|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency |
![]() |
ruggerson
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 03:47 PM Original message |
43 years ago, Lyndon Johnson nominated Thurgood Marshall during heated civil rights tensions |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 03:51 PM Response to Original message |
1. That was before Roe v. Wade and before Bork. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Alexander
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 03:52 PM Response to Reply #1 |
2. Yes, it was also before Abe Fortas, Clement Haynesworth and G. Harold Carswell... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
activa8tr
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 03:53 PM Response to Reply #1 |
3. Are we afraid of a big bad Republican minority in the Senate? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
katandmoon
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 03:58 PM Response to Reply #3 |
4. Only one problem...Obama is president now I've been told over and over here that he's a CENTRIST. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 04:00 PM Response to Reply #3 |
5. Ignoring the political situation does not make it go away. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jobycom
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 04:03 PM Response to Reply #5 |
7. No, but fearing it gives your enemies more power. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 04:12 PM Response to Reply #7 |
9. It's not about fear, it's about prudence. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jobycom
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 04:38 PM Response to Reply #9 |
15. The point about Marshal, and others, like Ginsburg |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 08:09 PM Response to Reply #15 |
35. I agree, a Sotomayor-like nomination would be ideal. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 04:11 PM Response to Reply #1 |
8. You could have made the same argument back then to Johnson |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 04:15 PM Response to Reply #8 |
10. Neither of those are substitutes for actual Supreme Court confirmation fights. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 04:18 PM Response to Reply #10 |
11. I guess you don't remember the "Impeach Warren" bumperstickers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cirque du So-What
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 04:22 PM Response to Reply #11 |
12. Bumperstickers? I remember a multitude of billboards with that slogan! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Manifestor_of_Light
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 05:51 PM Response to Reply #12 |
26. the Chad Mitchell Trio sang about that stuff. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 08:06 PM Response to Reply #11 |
34. The Supreme Court has always been a matter of political controversy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bluenorthwest
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 04:57 PM Response to Reply #1 |
16. 20 Republican Senators refused to vote at all |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jakes Progress
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 06:23 PM Response to Reply #16 |
29. +100 "Excuses for Timidity" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Unvanguard
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 08:04 PM Response to Reply #16 |
33. Abstaining is actually a weaker sign of opposition than voting against. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Sun Apr-11-10 10:54 AM Response to Reply #33 |
42. most didn't abstain; they were absent but the vote they would have cast was announced |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Sun Apr-11-10 07:32 AM Response to Reply #16 |
41. most of the Senators not voting were Democrats and most of them announced how they would vote |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jobycom
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 04:01 PM Response to Original message |
6. Well said. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
vaberella
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 04:23 PM Response to Original message |
13. Why would you use another President as a basis? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 04:26 PM Response to Reply #13 |
14. Uh, because it's how presidential history often works? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
vaberella
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 05:03 PM Response to Reply #14 |
18. We're not in the midst of civil rights tensions (well not like in the 60s-70s). |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ShortnFiery
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 05:18 PM Response to Reply #18 |
24. As more and more people fail to deal with under-employment, you're going to see a ground swell |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 06:11 PM Response to Reply #18 |
28. Why is it premature? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DCKit
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 05:02 PM Response to Original message |
17. One of our best, ever. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jefferson_dem
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 05:12 PM Response to Original message |
19. Great post. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rurallib
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 05:13 PM Response to Original message |
20. and what an insult that he would be replaced by Clarence Thomas. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
StevieM
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 07:04 PM Response to Reply #20 |
30. ITA. It's upsetting just to think about. (eom) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
whistler162
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 05:13 PM Response to Original message |
21. Yup... because his previous nomination was a |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ShortnFiery
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 05:15 PM Response to Reply #21 |
23. She may go either way. She doesn't have much of a track record save for "the middle." eom |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ShortnFiery
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 05:14 PM Response to Original message |
22. He won't. I have no "hope" left given that President Obama has tacked to the corporate right. eom |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
craigmatic
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 05:28 PM Response to Original message |
25. LBJ was looking far ahead past his own lifetime. Obama needs to do the same with his pick. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 11:29 PM Response to Reply #25 |
36. good point |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ClarkUSA
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 05:57 PM Response to Original message |
27. Um, LBJ had 68 Democratic Senators to back him up while President Obama has 57 + Bernie Sanders. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
StevieM
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 07:11 PM Response to Reply #27 |
31. I'm sure I'll be satisfied with Obama's eventual pick, like I was was Sotomayor, but I do think |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Sun Apr-11-10 07:15 AM Response to Reply #27 |
40. you are right about the numbers, but it was the repub support, not the 68 Dems that mattered |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Stinky The Clown
![]() |
Sat Apr-10-10 07:49 PM Response to Original message |
32. As I read what you wrote, I could literally recall the quote in Johnson's voice. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Overseas
![]() |
Sun Apr-11-10 12:29 AM Response to Original message |
37. K&R . //nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ter
![]() |
Sun Apr-11-10 03:03 AM Response to Original message |
38. A strong liberal is prefered, as long as he/she supports the 2nd Amendment |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Sun Apr-11-10 07:11 AM Response to Original message |
39. it was a much different political landscape - nearly as many repubs voted for Marshall as Dems |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ter
![]() |
Mon Apr-12-10 03:37 AM Response to Reply #39 |
43. Let me guess... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote
![]() |
Mon Apr-12-10 06:30 AM Response to Reply #43 |
44. nope. Thurmond |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
VMI Dem
![]() |
Mon Apr-12-10 07:03 AM Response to Original message |
45. Expect a moderate. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Fri Jul 26th 2024, 10:06 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC