Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
email Get AlterNet in your mailbox!

 

PEEK archive by date:

«January 2009»
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Use » and « to view other months.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Search:

Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Blogroll

Afro-Netizen
All Spin Zone
Altercation
Americablog
And, yes, I DO take it personally
Another Iranian Online
August J. Pollak
Baghdad Burning
Barry Lando
Bloggrrrlz Gallery
Blondesense
Bob Geiger
Body and Soul
Boing Boing
Booman Tribune
BOP News
Bush Watch
BUZZFLASH
Carpetbagger
Clean Air Blog
Cool Hunting
Corrente
CrooksandLiars
Cursor
Dahr Jamail
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
DC Media Girl
DemiOrator
Direland
Echidne of the Snakes
Elayne Riggs
Eschaton
Fact-esque
Falafel Sex, and Other Things Best Left Unsaid
Farai Chideya
Feminist Peace Network
Feministe
Feministing
Frameshop
Gristmill
Huffington Post
Hullabaloo
Informed Comment
James Wolcott
Jesus General
Lady Jayne's Blog
Liberal Oasis
Mad Kane
Mahablog
Majikthise
Media Girl
Media is a Plural
MediaCitizen
Metafilter
Michael Berube
MyDD
News Dissector
News For Real
Norbizness
Oliver Willis
Pacific Views
Pandagon
Political Animal
PopPolitics.com
PR Watch
Prometheus 6
Raed in the Middle
RH Reality Check
Robert Greenwald
Roger Ailes
Rox Populi
Sadly, No!
Seeing the Forest
Shakespeares Sister
Sirotablog
Sisyphus Shrugged
skippy the bush kangaroo
Slacktivist
SpeakSpeak
Stay Free!
Steve Gilliard
Talking Points Memo
TalkLeft
TBogg
Thatcoloredfellasweblog
The Bilerico Project
The Hutchinson Political Report
The Republic of T
The Revealer
The Sideshow
The Swift Report
Think Progress
This Modern World
TikvahGirl
Trish Wilson
War and Piece
Waveflux
What She Said!
Whiskey Bar
Working Families Vote 2008

The Future of the Court

Posted by Sara Whitman, The Bilerico Project at 7:10 AM on May 2, 2008.


What kind of judges would President McCain put on the bench?
Post Tools
email EMAIL
print PRINT
29 COMMENTS
supremes
supremes

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

RSS iconPEEK RSS Feed

RSS iconMain AlterNet RSS Feed

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

As we wonder about whether or not Obama's charisma is running out, or if Clinton can in fact win regardless of how much ground she is making up right now, I want to remind everyone of something bigger than Obama or Clinton.

The Supreme Court.

If McCain wins this election? The Supreme Court will be stacked with Roberts and Alito clones and we will lose the court for the rest of my lifetime.

I plan on living a long life, too.

When I think about that, I'm not sure I need to be right anymore, about Senator Clinton. When I think about that, I get really frightened for my children.

John Paul Stevens is 88 years old. Ruth Ginsburg 75 and already a one time cancer survivor. How much longer can they hang on?

The war in Iraq needs to end. The economy needs to be sent for emergency surgery. Health care, public education, jobs- the list goes on and on. We are in such a mess after 8 years of Bush, it's hard to know where to begin.

I honestly don't care about Reverend Wright and what he said. I think Clinton's gas tax relief is a lame attempt to garner votes.

The bitter campaign has to stop. The Obamatrons and the Clintonistas have to give it a rest, and yes, I am including myself in that.

Because in the not so distant future? The next president of the United States will be appointing at least one, if not several, new justices to the supreme court.

We should all be afraid, very afraid, of McCain's probable appointments.

Digg!

