Monday, February 15, 2016

Voters in November will finally be thinking about the US Supreme Court ... by gimleteye

"This is the rare time that a material number of voters may seriously think about the Court in deciding whether to vote at all and who to vote for." SCOTUS blog

Some say it doesn't matter who is elected president. I point out, whatever faults one may find in a candidate for president -- whether they are all bought by Wall Street or Big Sugar -- what differentiates them are their choices for the federal judiciary.

Disastrous changes in the United States -- the Citizens United decision by the Roberts Supreme Court, front and center, through which Dark Money has taken over democracy -- were triggered by US Supreme Court decisions.

Marco Rubio could not be more shallow or shriller as he trolls for votes by demonizing every Obama move. As chair of the Senate committee that rules on presidential nominations, Rubio could not be more obstructionist. Ted Cruz wants this to be a referendum on the Supreme Court. I say, it is about time.


Oscar said...

Them Repugs may very well stall the President's appointment of a Supreme Court Justice and find themselves with a minority role in the Senate after losing half dozen seats. They can then watch Barack Obama be Hillary's first Supreme Court appointee! followed by Anita Hill. Let's see Justice Clarence Thomas freak out then!

Geniusofdespair said...

It has always been the Supremes.

We have 3 branches of government. People forget about or don't realize the importance of a third of that trinity. This timely judicial death has focused attention on the real need for the right candidate for president. The President appoints the supremes. The Citizens United decision gave rise to the popularity of the self-funded candidate: Donald Trump. But I don't want him appointing the Supremes.

Anonymous said...

Rubio was interviewed on Sunday's Face the Nation. He stated that he wants the next President to follow the original intention of the
Founding Father's version of the Constitution based on society's values at that time. Then, when asked about the Supreme Court's appointment, he said we should follow recent tradition and not allow a President in the last year of his term make a lifetime appointment.

Did no one else see that he just negated his original thought?

Geniusofdespair said...

Thought? You give Rubio too much credit.

Anonymous said...

I am a little insulted by your implication that Supreme Court appointments haven't been taken into consideration prior to this election.

Since most years the parties have been interchangeable, this has always been my litmus test as to who to vote for. A position that lasts a lifetime is far more important one that lasts 4-8 years.

This year I have spent a lot of time imploring those who say if either Bernie (or Hillary if that is their wont) is not the candidate they will either not vote at all or vote for Trump. I then explain how many potential judges could be named in the next 4 years and that judges are in office a lot longer than a president they may not particularly like.

This crazy campaign year just got crazier and Republican obstructionism is going to hit a record level.
The ride just got a lot bumpier.

Anonymous said...

Rubio would likely convene an advisory group of the world's most greedy bastards, and ask them to give him a short list. He would then rehearse his 30-second sales pitch to hawk his nominee. What a tool. The vote of the people has never been more important. Don't let anyone else speak for you this year.