The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Not on board with this logic. You cannot, I repeat, cannot lose 3 times in a row. Realistically regardless of which Dem wins the WH or what kind of control the GOP hands onto (the House presumably), a Dem prez with a mere 50 votes in the Senate for 2 years completely retakes the federal judiciary. Dems already have taken over the appeals courts for the most part (9 out of 13 IIRC). Furthermore the judicial filibuster is gone. In 2 years time they will fill every single appointment and take over the SCOTUS. EPA lawsuits will be dead. Anti-abortion lawsuits will be laughed out of court. ACA lawsuits will refuse to be heard. You get the picture.

Democrats got extremely lucky after being on the outs from 1981-1993. Souter reamed the people who appointed him. Kennedy while a 3rd choice pick after Reagan first chose a Nixon hack and then a pothead, still hasn't done his benefactors many favors. Sandra Day O'Connor was a swing vote as well. I wouldn't count on either party getting surprised like that again.

Also, I'd point out a generational issue as well. If the GOP loses in 2016, by 2020 the only GOP President most Americans have any memory of is going to be....George W Bush. Anybody old enough to have voted for Reagan will be in their mid 50's. For Bush Sr you'd be 50.

My point about it being the best time for Republicans to have a weak candidate is that it's not like they're going to be matched up against '72 Dick Nixon. With the Republican field an absolute mess, there is simply no excuse for the Democrats to lose this election. None. Now, the fact the Democrats have decided to put up either Cruella Deville or Uncle Fester as their candidate tells me either, a) the state of politics in general is far worse than any of us thought, or b) they've just decided to taunt the GOP, and they couldn't think of a viable deceased candidate to run so they went in this direction. Either way, it's not a decision that is completely without risk.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Between 1968 and 1988, the GOP won four of five presidential elections. The only Dem to win in that time was Carter, as a direct backlash to the shenanigans Nixon pulled. Meanwhile, the Democrats won five straight elections between FDR and Truman. The nation survives these tides and the parties do too. Everyone adapts and pendulum swings back the other way. Doom and gloom prognostications never really prove true in the end.

Not doom and gloom but brutally honest. The courts have been politicized. You won't get someone of an opposite viewpoint as the Prez nominated because they're a stellar jurist. Once in awhile someone might sneak through but its going to be rarer and rarer for that to happen. Exhibit A: Senate Republicans willingness to hold open a SCOTUS seat for a year and a half most likely just because they don't want Obama picking the nominee.

PS - The FDR victories fundamentally transformed the country in a way that we're still being governed by. I'll be more than happy if that happens again!

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Predicting how Justices will vote over time has always been risky.

It does seem that liberal Presidents pick liberals who stay liberal.

Conservative Presidents pick folks that ... well ... Souter. < facepalm >

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

My point about it being the best time for Republicans to have a weak candidate is that it's not like they're going to be matched up against '72 Dick Nixon. With the Republican field an absolute mess, there is simply no excuse for the Democrats to lose this election. None. Now, the fact the Democrats have decided to put up either Cruella Deville or Uncle Fester as their candidate tells me either, a) the state of politics in general is far worse than any of us thought, or b) they've just decided to taunt the GOP, and they couldn't think of a viable deceased candidate to run so they went in this direction. Either way, it's not a decision that is completely without risk.

I don't feel the Dems are in any worse shape than the GOP in 1988 who chose between out of touch elitist Bush Sr and Grumpy Old Man Dole. The old guard of the GOP had one last hurrah to win the Presidency against a weak opponent. Roles are reversed this time but its somewhat similar.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

It does seem that liberal Presidents pick liberals who stay liberal.

Conservative Presidents pick folks that ... well ... Souter. < facepalm >

Yup. Very true.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

It does seem that liberal Presidents pick liberals who stay liberal.

Conservative Presidents pick folks that ... well ... Souter. < facepalm >

Earl Warren was the biggie.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

But it's the best possible time for the Republicans to have a weak candidate.

For the good guys and the country, yes.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Between 1968 and 1988, the GOP won four of five presidential elections. The only Dem to win in that time was Carter, as a direct backlash to the shenanigans Nixon pulled. Meanwhile, the Democrats won five straight elections between FDR and Truman. The nation survives these tides and the parties do too. Everyone adapts and pendulum swings back the other way. Doom and gloom prognostications never really prove true in the end.

I think this is the right attitude to take and it's why I always resist the idea that a party is "dying." Parties are machines for gaining power, no more. If the ideas the Republicans rode to power during the Reagan-Bush period no longer have a significant popular following the Republican party will find other ideas. The general alignment of the left (Liberté, égalité, fraternité) and right (Kinder, Küche, Kirche) seems to be a long term division in society -- 250 years and counting -- but the particular policies and viewpoints through which that alignment is expressed are always changing.

The GOP is in a blind alley but they'll get out. The brand is too useful a means to gain power to let it die for a "principle," particular when that principle is the upswing of a periodic outbreak of Nativism.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Earl Warren was the biggie.

Brennan wasn't chief, but he was also big.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

My point about it being the best time for Republicans to have a weak candidate is that it's not like they're going to be matched up against '72 Dick Nixon. With the Republican field an absolute mess, there is simply no excuse for the Democrats to lose this election. None. Now, the fact the Democrats have decided to put up either Cruella Deville or Uncle Fester as their candidate tells me either, a) the state of politics in general is far worse than any of us thought, or b) they've just decided to taunt the GOP, and they couldn't think of a viable deceased candidate to run so they went in this direction. Either way, it's not a decision that is completely without risk.

