Note to liberal Hillary-bashers: It's The SCOTUS, Stupid!
1) I don't know who the Democratic Presidential candidate next year is going to be.
2) I don't know yet who I personally want it to be. I'm still considering. But my view really doesn't matter for the purpose of this column.
3) I DO know that I will support whoever the Democratic candidate is. If it's Dennis Kucinich or Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama or John Edwards. Or any of the other contenders. Over a Republican? There is NO debate. Nor should there be.
4) I do know that practically the only thing that can defeat the Democrats next year will be the selfish, self-destructive attitude of idealists on the left who are threatening sabotage if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate.
5) I have heard all the arguments and self-righteous (self-lefteous?) diatribes against Hillary on any number of topics. Corporatist... DLC... Panderer... all of that. And people who have said that there would be "no difference" between Hillary and any Republican candidate.
6) Here's the thing. Even if all those accusations against Hillary ARE true (and this post is NOT the place to debate the merits of those arguments) - that would STILL not make a difference to my intent to support her if she is the candidate.
7) And it shouldn't make a difference to any other voters who are Democrats, left-leaning, liberal, progressive or independent. For one overwhelming reason. That trumps any disappointments about votes in 2002, health-care details, triangualation, corporate ties, Iraq policy, etc etc
8) IT'S THE SCOTUS, STUPID!
The Supreme Court Of The United States.
9) Starting January 2009 there will be a four-year period where SIX of the Supreme Court members will be in their 70s, 80s and 90s.
10) FOUR of those six are dependable guardians of our rights. And the fifth is a swing voter.
11) The two oldest Supreme Court Justices will be 92 and 79 respectively by the end of the next Presidential term. And those two are John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
12) If you want to know why you MUST support WHOEVER the Democratic candidate is - then just study the actuarial tables on life expectancy.
13) The simple fact is that there is a very high probability that the next president may appoint at least two new Supreme Court Justices. And probably more. And the laws of statistics say that the first two justices to be replaced will be two of the most dependable votes for decency.
14) If you seriously believe that it makes no difference in how this nation is governed over the next 30 years if those two justices are conservative or liberal - then there is no hope for your soul or sanity.
15) If you seriously believe that in regard to the appointment of Supreme Court Justices - that it makes no difference between Hillary Clinton on the one hand - and Rudolph Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, John McCain or even Newt Gingrich on the other hand - then you are seriously beyond redemption.
16) It doesn't matter WHAT you may dislike about Hillary Clinton - or whoever the Democratic candidate is. If you have any regard for the future of this nation - you will remember this.
It's the SCOTUS, stupid.
'nuff said. Case over. Dismissed.
FURTHER (very sobering) READING:
Justices of the Supreme Court Of The United States
in order of age seniority
John Paul Stevens
Born: April 20, 1920
Current age: 87
Age on January 20, 2009: 88
Age by January 20, 2013: 92
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Born: March 15, 1933
Current age: 74
Age on January 20, 2009: 75
Age by January 20, 2013: 79
Antonin Scalia
Born: March 11, 1936
Current age: 71
Age on January 20, 2009: 72
Age by January 20, 2013: 76
Anthony Kennedy
Born: July 23, 1936
Current age: 71
Age on January 20, 2009: 72
Age by January 20, 2013: 76
Stephen Breyer
Born: August 15, 1938
Current age: 69
Age on January 20, 2009: 70
Age by January 20, 2013: 74
David Souter
Born: September 17, 1939
Current age: 67
Age on January 20, 2009: 68
Age by January 20, 2013: 72
Clarence Thomas
Born: June 23, 1948
Current age: 59
Age on January 20, 2009: 60
Age by January 20, 2013: 64
Samuel Alito
Born: April 1, 1950
Current age: 57
Age on January 20, 2009: 58
Age by January 20, 2013: 62
John Roberts
Born: January 27, 1955
Current age: 52
Age on January 20, 2009: 53
Age by January 20, 2013: 57
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
One thing that's very interesting in this discussion... is the lack of confidence on a Democratic Senate! Any jobs in Canada or Europe for a future expatriate? :(
Martin,
This opens an interesting aside about having a written constitution. The one thing about NOT having one (and Magnacarta does not count) is that judges can argue themselves out of a box if the situation demands it. It also has less risk of becoming permanently stuck in the Triassic period.
As for Dear Peter, I felt he also underlined it during his rapidly written treatise on the Thrope Trial (Sorry, all you wunderbar Americans, Teacher Lewis will explain if required).
"And now, members of the Jury, I would ask you to retire, as should I, and consider your verdict of Not Guilty."
(I think you and I remixed that sketch just for fun at Radiotracks/Portland Studios about 20 something years ago!)
Oops, I have nailed this to the wrong post - it should have been attached to mine!
Answer a question, anyone, from someone who knows only a little about hard-core US politics (But is willing to learn, especially if it keeps eating into my way of life):
Are the views of the few who like to make a view really the views of the country, or is it like the UK where most people might grudgingly say they are either Tory or Labour or LibDem, but really will vote in the end for those they think won't shove the country down the toilet?
