87, 84, 84, 81 - the numbers you need for the next Presidental Election

[dbackjon]

That's will be the age of the four oldest justices in 2020 - at the end of the next presidential term.

There is an almost certainty that whomever is elected in 2016 will appoint 1-4 justices. And if current trends hold, those new justices will be serving until 2045-2050.


Let that sink in - do you want Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, etc determining the fate of the nation for the next 30 years?

Remember, Scalia is a REAGAN appointee.


ANY Democrat will do better.

Ginsburg - best Justice in decades - Clinton appointee
Breyer - Clinton
Sotomayer - Obama
Kagan - Obama

Scalia - Reagan
Kennedy - Reagan
Thomas - Bush I
Alito - Dubya
Roberts - Dubya


Notice a difference there?

[misterhighwasted]

1. Good Post. Pretty much lays it out there.

Makes it clear how critical the 2016 election is to our Nation's future..Forever!

[Thinkingabout]

2. Exactly, this is the picture of the tragedy of Republican run.

If you think elections do not matter you better think again. We need to get the Senate back to Democrats to get confirmations for judges. The state houses needs to get back to Democrats to get rid of the outrageous gerrymandering.

[calimary]

12. Thankfully, some of the Dems finally woke up about this.

http://dlcc.org/news/dlcc-launches-advantage-2020-key-success-next-round-redistricting-70-million-plus-effort

Taking back the governors' offices in as many red states as possible by the year 2020. Because THAT is when the next census is taken. On the Zero-Years. The Decade marks. 2010. 2020. 2030. 2040... Each of those years is when a new census is taken. To determine population growth and movement. So as to determine who gets how much representation. The Sunbelt will probably gain that much more, just because the so-called "Rust Belt" and other states in the northern parts of our country will lose population. AND, MOST IMPORTANT: The Congressional districts get redrawn, to accommodate the changes in population. THAT is when we MUST have Democrats in key positions. As Governors AND Secretaries of State. Because WE need to control reapportionment. WE need to be the ones redrawing the districts. If the CONS have it, then they gerrymander like crazy and therefore RIG THE GAME.

Our team has been asleep at the wheel about this for WAY too long. Seemed like exactly nobody was paying attention. They sure dropped the ball and stayed asleep in 2010 and look what we got. Teabaggers crawling up the walls like so many cockroach infestations. Some of 'em finally woke up. Hope it's not too late.

[n2doc]

3. Need the Senate back too

You know the repubs will never allow a vote on a nominee unless the president is also a repub. They will be happy to just let chaos reign if needed.

[NYC_SKP]

4. I don't want Ted Cruz & I don't want Hillary Clinton. I'll vote for the most progressive candidate.

Neither of them are getting my vote.

If the SCOTUS comes into play, blame the party for thinking that Hillary is somehow more interested in working people than in wealthy people and power.

Give us a candidate that has a record befitting a Democrat.

[dbackjon]

5. So you will be happy with another Scalia on the court

Because that is what you would be getting without a Democratic President - even Hillary. Look at Bill's appointees - very good choices. Hillary's will be in the same line.

[NYC_SKP]

6. I'm working against Clinton becoming our candidate, and for having an actual primary.

She's a media darling being shoved down our throats.

Fuck that, we get a primary.

And during the primaries we work to identify the best representative of our values, not the one with the most name recognition.

Voting out of fear is a horrible thing to promote. The RW is always using that tactic and I'm not going to fall for it.

What Clinton supporters don't consider is that her candidacy could fail, running her might result in a republican win, she's so full of shit and baggage.

IMO, a strong authentic progressive might have a better chance of winning.

And, in this case, the SCOTUS argument can be applied to say, "Hey, if you want a strong SCOTUS, don't vote for hillary because she'll lose this thing."

[lobodons]

9. Note the 2 Dubya Judges: Alito and Roberts

They are there because 90,000 people in Florida voted for Nadar. (Gore just needed 600 of those)

Don't let 2016 become a rerun of 2000!!

SCOTUS would be Dem/Progressive 6-3 right now with a potential of 7-2 with a Ginsburg retirement until 2030. THINK ABOUT THAT!!! No Citizens United. No overturn of ACA. No more 5-4 Scalia written decisions.

[calimary]

13. TOTALLY THIS^^^^^^^

[Dont call me Shirley]

14. Gore won the FL vote! Not Nader's fault. Look at Jeb and Kathleen Harris in the FL debacle.

And the USSC.

[dsc]

20. Hilary a media darling

sweet Jesus on a shamrock what a bunch of delusional tommy rot.

[NYC_SKP]

21. She got a standing ovation from press after not taking questions. "Excellence in Journalism" event.

Now that's irony.

Hillary lectures reporters, gets standing ovation -



Hillary Clinton told a crowd of journalists that she wants a new beginning in her relations with the press. Then, to prove her sincerity she entertained questions for 20 minutes.

Just kidding. Clinton did talk of a new beginning, but she took no questions, according to the National Journal.

The assemblage of hard-nosed reporters was clearly put off by Clinton’s unwillingness to take questions. Accordingly, Clinton received only polite applause when she finished her remarks.

