue to push and people like you will continue to make snide remarks demeaning that effort.

[geek tragedy]

35. So, he has to choose between pissing off the GLBT folks

and pissing off the Latino folks?

Or perhaps he should pick the person who would do the best for Latinos and GLBT folks while on the bench.

[ruggerson]

36. You're arguing something completely different than what I'm attempting to convey to you

I'm fine with a good solid progressive, whether he/she is straight, gay, white, latina, whatever.

My problem with what the administration did is that they floated the names of two lesbians as if to say "hey,everybody, see how inclusive we are!" when there was never any serious consideration of these women, because choosing a lesbian is seen as being "controversial" by this President. He doesn't take courageous, bold stands on social issues, particularly GLBT issues. He talks a relatively good talk, but has yet to do more than that. I'm hoping that will change over time.

If Obama does choose Karlan or Sullivan, I'll be overjoyed to admit that I miscalculated his political backbone.

I repeat, I will disappoint the OP, because I will be happy with whomever he picks, as long as it isn't a rightwing shill.

But that doesn't mean I can't look forward to the day when a future President floats the names of a couple of gay women because they are actually seriously under consideration for the job. And their qualifications will trump the fact of their sexual orientation.

[geek tragedy]

38. I would have been surprised if Karlan's name didn't come up

if she were the most heterosexual person on the planet. Her credentials got her mentioned, not her orientation. I think it's kind of insulting to suggest that her name was floated because she's GLBT and not because she's one of the preeminent progressive legal voices in the country. (Fyi, Karlan would be my #1 choice because of her resume).

It's kind of a no-win situation--either he's floating 'token' mentions or he's not considering them at all.

[ruggerson]

39. OK so Karlan is your #1 choice

let's say you found out from your mole in the WH that she wasn't chosen because the administration didn't want to wage the political fight that Republicans have promised if a gay person is nominated.

Would you be disappointed that her sexual orientation doomed her chances?

And would you feel that it was a bit cynical to float her name in the first place?

[geek tragedy]

40. Of course I would. But, let's see

who he announces.

[vaberella]

46. No political courage?! You only wish.

[vaberella]

45. Well that was quick. n/t

[geek tragedy]

16. He'll be a homophobe or hate Latinos or be a corporate $ellout

depending on which purity trolls are upset.

[vaberella]

44. Or all of the above...too. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

52. What is a purity troll? nt

[GreenArrow]

76. the opposite

of an impurity troll.

[Sebastian Doyle]

78. Anyone who diagrees with the cheerleaders, apparently.

Purity trolls = Democrats (not the DLC distortion)

[JamesA1102]

22. It seems no matter what he does there are those who will object to it

Which is what a democracy is all about. There is noting wrong with that.

The problem for me is the distortions and demagoguery by some. We don't tolerate it from the right yet too many on the left seem to indulge in it.

[AllentownJake]

25. Additional Prediction

90% of DU including myself, unless he picks the Governor of Michigan will have never heard of his Supreme Court pick. Of that 90%, 45% will become experts on the Supreme Court after an episode of Hardball.

[joshcryer]

26. I predict callout threads, irrevence, and general uncivilized behavior will continue.

I've been here since the inception of this site (used a different nickname then). This is what DU is about. :)

[Moochy]

29. My prediction: Many people who reply to this thread

will be on my ignore list.

Any poster using the term "purity trolls" can eat a bag of hammers.

[spoony]

56. Indeed, this is just pre-emptive dismissal of ANY criticism

so that the OP and others can say, "see, we knew nothing would make them happy! Poutrage etc..."

[Arkana]

30. I already predicted this ages ago.

Whoever it ends up being will be written off as a right-wing sellout here and a left-wing loony at Free Republic.

[MasonJar]

31. Why would you assume that? Some of us DUers have honest objections to several

of Obama's decisions. We do not consider them the promised change. That said we also applaud the president when he chooses the wisest course of action. I feel confident that Obama will select a knowledgeable Supreme Court justice. I do not feel as confident that the GOPers and the Ben Nelsons will let her serve. Yes, I am assuming and hoping the nominee will be a she. I am certainly also hoping that one of the Felonious judges retires. Obama, in replacing Souter, is merely holding us in place. However, it seems unfortunately too unlikely to generate much hope. Please remember thaT

[MasonJar]

32. Why would you assume that? Some of us DUers have honest objections to several

of Obama's decisions. We do not consider them the promised change. That said we also applaud the president when he chooses the wisest course of action. I feel confident that Obama will select a knowledgeable Supreme Court justice. I do not feel as confident that the GOPers and the Ben Nelsons will let her serve. Yes, I am assuming and hoping the nominee will be a she. I am certainly also hoping that one of the Felonious judges retires. Obama, in replacing Souter, is merely holding us in place. However, it seems unfortunately too unlikely to generate much hope. Please remember that no one on DU is anti-Obama; some of us are simply anti his positions on Single Payer or investigating war crimes or prolonged detention or etc.