Tagged as: mccain, scotus


Return to PEEK  » Post Tools: email EMAIL print PRINT 29 COMMENTS PERMALINK
Also in PEEK
Report: Obama Prepared to Talk to Hamas
Barack Obama is reportedly planning to ditch President Bush's strategy of isolating Hamas, and will instead move to open contacts with the group.
Post by Faiz Shakir. January 8, 2009.		 Obama Can Learn from Bush: 'We Tried' Ain't Enough
We will need to remind Obama again and again that for those voters concerned about immigration, 'almost' just ain't gonna cut it come 2012.
Post by Paco Fabian. January 8, 2009.		 Rachel Maddow on 'Daily Show': 'Insulted,' 'Embarrassed' By Bush
Jon Stewart and Maddow talk Bush, Obama, Bill Clinton, MSNBC and the Munsters.
Post by Danny Shea. January 8, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated. 		View:
Serious
[Report this comment]
Posted by: QQOblivion on May 2, 2008 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And keep in mind that if McCain wins the general election, his coat-tails will likely help get many Republicans elected to the Senate. You think it is easy for a Republican president now to get what ever he wants, even with a "Democratic majority" in the Senate. Just wait until the Senate is stacked with ultra-Right-Wingers. Then ANY SC nominee -- and I mean ANY nominee, no matter how Right-Wing Fascist nutty they are -- will have an easy time being confirmed.

I have said this before: Second only to the fact that nuclear Armageddon will probably occur if McCain is made president, one of the biggest reasons to vote for Hillary or Barack (and, yes, they are both lame, I admit) is the Supreme Court.

This is not a game, people! This is damn serious!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Funny... (well, not really...)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Xynyx on May 2, 2008 8:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was just talking with my father about this very subject last night. He frequently reminds me how he has always said that Presidents generally have the most lasting impact on society via their SCOTUS nominations.

We are already screwed. At this point, it's just a matter of whether we let the assholes bury the screw-head and strip the groove. We may never be able to extract this screw.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why was my comment censored..
[Report this comment]
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 2, 2008 10:23 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why was my comment on the Federalist Society controlling the Court erased..?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» pfft! here it is! Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: pfft! here it is! Posted by: TJ-stars4peace
» RE: pfft! here it is! Posted by: Lauren
Lets not forget Scalia
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JSquercia on May 2, 2008 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you watched Scalia on 60 minutes you had to be impressed with the sheer Chutpah of the man who ALWAYS thinks he is the Smartest guy in the Room .
He abhors Torure but like the current Attorney General can't seem to define it .However the most amazing piece of sophistry was his reply to Stahl's question as to whether toture was Cruel and Unusual Punishment and thus against the Constitution . He said it wasn't punishment as it was administered during interogation . Of course he once also talked about Jack Bauer and 24 in discussing enhanced interogation . Yoh it's a TV show JUSTICE .
This is a man who said that absolute proof of innocence was not reason to overturn a jury's verdict . He and the Federalist Society are so much in favor of Corporations over citizens that I am sure they would have no problem with Blackwater gunning people down in the streets . Hyperbole PERHAPS than again maybe NOT . Think back to what Judges of this ilk allowed Corporations to do to union workers prior to the New Deal

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lets not forget Scalia Posted by: Longdream
The Federalist Society Court..IE The Unitary Scumbaggery Doctrine..
[Report this comment]
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 2, 2008 10:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry I posted to the wrong article my bad..

I Said in my original post..

The Future of the Court is whatever the Federalist Society wants it to be wereas, it is in reality no longer the United States Supreme Court but The Federalist Society Court..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, yes, and no...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 2, 2008 2:06 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I honestly don't care about Reverend Wright and what he said. I think Clinton's gas tax relief is a lame attempt to garner votes.

Wright's hate speech is an issue to WRightwingers, and folks who cling to the "we're fairer than you" mantra. He's a non-issue to other folks, as best as I can tell. He's not running for office, so Obama's only fault is in not going with the political winds.

Clinton's attempts to buy votes is a classic strategy--you blow whichever way (pelvis) the political winds are blowing. Nothing more, nothing less.

