Vote for Obama in 2012 for the Judges.

[ej510]

This is important remember this. This may be the only way citizens united is overturned.

[patrice]

1. K & R

AND anything else we can get out of the Democrats. Something is always a starting point, we can do to them what they've been doing to us, this WILL make our party stronger, because something is always more than nothing and that'll be LESS than nothing under the Republicans.

[fugop]

2. Always and forever

For me, when people wonder if Dems are any better than Reps, this is my bottom line. Without a Dem in the White House, we'll get another Scalia, Roberts, Alito, etc. No contest.

[SlimJimmy]

3. Unless, of course, he isn't the Democratic nominee. That remains to be seen (nt)

[MrTriumph]

4. Could happen. There are plenty of good Democrats to challenge the president

x

[NorthCarolina]

6. I have a dream. nt

[onenote]

15. name one who can raise the money

[beforeyoureyes]

10. Let's hope for a populist TRUE democratic challenger to this corporate shill

[MissDeeds]

24. +1000 n/t

[impik]

5. I will vote for him for many more reasons

If he won't lose the primaries to Grayson, of course.

[patrice]

7. I'd bet the people unreccing this thread have good buffers against the Republicans.

[ej510]

8. This is the only reason I am voting for him.

Other than the judges he is too close to Wall Street for my liking.

[patrice]

9. I am concerned about people who are already almost nothing, becoming more so, which is what fat Repu

blican salaries will do to lots of people.

I am concerned about how a damaged Democratic party, if it doesn't come to grips with what is happening, will die and I'm concerned about that NOT for the party brand, but for the numbers of persons that it represents that will have to be rebuilt from scratch, a task requiring AT LEAST a decade, no matter what "new" party label gets hung on it, and during which time those who are 0 now will become less than 0.

And, then, I'm concerned about those justices, whom I don't expect to actually be Liberal, but whom I KNOW will be much much more "conservative" if the Democratic Party doesn't at least put a fight, and change itself in doing so, even if it loses.

[ej510]

11. Half the party is tied to wall Street; which why we get half republican legislation all of the time.

[patrice]

13. So, our task is to stick together with those who aren't. It doesn't really matter to me what

label they go under; it's just that I KNOW if you change the label, that'll result in MORE entropy.

Those fucking Wall Streeters need to get OUT of OUR political party. They should take their winnings and go home.

We sure as hell could use a really good strong Labor candidate.

[young but wise]

12. I'm voting for President Obama again because he has been a great president..

[grumgrum]

36. You are a small minority that thinks so..that is for sure.

[Joe Bacon]

42. Ah yes, Obama has been GREAT for Wall Street

And meanwhile, for everyone else, Obama sells us out...

[Ter]

14. Oh yeah, I really want to lose my Right To Bear Arms

Not.

[angee_is_mad]

16. and for other reasons also

but we will go with that one for right now.

[ruggerson]

31. This is my main reason, too

n/t

[ShadowLiberal]

17. And it's the only way to protect Roe vs Wade

Judges alone are a reason I'll never vote republican in a presidential race, or governor or mayor.

[Lasher]

18. How do you know he would appoint judges you would like?

He hasn't reached out enough to Republicans, you know.

[onenote]

21. do you think McCain would've appointed Kagan or Sotomayor

or someone more along the lines of Alito or Roberts? Be honest.

[Lasher]

25. His initial nomination probably would have looked more like Alito and Roberts.

In that case I would have hoped, perhaps vainly, that the Democratic Senate would have blocked extremist nominees, resulting in confirmation of moderates like Kagan and Sotomayor.

I didn't rejoice about these two that Obama nominated. We really needed strong liberals to counter the right wingers serving on the court today but they ain't it. And that's pretty much my point. Obama wouldn't even try to seat a strong liberal or progressive after 2012 or at any other time. Don't you agree?

[onenote]

27. I have to disagree.

First, if McCain had won the presidency the "Democratic Senate" probably would ended up with a smaller marjority. Obviously, projecting specific number is utter speculation but chances are not as many Democrats would have ended up in the Senate and there is little reason to think they would suddenly become more aggressive than they were under the chimpy. Indeed, as you suggest, the hope that the Democrats would have blocked an Alito or Robert-like nominee is just that -- hope. The reality is that they wouldn't have done so in the face of a McCain victory unless the candidate had left a paper trail a la Bork. Oh sure, they'd make noise, but in the end the result would be no different than it was with Roberts and Alito.

Second, I don't think we know enough yet to pass judgment as to whether Kagan and/or Sotomayor are or are not "strong liberals." THus far, and the evidence is still sketchy, they both seem pretty closely aligned with Ginsburg, whom I regard as being a strong liberal/progressive.

[Lasher]

30. So far, the argument in this thread is that we should ramp up to elect Obama in 2012...

...so that he would appoint mediocre SCOTUS justices, leaving us to wonder if they later turn out to be in the enemy's camp. If that's all you've got, then good luck firing up the disillusioned Democratic base.

