Justice Kennedy announces retirement

[Jolly_Penguin]

This is another consequence of liberals failing/refusing to fall in line. More consequences of "bust".

It is a prime example of "lesser of two evils" pitches for office failing hard. People need something to vote for. Its the politicians job to give them that, and if they fail to do so, that's more on them than on the voters.

 

[Terrell]

If we are lucky, it stops at abortion.
"Fetal heart beat" bills are a go! I wouldn't expect them to ban abortion, but to go the fetal heart beat route because it allows SCOTUS to allow it as a 'reasonable limitation', ignoring that it effectively bans abortion. Watch for "the pill" to be next.

Same for gay/lesbian rights, and several other.

With the recent bullshit Florist decision, SCOTUS has sent a message "sincerely held religious based discrimination (by Christians)" is legal.

This is another consequence of liberals failing/refusing to fall in line. More consequences of "bust".

And it is going to hurt.

I do think that Baird, Lawrence, and Griswold are next, at least in some states. Expect further governmental interference in your bedroom, just to start. It's very likely they'll legislate their views on "Traditional Values" ^tm anywhere they can.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, they won't, because America won't elect a liberal Democrat.

Certainly not so long as the Democrats refuse to try, and continue to sell out right along with the Republicans.

Bill Clinton and Obama were moderates at most, very popular moderates. Sanders, while having a platform than 2 in 3 Americans agree with, would lose because the Republicans have a strangle hold on "the message".

I keep hearing people repeat this mantra. I still say you don't actually know this, because the Democrats haven't actually tried. As you say, Sanders has/had a platform that 2 in 3 Americans agree with. When was the last time a true liberal ran for President in the USA? It wasn't in my lifetime. Franklin Roosevelt? He did rather well, ya?

 

[Mumbles]

One thing is for sure. Hillary's attempt at coronation certainly fucked up the USA.

As much as Berie stans like to say this, the simple fact is that Hillary still ran the better campaign of the two, by far. I remember outright Bernie supporters insisting that particular states, particularly those in the south, "shouldn't count" in the 2016 primaries, when in reality Sanders simply refused to compete among wide swaths of voters (nonwhite voters in particular).

But that was over years ago regardless.

Sanders tried, he just couldn't wrestle them away from Clinton like Obama managed to. (for people who don't remember, the black vote was behind Clinton for a while before switching to Obama)

Clinton's mistake was not hanging out up north (hindsight) and thinking that enough people would be disgusted by Trump. Not even Trump thought he was going to win.

No, this is false. According to his own outreach staff, his campaign simply conceded black voters, as one example. And since black voters outright dominate state democratic votes in many southern states, this means that he simply conceded those states entirely. ANd since zat the tim e the Clintons were actually pretty weak among black voters, this was a complete mistake on his campaign's - and thus his - part.

I'm sure Jolly Penguin will want to state something about "identity politics" here, but it's simply a matter of appearing where the voters are - rallies for students at HBCUs, appearing ob black radio stations and tv shows, visiting black neighborhoods, and so on, and simply discussing what they want to hear about - jobs, education, police violence, and so forth.

This is exactly what I said about GOP candidates between 1996 and 2008, although I gave McCain a pass for giving up after Obama got the nomination. Dolt 45 is an overt white supremacist, so the advise doesn't apply to him. But Bush and Dole didn't make the necessary appearances, while McCain was doing so for a while when Hillary was still holding out hope - but once Obama was his opponent he wisely decided not to bother putting more time and effort in there.

ETA: Worth pointing out that the main objection to Obama among black people was "white people won't vote for him". He went hard at Iowa specifically to demonstrate otherwise, and then sold that win like crazy among black voters.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bill Clinton and Obama were moderates at most, very popular moderates. Sanders, while having a platform than 2 in 3 Americans agree with, would lose because the Republicans have a strangle hold on "the message".

I keep hearing people repeat this mantra.

It isn't a mantra. Remember 2010? Massive landslide after ACA is passed (death panels and shit)? That was controlling the message.

I still say you don't actually know this, because the Democrats haven't actually tried.