Whether we will overlook these two jackasses attempts to pander/avoid conflict or allow an outspoken warmonger (contrasted with both Clinton and Obama offer limited, mayhap closeted war-mongerer platforms) is the question.

We've--on average--given up on anti-war candidates on both the "right" and the "left". The question is how pro-war we want to be as a country, and whether Obama or Clinton would best represent that in the office of the presidency.

They both have similar experience as politicians (if you discount Clinton's years as a consort), but Obama seems less an entrenched politician. Entrenched politicians have gotten us the (bad) point we are today, so he gets my vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yes, yes, and no... Posted by: prbrooksie
A GOOD REASON NOT TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 2, 2008 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Political appointments to the Supreme Court go against everything we stand for. There's only on way to prevent it. No more right wing nut cases in the White House. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ok... Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» RE: ok... Posted by: Lauren
A GOOD REASON NOT TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 2, 2008 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Political appointments to the Supreme Court go against everything we stand for. There's only on way to prevent it. No more right wing nut cases in the White House. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton and Obama would likely nominate right leaning justices, too
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Rune on May 2, 2008 2:38 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you look at Clinton's record, policy positions, and who she is courting for sing vote support, she most closely resembles a neocon on state and economic issues. There is no reason to suspect she would appoint left leaning justices.

Obama is also a consistent supporter of the right leaning corporate agenda. Moreover, to the extent that he speaks pretty words about the left's agenda, he quickly caves in to rightwing pressure. Chances are he would not even try to slip a left leaning judicial nominee past the GOP members of the Senate who will throw a hissy fit about a judge he matches the values of most Americans being a radical commie who will undo all their "progress."

None of the three leading candidates show much promise for reversing the destructive course we are on. The choices seem to come down to how firmly any of them will hit the accelerator while they all steer more or less the same course.

Time to stand up and take a chance on rejecting the corporate approved candidates being marketed to us. None of the three choices on offer will make enough of a positive change to save us from further short and long term damage to our personal rights, economic interests, and wishes for a safer and more secure future for our children and grandchildren.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Learn about the Federalist Society..
[Report this comment]
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 5, 2008 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a real shame people are so unaware of the true nature and threat posed to our Republic by the Federalist Society you'd think people would be better informed and able to think in a more linear fashion..

Everything you dislike that has gone on in America since 2000 emanates from the Federalist Society..

Why do you think Karl Rove would go kiss their collective butts with such regularity..?

Because their the good guys..?

John Yoo and David Addington are Federalist Society..

They have cut off the application and intent and design of our Founding Fathers with their warped agenda and dismantling of our Constitution..

You'll notice how they are attacking my posts on them and I am going easy here right now..

What could be more dangerous to America than a Cabal of corrupt disingenuous Lawyers, Federal Attorneys and Federal Judges with a shared ideology and preexisting agenda..?

Membership in the Federalist Society should be viewed as a conflict of interest and prejudicial for Federal Attorney's and Judges including and especially what was once our Supreme Court..now the Federalist Society Court..

It is a dual if even that, loyalty any and all Federalist Society members should be excluded from consideration for Federal posting..

The same goes for Dual Citizenship for any and all Cabinet members and or Federal Judges and Federal Attorney's..as well as of course the President and Vice President..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Longdream on May 7, 2008 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a self-selecting organization. No recruitment--just a committment to put right-wing judges on the bench. Its members read like a catalogue of the worst of the worst, but the Federalist Society didn't create them--they're there because they are who they are.

One of the most important actions of the Federalist Society in the Bush Administration was its support for Bush's termination of the American Bar Association's ratings of the qualifications of judges for appointment to the Federal judiciary. Not only do we have judges with a right-wing agenda, we have them without the knowledge to do their jobs properly, so that we get highly cited judges who create chaos with improperly tried cases.

But it isn't the existence of the Federalist Society that should bother us. The organization is nothing without an Executive Branch ready to stack the courts.

My prediction is that Federalist Society influence will dwindle to zilch in the next eight years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]