[onenote]

33. that's your version of the argument

not mine. I'm curious as to what evidence you have to already have concluded that Kagan and Sotomayor are "mediocre" justices (and, for that matter, why you are implying that Ruth Ginsberg is a "mediocre" justice.

[Lasher]

37. Whose conclusion am I to reach but my own?

You are the first and only person to have mentioned Ruth Ginsburg in this entire thread. I implied nothing about her. In your first reply to me you asked me to be honest. I have been. Practice what you preach.

I say that Kagan and Sotomayor are mediocre because neither has a clear track record as a strong liberal or conservative. Unless you have clear evidence to dispute this claim, I hope you will have the character to concede the point.

I don't think Obama will ever nominate a strong liberal or progressive. Do you?

[onenote]

38. the only evidence I have about Kagan and Sotomayor as SCOTUS justices

is that they have been in virtual lockstep with Ginsburg which, of course, I pointed out earlier and which, of course, is the basis for concluding that if you think that they are mediocre then it would seem to suggest you think the same of Ginsburg. I am at least basing my conclusions about Kagan and Sotmayor on what they've actually done as SCOTUS justices. You aren't.

As for whether Obama will ever nominate a strong liberal or progressive, I think he already may have done so based on the available evidence. But in order to answer your question, I'd have to know who you consider a "strong liberal or progressive" jurist.

[Lasher]

39. You have presented no evidence about Kagan and Sotomayor, only speculation

Now you're saying you pointed out earlier that they have been in virtual lockstep with Ginsburg. You didn't. And something unsaid by either you or me suggests I think something of Ginsburg? I wasn't thinking of Ginsburg at all.

I thought it should have been apparent what a 'strong liberal or progressive' is, but I'll tell you: They would not be mediocre, which is a synonym for moderate. And what is a moderate? Blue Dog Democrats are examples of moderates. They favor compromise and bipartisanship over ideology and party discipline.

I say Justice Sotomayor is a moderate. I am not alone. Consider these sources:

Inside the Moderately Liberal Mind of Sonia Sotomayor

Sotomayor: A Moderate on Business Issues

CNN's Jeff Toobin: Sotomayor a 'Moderate Liberal, Like Ginsburg and Breyer' (Oops, there goes the argument about Ginsburg that you didn't make.)

And I say Justice Kagan is a moderate:

Supreme Court Nominee Kagan Is a “Moderate”

Kagan Took Moderate Stances Under Clinton

Obama calls court pick Kagan a consensus builder

A war is being waged against us Democrats and we are not fighting back. If you're trying to fire up party support for Obama by saying he would nominate more justices like these moderates, then good luck with that. And it is a sad indictment against Obama, that if we are to endorse him, we are left grasping at meager straws like this one.

[BzaDem]

40. Lasher, Sotomayor has voted very liberally so far (sometimes going against the other 8). With Kagan,

we'll find out when the votes start coming out this term, but there's no reason to think she'll be merely moderate.

[leftynyc]

19. He doesn't fight for his judges

any more than he fights for anything else. Dozens of judges on the federal level are waiting for a vote and even with solid majorities in both houses, he couldn't get it done. There is simply nothing the President will fight for.

[onenote]

20. what should he have done, exactly, to get the Senate to vote on those judges?

Or even to schedule hearings?

[leftynyc]

22. Make noise!!! Name names!!!

Every single small thing that's important to the pubs is all over the airwaves - every single press conference and every white house press briefing should be mentioning this fact. the President is supposed to be the leader of whatever party he's from and I don't see this one leading on anything. I'm tired of defending someone who will not fight back.

[Lasher]

26. Good idea but I've been thinking he could do more.

He should make mass recess appointments. Republicans clearly want to obstruct his nominees for the duration of his presidency and that is unreasonable, to put it kindly.

[BzaDem]

41. Republicans would love recess appointments. They would expire after a year -- no lifetime terms.

Obama has gotten over 40 lifetime terms. Why remove that and only appoint 1 year terms?

[WI_DEM]

23. There are many more reasons to vote for Obama in 2012

[Agent William]

28. Oh fuck, you're right....

[Phx_Dem]

29. I'll vote for him because he's done a great job so far. But judges are a bonus!

Excellent point though!

[StevieM]

32. That's why I voted for him in 2008. But now I have other reasons, like health care reform and

financial reform. President Obama has done a good job. I know he gets a lot of grief but, all things considered, I think a lot has been accomplished.

I will be upset, though, if President Obama caves on extending the tax cuts for wealthier Americans.

Steve

[Joe Bacon]

43. Yeah, I love paying 15% more this year for less coverage.

Obama made sure that his pals who run the health insurance rackets will continue to live high off the hog. Meanwhile the rest of us see our premiums go through the roof, copays double or triple, and deductibles go sky high.

[Dawson Leery]

34. +1

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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