SCOTUS is enough reason for me to vote for Obama

[Lakhota]

Don’t Believe the Hype: The Gender Gap Still Favors Obama, Big-time

 

[candycorn]

Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Romney Poses Greatest Danger to the Supreme Court

Jamin Raskin: The Frightening Prospect of a Romney Court

Importance of the Supreme Court in the Upcoming Election | blog.pfaw.org

The Importance of the Supreme Court in the 2012 Presidential Election | People For the American Way

Been my case all along.

Both parties are out to lunch fiscally and Presidents can only do so much about that in either direction.

What a President can directly effect is the make-up of federal courts. Center-left jurists are best in my view.

What confuses the hell out of me are those on the left who whine and moan about corporate America being in charge of political life in Washington and abroad. Then in the same breath they seek to empower such a government further. Duh!!

One of the topics that Roberts is likely to accelerate once Obama wins is privacy issues. At least once Scalia is removed, whomever Obama appoints will stem the tide of corporate over-reach

 

[candycorn]

Boy, you guys are going to be fucked should Ginsburg not retire. Because unless the GOP completely implodes over the next four years, if Obama gets a second term there will most definitely be no 5th GW Bush term from the Democrats.

Which means the potential for an even more staunch "conservative" president to appoint to the court after 2016 is likely.

So this "bet" you're placing has some high stakes. Ones I find perplexing considering you guys want to make sure a big govt. proponent court appointment happens...but Romney is basically a LOLberal parading around as a conservative. He'd appoint LOLberal justices too.

Just like "W" appointed judge Roberts.

It is odd that Republicans will appoint liberals but democrats NEVER appoint conservative judges.

Roberts is no liberal.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If Romney is elected, this country will never see another honest election. This election has proven that.

Never mind Roe v Wade or any other decision. Our top priority as citizens should be to get big money out of our politics. But, we will never see rw's vote for our country anymore than we have seen the GObP/pubpots vote for jobs or economic growth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Romney Poses Greatest Danger to the Supreme Court

Jamin Raskin: The Frightening Prospect of a Romney Court

Importance of the Supreme Court in the Upcoming Election | blog.pfaw.org

The Importance of the Supreme Court in the 2012 Presidential Election | People For the American Way

Been my case all along.

Both parties are out to lunch fiscally and Presidents can only do so much about that in either direction.

What a President can directly effect is the make-up of federal courts. Center-left jurists are best in my view.

What confuses the hell out of me are those on the left who whine and moan about corporate America being in charge of political life in Washington and abroad. Then in the same breath they seek to empower such a government further. Duh!!

Nothing ‘confusing’ about it at all, and the position is quite consistent.

Non-conservatives judges, or conservatives who aren’t ideologues, as with those on the ‘left,’ understand the importance of limiting government authority concerning privacy rights, due process rights, and equal protection rights – all three of which justices such as Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are hostile to.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Boy, you guys are going to be fucked should Ginsburg not retire. Because unless the GOP completely implodes over the next four years, if Obama gets a second term there will most definitely be no 5th GW Bush term from the Democrats.

Which means the potential for an even more staunch "conservative" president to appoint to the court after 2016 is likely.

So this "bet" you're placing has some high stakes. Ones I find perplexing considering you guys want to make sure a big govt. proponent court appointment happens...but Romney is basically a LOLberal parading around as a conservative. He'd appoint LOLberal justices too.

Just like "W" appointed judge Roberts.

It is odd that Republicans will appoint liberals but democrats NEVER appoint conservative judges.

Republican presidents try to appoint conservatives justices – but fail; the ‘problem’ for the right is the caliber of jurist needed to sit on the High Court will often require the appointment of a non-ideologue, such as Kennedy or O’Connor.

Consequently, when it comes to substantive due process issues, such as privacy rights concerning abortion or equal protection rights concerning criminalizing homosexuality, the majority will uphold privacy and equal protection rights to the aggravation of conservatives.

 

[Oldstyle]

Some of my other reasons for voting Obama:

Bill Clinton Cites Economist Kenneth Rogoff To Argue Obama Needs Four More Years

What I find most amusing about Bill Clinton's sell out to re-elect Barack Obama is that less than a year ago he was saying that now was no time to raise taxes on anyone...the same sentiment that was echoed by Christina Romer...yet now he's endorsing the very plan that he said made no sense economically?

Let's face it, Kiddies...when it come to politics there isn't much Slick Willie wouldn't do OR SAY to get a win. In this case he's willing to play straight man for the joke of an economic "plan" that Barack Obama is giving us to fix the economy and put people back to work.

 

[Lakhota]

Some of my other reasons for voting Obama:

Bill Clinton Cites Economist Kenneth Rogoff To Argue Obama Needs Four More Years

What I find most amusing about Bill Clinton's sell out to re-elect Barack Obama is that less than a year ago he was saying that now was no time to raise taxes on anyone...the same sentiment that was echoed by Christina Romer...yet now he's endorsing the very plan that he said made no sense economically?

Let's face it, Kiddies...when it come to politics there isn't much Slick Willie wouldn't do OR SAY to get a win. In this case he's willing to play straight man for the joke of an economic "plan" that Barack Obama is giving us to fix the economy and put people back to work.

Are you saying Clinton is less honest than NaziCons? Gee, I wonder when the House will vote on Obama's jobs bill - the American Jobs Act...?

 

[Lakhota]

What Would a Romney Victory Mean for Reproductive Rights? | Mother Jones

 

[Oldstyle]

Some of my other reasons for voting Obama:

Bill Clinton Cites Economist Kenneth Rogoff To Argue Obama Needs Four More Years

What I find most amusing about Bill Clinton's sell out to re-elect Barack Obama is that less than a year ago he was saying that now was no time to raise taxes on anyone...the same sentiment that was echoed by Christina Romer...yet now he's endorsing the very plan that he said made no sense economically?

Let's face it, Kiddies...when it come to politics there isn't much Slick Willie wouldn't do OR SAY to get a win. In this case he's willing to play straight man for the joke of an economic "plan" that Barack Obama is giving us to fix the economy and put people back to work.

Are you saying Clinton is less honest than NaziCons? Gee, I wonder when the House will vote on Obama's jobs bill - the American Jobs Act...?

Am I saying that Bill Clinton has no problem bending the truth? You're joking...right?

 

[Lakhota]

 

[mudwhistle]

Well, let's take Mitt Romney at his word. The Justices he cites as his favorites are also the most extreme: Scalia, Thomas, Alito. He reached back into the 1980s to choose as his constitutional advisor Robert Bork, the right-wing polemicist and former Reagan Supreme Court nominee so extreme that he was rejected by a bipartisan coalition of Senators in 1987. Amazingly, Romney said that he wished Bork were "already on the Court."

The specter of the likes of Bork ‘advising’ a president Romney is more than enough to compel any advocate of the rule of law to vote for Obama.

Yes.......free rubbers overrules national security hands down.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Lakhota]

Ahead of tomorrow’s presidential election, actress and advocate Martha Plimpton writes about why women’s rights are actually human rights in 2012.

“We will not be told how to interpret our physical freedom by legislators who don’t even know how the human body works. We will not be silent. We’re not going away.”​

More: Martha Plimpton on Women

 

[Lakhota]