Gore lost to a draft dodger. Clinton lost to misogynist. Oddly enough, both won the popular vote.

Slightly fewer people voted for Clinton than Obama (~70,000). Over two million more people voted for Trump than Romney.

- - - Updated - - -

Sanders tried, he just couldn't wrestle them away from Clinton like Obama managed to. (for people who don't remember, the black vote was behind Clinton for a while before switching to Obama)

Clinton's mistake was not hanging out up north (hindsight) and thinking that enough people would be disgusted by Trump. Not even Trump thought he was going to win.

No, this is false. According to his own outreach staff, his campaign simply conceded black voters, as one example. And since black voters outright dominate state democratic votes in many southern states, this means that he simply conceded those states entirely. ANd since zat the tim e the Clintons were actually pretty weak among black voters, this was a complete mistake on his campaign's - and thus his - part.

Fine, I'll concede.

 

[Copernicus]

My guess is that we will have a new ultraconservative justice in place before the November election, and this will become a political football in the election. It will not necessarily work out well for Democrats, either, because it will also mobilize voters in the Republican base. They smell victory. With the Supreme Court no longer having a swing vote, the Supreme Court can effectively nullify almost anything that a Democratic-controlled Congress tries to do. This is partisan politics with blunt force instruments.

If Democrats can block Trump's nominee--a very unlikely prospect, IMO--then SCOTUS will be deadlocked until that gets resolved. I just don't see Democrats able to carry off that kind of strategy until a Democrat is elected President. Even if they could, Republicans would likely be able to use the same tactics to block their efforts to fill the vacant seat.

Trump will nominate someone very quickly. He probably already has a list prepared and ready to go. Republicans will not let Democrats block them in the same way that they blocked Obama. Democrats do not control the Senate's agenda like Mitch McConnell did.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Yes, they have to get it done quickly in case they lose control behind the midterms.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Dear Leader Derangement Syndrome

 

[Copernicus]

Kennedy is in a hurry to hand this off to Trump. He leaves on July 31. That will give Trump plenty of time for to get the appointment done before November, just in case the Senate should pass to Democratic control. Odds are that it won't, however.

 

[laughing dog]

Bill Clinton and Obama were moderates at most, very popular moderates. Sanders, while having a platform than 2 in 3 Americans agree with, would lose because the Republicans have a strangle hold on "the message".

I keep hearing people repeat this mantra. I still say you don't actually know this, because the Democrats haven't actually tried. As you say, Sanders has/had a platform that 2 in 3 Americans agree with. When was the last time a true liberal ran for President in the USA? It wasn't in my lifetime. Franklin Roosevelt? He did rather well, ya?

 Hubert_Humphrey ran in 1968 and lost.  George_McGovern ran against Nixon in 1972 and got his ass kicked.  Walter_Mondale ran in 1984 and got his ass kicked by Ronald Reagan.  Michael_Dukakis ran in 1988 against Bush senior and got his ass kicked.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bill Clinton and Obama were moderates at most, very popular moderates. Sanders, while having a platform than 2 in 3 Americans agree with, would lose because the Republicans have a strangle hold on "the message".

I keep hearing people repeat this mantra. I still say you don't actually know this, because the Democrats haven't actually tried. As you say, Sanders has/had a platform that 2 in 3 Americans agree with. When was the last time a true liberal ran for President in the USA? It wasn't in my lifetime. Franklin Roosevelt? He did rather well, ya?

 Hubert_Humphrey ran in 1968 and lost.  George_McGovern ran against Nixon in 1972 and got his ass kicked.  Walter_Mondale ran in 1984 and got his ass kicked by Ronald Reagan.  Michael_Dukakis ran in 1988 against Bush senior and got his ass kicked.

JP must be very young.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Somebody kick McConnel in the nuts.

 

[couch_sloth]

Bill Clinton and Obama were moderates at most, very popular moderates. Sanders, while having a platform than 2 in 3 Americans agree with, would lose because the Republicans have a strangle hold on "the message".