[slackmaster]

34. That's about as risky as betting that the Sun will come up tomorrow morning

:hi:

[Name removed]

37. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kaleva]

41. A very safe predicition

I very highly doubt President Obama will pick someone who may well cause a number of the more conservative Dems in the Senate to bolt in support of a Republican filibuster.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vaberella]

43. Yup, even if he picked Sustein who I prefer. But a white male as Supreme Court---

perish the thought.

[Moochy]

47. Deleted Message

that dared to offend cali's cabal of moderator minions.

[Overseas]

48. So you think he is going to pick someone who is conservative and pro-corporate?

I don't think so.

I think you may find many DU progressives disappointed if he doesn't pick a very liberal judge to balance out the right wingers now on the court, but I don't think we will be OUTRAGED.

[book_worm]

49. That a good portion of DU will oppose anything Obama does goes without saying

Someone posted yesterday that Obama should appoint an "agitator" from the left. He won't do it. What he will do is appoint a well qualified judge whose record is probably left of center, but not left enough for DU.

[depakid]

51. Belittle people if you like

but it seems to me that if the pick is one that reflects tradational Democratic values- as opposed to the sorry stand for nothing "centricism" the party morphed into during the 1990's, you'll see a whole lot less complaining.

If on the other hand, the nominee is on record as being a straight up corporatist- the criticism will be justified.

[salguine]

53. I'll make a prediction, too. Obama could PICK a right-winger, and an equally large

portion of DU would assert that he's "playing chess".

[sniffa]

54. And I'll make the safe prediction that you'll be one of the first responders to the outraged

and that you'll call them pathetic.

[QC]

73. She will also tell someone to "grow the fuck up." n/t

[Raster]

74. is it still using "the stoopid, it burns"?

or has the big brain moved to a new tagline?

[Lilith Velkor]

77. This thread is a pre-emption of the outraged

So we can all see how very fucking clever the OP is. :eyes:

[Sebastian Doyle]

57. I don't know a lot about any of the names mentioned, so I only have an opinion about one.

And I'm only opposed to her because she was a Poppy Bush appointee, and the first one mentioned by the corporate media the minute Souter announced he was quitting. Which means there's two strikes against her.

[dionysus]

59. cali, that can be said for any and all of his choices

[Political Tiger]

60. Some people are already outraged!

I saw on another thread someone say if Obama doesn't pick someone like Johnathan Turley then it proves Obama is playing to the right.

I can see it now --- as soon as the nominee is announced the usual suspects will be posting articles from OpEdNews/RawStory/CommonDreams, etc., slamming Obama and the nominee for all sorts of reasons....probably something like the person nominated once said hello to Clarence Thomas so it proves he or she is really a right-winger and and controlled by corporate America, blah, blah, blah.

[boppers]

61. I predict that it will also spawn many competing threads.

One thread will be outraged that they have to defend the pick.

The other thread will be outraged at those defending the pick.

This will also spawn threads of hand-wringing about the future of DU.

ad nauseam.

[beac]

64. I think you are right, but

I'll really have to start my own thread using much the same language and arguments you did to feel that the topic has been properly covered. ;)

[boppers]

67. My next thread (in response to yours) will use identical wording.

It will be a "clever" rebuttal, by only changing two or three words from your post.

Oh, and then I will obliquely mention Hitler.

[beac]

69. I will then swirl into a fit of poutrage and swan off to start a thread in

a different forum warning people to "Stay out of GD-P!" because "People are going crazy over there!" and then recap my/your position at great length and in excruciating detail-- including a considerable amount of swearing.

And I will flat-out mention Hitler.

[boppers]

71. Not willing to let it go...

...I will then switch over to the new forum, repeating the prior actions.

I will add Stalin to the Hitler references, just to up the ante.

[beac]

79. Oh yeah???? Well, welcome to my IGNORE LIST, buddy!!!!!

;)


:pals:

[Colobo]

63. He needs to pick the right person. Period.

[Lex]

65. And a good portion of DU will *adore* Obama's SC nomination, no matter what.

Is one DU'er reaction better than the other?

[sniffa]

70. Pathetic

Just making a prediction.

[smoochpooch]

66. I don't care who he picks, as long as he isn't compromising who he really wants.

If the person he wants happens to be a lesbian, he should nominate her. What are the Repugs going to do about it? Say that a lesbian isn't fit to serve on the court? They're really going to say that to the American people? Let them try, if they succeed in blocking it he'll just nominate someone else.

Same thing for any other "controversial" nominees. Obama won and there are 59 Dems in the Senate. He shouldn't give a goddamn inch on this one.

[tkmorris]

68. This thread serves no purpose whatsoever

It is divisive and snarky, two things we don't need more of around here.

[Jennicut]

72. All of the people on his list seem like good pics except maybe Kagan

as she does not want to limit executive powers as much as the others. I like all of them really.