Just kidding. Charmed by Clinton’s one-liners (almost certainly written by someone else), the journalists gave her a standing ovation.

See more at: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/hillary-lectures-reporters-gets-standing-ovation.php

In case you don't like the source, see also:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-jokes-press-coverage-email-controversy-article-1.2160357
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/23/hillary-clinton-press_n_6928098.html
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/03/hillary_clinton_jokes_about_relationship_with_the_press_its

[dsc]

24. great source you have there

what's the matter was Goebbles to busy being dead? here is another article from that fine website you quoted.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/democrats-and-their-masters.php


Posted on March 24, 2015 by Scott Johnson in abortion, Democrats
Democrats and their masters

The Democratic Party appears to take the sacramental view of abortion. Any act that might tend to deter an abortion is to be resisted. It’s the abortion equivalent of the positive good school of slavery. If the party as a whole doesn’t subscribe to this view, its funders certainly must.

and here is a correction on an unrelated issue by the author himself

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/loretta-lynch-and-hillarys-castle-grande-cover-up.php


Posted on March 16, 2015 by Paul Mirengoff in Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch
Correction on Loretta Lynch

I just put up a post claiming that Loretta Lynch, the pending nominee for Attorney General of the United States, was the Clinton campaign staffer who, in 1992, compiled Team Clinton’s version of Hillary Clinton’s relationship with crooked banker Jim McDougal and of her involvement as a lawyer for McDougal’s Castle Grande scam. The post was erroneous. A different Loretta Lynch served the Clintons in this capacity.

I apologize for the error and have replaced the erroneous post with this one to make sure others don’t make the same mistake I did.

Thanks to Ed Morrissey for bringing the error to our attention.

a fine, fine source you have there.

[NYC_SKP]

25. Are you suggesting that none of this happened?

If all you can do is attack the source, then you might as well admit defeat.

Unless, of course, none of this never happened.

I'll add some sources for you.

[dsc]

26. I went to there original source

and lets just say that it wasn't quite like they described to say the least. It was apparently that she was asked to speak and some sort of journalism award thing and yes they applauded her but no mention of a standing ovation. Oh, and Hilary apparently knew the reporter after whom the award was named. So yeah they pretty much lied to your face, you brought it here without even knowing or caring just who you were quoting. Heck of a job Brownie.

[NYC_SKP]

7. Hey, if you want a strong SCOTUS, don't vote for Hillary because she'll lose this thing.

To me, a strong and authentic candidate without baggage and WITH a strong and sincere message will have a better chance of defeating the Republican nominee.

Be careful who you vote for, that Clinton that polls so well now might tank when it comes down to the General Election.

Just sayin'

[Thinkingabout]

17. Looking forward to a primary, bring in your candidate and promote them.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

8. Yes - the next president must be a dem

thanks for the important post

[SheilaT]

10. I will say that what concerns me the most

about any Democratic President making an appointment to the Supreme Court is that the Republicans in the Senate would basically refuse to confirm the nomination. Unless we can get a Senate with at least 60 Democrats, since the current idiocy with "filibustering" means that a simple majority means nothing whatsoever, the R's would refuse to confirm candidate after candidate, until a candidate acceptable to them is nominated.

[FSogol]

16. Then we need to take back the Senate and House too. n/t

[SheilaT]

19. A mere taking back won't be good enough.

The standard order of business any more is that it takes 60 votes to get anything done.

I do sincerely hope that more of the people who have been voting for Republicans will start to understand how badly served they have been by them, and start voting for Democrats.

[Thinkingabout]

18. Yes we need the senate and house to loosen the strings of the GOP.

[mountain grammy]

11. I'm listening to Michael Tomasky on John Fuglesang's show

saying essentially the same thing.

and, of course, we all agree. If Hillary is our nominee, we will vote for her. I will vote for her.

but she is not my first choice.

Doesn't look like she will have any competition, but Warren has plenty of leverage to get Hillary to change her positions, but she will be our nominee.

[FSogol]

15. K&R "ANY Democrat will do better."

GOTV, DU.

[joshcryer]

22. it's not just the SCOTUS

There are going to be hundreds of appointees retiring, which affects local government too.

[AZ Progressive]

23. This may be our ONE AND ONLY CHANCE to reverse Citizens United

With the Koch Brothers further getting their tentacles into governments across America, the less and less chance there is to get a constitutional amendment passed. So the only way then to reverse Citizens United would be to change the justices on the Supreme Court. This is not time to take big risks, the time to take big risks is after a major upheaval like an unpopular war or a bad economy (where your against the incumbent / previous administration.)

[AwakeAtLast]

29. Agreed.

Our children will be the ones effected by this election.

[beachbum bob]

27. something liberal idealist need to always keep in mind

we dont want a repeat of 2000 with bush getting in because of the Nader vote

[Scuba]

28. This is why we need a Bernie Sanders, or an Elizabeth Warren!!!!

[11 Bravo]

30. I knew where this was going before I even clicked on it ...

and I could not agree more!