I agree with this, but there was no excuse for losing to Dubya either. I can remember thinking after the first debate, "my God -- this guy is actually a moron. There is no way..." and yet with the help of the worst election hanky panky since 1960 they won.

3 in a row is tough. The voters get administration fatigue and all the stuff that the incumbent gets blamed for, rightly or wrongly, builds up like lactic acid. Right now I'd put it at 50/50 at best.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I don't feel the Dems are in any worse shape than the GOP in 1988 who chose between out of touch elitist Bush Sr and Grumpy Old Man Dole. The old guard of the GOP had one last hurrah to win the Presidency against a weak opponent. Roles are reversed this time but its somewhat similar.

Oh I disagree strongly, Rover. Bush Sr. was a neutral figure and he benefited from his association with Reagan's extremely popular administration. Imagine if Biden had run. Bush had strengths that neither your girl nor my boy has.

Is it too late for Biden to jump in? Please? Please?!?

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I agree with this, but there was no excuse for losing to Dubya either. I can remember thinking after the first debate, "my God -- this guy is actually a moron. There is no way..." and yet with the help of the worst election hanky panky since 1960 they won.

3 in a row is tough. The voters get administration fatigue and all the stuff that the incumbent gets blamed for, rightly or wrongly, builds up like lactic acid. Right now I'd put it at 50/50 at best.

I can't see on what planet this is a 50/50 election based on what we know now. Trump or Cruz in the nominee. Those guys aren't 50/50 to win even if the Dems nominated a potted plant. There just aren't enough self centered angry old white guys out there anymore.

Beyond that though, I welcome this election being about control of the SCOTUS. I can think of few things to better get infrequent Dem voters out. Really, there's something for everyone. Hispanics sympathetic to illegal immigrants? Prez' executive order is on the docket. Tree huggin' liberals? EPA ruling to be decided. Women's libers/pro-choicers? You can crush all laws designed to make running an abortion clinic impossible. A lot of times people feel nothing will change. Change control of the SCOTUS and a lot changes. Starting with campaign finance reform.

GOP voters are maxed out. They're at about 60M per general election. Dems fluctuate between 66M and 70M and should be adding a couple of million as new voters age into eligibility. Only complacency or absolutism can defeat them.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

GOP voters are maxed out. They're at about 60M per general election. Dems fluctuate between 66M and 70M and should be adding a couple of million as new voters age into eligibility. Only complacency or absolutism can defeat them.

0. Head to head polling now is running 50/50 (yes, I'll grant it's very early)

1. The GOP has more enthusiasm and the circus nomination is ginning them up even more.

2. An Obama-less ticket could cost the Dems millions of black votes.

3a. Hillary could implode: what if she actually gets indicted?

3b. Bernie could implode: "Socialism" is still a powerful magic word demonized by a century of corporate propaganda.

4. The Court may play much more to conservative than liberal concern, with fundies being stoked to delusional paranoia on guns, gays, and god.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Thom Tillis didn't get the memo.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

0. Head to head polling now is running 50/50 (yes, I'll grant it's very early)

1. The GOP has more enthusiasm and the circus nomination is ginning them up even more.

2. An Obama-less ticket could cost the Dems millions of black votes.

3a. Hillary could implode: what if she actually gets indicted?

3b. Bernie could implode: "Socialism" is still a powerful magic word demonized by a century of corporate propaganda.

4. The Court may play much more to conservative than liberal concern, with fundies being stoked to delusional paranoia on guns, gays, and god.

Yep. All of that could happen.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Not healthy being a nervous Nellie guys.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Not healthy being a nervous Nellie guys.

This isn't the spin room. Here we say what we think, not what we want to play on the nightly news.

If I were a Democratic operative on TV I'd be 100% certain that our great field will blow away their terrible field, and we'll retake the Senate. But this is where we tell the truth.

 

[unofan]

There are several cases pending before the Court in which Administration policies are to be decided (e.g., EPA "Clean Coal" plan, Little Sisters of the Poor vs. HHS Secretary, NLRB vs just about everyone, etc etc).

While it is not the same as a criminal trial, imagine if a defendant could appoint the judge who would then preside over his trial. Yet we have the Executive branch as a named party in several cases pending before the Court also in line to appoint a judge who would then be in position to rule on those cases.

Had the Repugnicans any sense, they might point that out with a bit of simplicity of clarity, and so of course we know that will not happen.

While it is now a "rule" for nominees not to answer any hypothetical questions about how they might rule in general, that is not the situation here, these cases are not at all hypothetical, they are pending and may well be decided by the vote of the new appointee. Were there to be a nomination and hearings, you know the nominee will face questions about the pending open cases against the Executive.

And this is different from every single other Supreme court nominee, how, exactly?

Nothing about what you said is a point in favor of obstructionism being anything other than blatant political posturing.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Earl Warren was the biggie.

And it sometimes went the other way. White, appointed by Kennedy, disappointed many liberals.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

This isn't the spin room. Here we say what we think, not what we want to play on the nightly news.

If I were a Democratic operative on TV I'd be 100% certain that our great field will blow away their terrible field, and we'll retake the Senate. But this is where we tell the truth.

Libs are great at voting for visionaries. Not so much for the foot-soldiers needed to actually win the battles. This is why most of the states have slipped into Teabagger hands.

I think it's a reflection on the relative youth of the average Obama voter vs. the average McCain/Romney voter.