I keep hearing people repeat this mantra. I still say you don't actually know this, because the Democrats haven't actually tried. As you say, Sanders has/had a platform that 2 in 3 Americans agree with. When was the last time a true liberal ran for President in the USA? It wasn't in my lifetime. Franklin Roosevelt? He did rather well, ya?

 Hubert_Humphrey ran in 1968 and lost.  George_McGovern ran against Nixon in 1972 and got his ass kicked.  Walter_Mondale ran in 1984 and got his ass kicked by Ronald Reagan.  Michael_Dukakis ran in 1988 against Bush senior and got his ass kicked.

I'm just old enough to remember those Democrats running for president. McGovern was really the only one of them I would consider solidly in the liberal camp. I remember the others as being moderates and left-leaning moderates.

 

[marc]

Somebody kick McConnel in the nuts.

I had a dream of pissing on Cheney’s grave. Now I’m thinking i should start a list of such sites, starting by adding McConnel to it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Bill Clinton and Obama were moderates at most, very popular moderates. Sanders, while having a platform than 2 in 3 Americans agree with, would lose because the Republicans have a strangle hold on "the message".

Don't forget that Sanders polled against Trump better than did Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Of course, Twitler didn't spend a lot of time talking trash about Sanders and the media barely covered him so who knows what the heck would happen in an election. For all I know, the made up meme about Sanders being a grouchy old man would take over, meanwhile it's actually Trump who is the grouch. I will say that that how you put "the message" in quotes is very apt, though. That's because there is a HYUUUUuuge problem right now of disinformation. The Reich wing propaganda is so much more now than it ever was. The Misinformation Super Highway is controlled by trolls and so we elected the Troll-in-Chief. Conservative lies spread like wildfire on Facebook, too, by the individual level. There's no turning back from what we've become either unless an E-M shock happens.

 

[Derec]

This is another consequence of liberals failing/refusing to fall in line. More consequences of "bust".

It is a prime example of "lesser of two evils" pitches for office failing hard. People need something to vote for. Its the politicians job to give them that, and if they fail to do so, that's more on them than on the voters.

I do not think Hillary's problem was that she was not left-wing enough. Clinton, her husband, was the epitome of the moderate "Third Way" and he not only got elected twice but also enjoyed high popularity since he left office.
Hillary's problem was lack of charisma and mismanagement of the campaign. Like running up the score in California and ignoring the Midwest. Or too much emphasis on identity politics.

US is a center-right country, and when Democrats nominated somebody far left, it did not turn well.
1972:

1984:

1988:

Ok, Dukakis did not fail quite as badly as McGovern (probably the most left-wing of these three), but he was the third consecutive landslide loss for the Democratic candidate including Carter's 489:49 loss to Reagan. Something had to give. A similar thing happened in the UK when Labour turned to Blair to end their Long Dark Teatime of Electoral Losses.

 

[ElectEngr]

We are Totaly screwed.

The Supremes will quash any subpoena or indictment that Special Counsel Mueller would bring forward agaiinst Cheetolini.

Later,
ElectEngr

 

[couch_sloth]

This is another consequence of liberals failing/refusing to fall in line. More consequences of "bust".

It is a prime example of "lesser of two evils" pitches for office failing hard. People need something to vote for. Its the politicians job to give them that, and if they fail to do so, that's more on them than on the voters.

I do not think Hillary's problem was that she was not left-wing enough. Clinton, her husband, was the epitome of the moderate "Third Way" and he not only got elected twice but also enjoyed high popularity since he left office.
Hillary's problem was lack of charisma and mismanagement of the campaign. Like running up the score in California and ignoring the Midwest. Or too much emphasis on identity politics.....

Yeah. Hillary just doesn't have the ideal personality for a successful presidential candidate. Reagan, Bill Clinton and Obama were very personable, and people were more likely to forgive them for the mistakes they made.
Hillary, unfortunately, comes across like Bob Dole.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Trump, on the other hand, has an actual personality disorder, which made him electable by conservatives.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We are Totaly screwed.

The Supremes will quash any subpoena or indictment that Special Counsel Mueller would bring forward agaiinst Cheetolini.

Later,
ElectEngr

A Mueller indictment would require sending a report to Congress, which would publicize the report.