Thinking of the Supreme Court here. There seems to be a great deal of concern on whether any nominee leans left or right. But is strikes me that such a powerful institution should be devoid of such polarity, should be free of the shackles and influence that comes of belonging to a party.
So, isn't this the wrong argument? Shouldn't it be for independence of judgement rather than just making sure they think "My Way?"
We get the same problem over here, don't we Martin? Just not with our judges (they are so old that the parties they supported don't actually exist any longer)
Joss
========MARTIN RESPONDS============
On the topic of British judges - my dear departed mate Peter Cook summarized it best in his "Miner" monologue in which he discusses why he'd have preferred to be a judge rather than a miner.
"Of course the trouble with being a miner is that as soon as you're too old and tired and stupid to do your job properly - you have to retire. Whereas the very opposite applies with judges..."
(Bless you Peter. As usual - you nailed it.)
As far as US judges are concerned - alas the entire system is totally politicized. Ostensibly it is nothing to do with ideology. Just how strictly you interpret the constitution. Well if they got REALLY strict constructionists - they would uphold slavery, segregation and no votes for women or minorities. The evolution of how the constitution is interpreted has been because of progressives who fought to have the law interpreted with decency. And who understood that the constitution was designed to serve humanity. Not to be so rigidly read that it hurts humanity.
================================
Mr. Lewis,
I would agree with everything you if Senator Clinton already had the nomination. If any progressive group abstains from voting because Clinton is nominated, I will be disgusted with that group. (But wait - isn't it Senator Clinton herself who so steadfastly discourages the discussion of "hypotheticals?")
Until the presidential race is reduced to one democrat and one republican, there SHOULD BE contrast drawn between the democratic candidates, and such conversation about our candidates only helps progressive voters make more informed decisions. Our democratic process works because we all choose the candidate that best represents what we want for the future of the country. I hope that we care enough about our political process that we won't give up on the other democratic candidates yet! It is not our job as voters to determine electibility, or to hedge our bets while sacrificing our values so that we can all agree. It is sad and disappointing that our efficacy is so low that we are made to feel guilty for voicing or following our beliefs. If we cannot form our own opinions after being exposed to dialogue about the candidates - yes, even mudslinging - then we are neither responsible nor intelligent voters.
I am pleased and proud that there are many in the progressive community who advocate on behalf of presidential candidates that are (admittedly) unlikely to win during the primary and caucus season.
Please don't stifle our free speech, by implying that those with strong opinions are remiss for stating them.
========MARTIN RESPONDS============
You misunderstand me. I am not for stifling any free speech. I am all for a free and vigorous debate and primary process. Indeed it sharpens the focus, gives us a chance to essay the choices - and prepares whoever is the winning candidate for the real travails ahead.
But I am responding to numerous grumbles, whinges and whines from some on the left who have declared that - in the event of Clinton being the Democratic candidate - they would abstain or vote for a third-party candidate in the Presidential election.
It is primarily to THOSE people (and their friends and family) that I am addressing these remarks. Refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton in such circumstances would be cutting off the nose of the less fortunate in this nation - to spite the non-voter's face. A holier and lefter-than-thou attitiude that would condemn the USA to not just 4 more bad years - but given the precarious state of SCOTUS - 40 more bad years.
=================================
===============================
I agree with Martin's assessment that the Dem nominee is who Democrats, or anyone interested in defeating the Republicans, should vote for. 'United we stand, divided we fall' and all that jazz aside, just look at how the Republicans have been able to leverage SO MUCH POWER over the last decade (even with our current Democratic majority): They...stick...together. Plain and simple. There is rare dissent when it comes to furthering the GOP agenda, and Republicans are basically hell-bent on defeating any new measures the Democrats offer. This is why we HAVE to vote for the Democratic nominee.
However, I feel this discussion is premature. We don't know who the nominee will be and until we do, voters should focus on their candidate of choice and garner the support needed to win the primaries. Martin, this comes off as a near endorsement because even though you are not supporting a candidate, you are hinting at an inevitable Clinton nomination and thus trying to rally the base to prepare for holding our nose and voting for Hillary more than a year from now.
Obama volunteers such as me believe this not to be true, given the fact that I've spoken to many high efficacy Democratic voters and at the moment the majority are vehemently against a Clinton presidency. And statistics that THE key, as I remind everyone I know, is to vote or caucus in the primaries!
If you do not want Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, simply stand up and vote for the person you want in the primaries. This means actually participating in the electoral process instead of just the Election Day vote!
Martin: What makes you certain that Hillary Clinton will choose an ethical individual for SCOTUS? Have you forgotten NAFTA, the '96 Telecommunication Act, and the other corporatist actions of her husband. I don't see Hillary as even vaguely honest and will fight against her every step of the way. I say this as a 58-year-old lifelong Democrat who has never voted any other way in statewide or national elections. Come November of 2008, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I will face a very difficult choice. Further, given the Dems capitulation to Bush on the war, I have already decided NOT to contribute to the DNC through the next cycle. Everyone who considers him(or her)self a progressive must consider whether we are the Democrat's equivalent of the christian conservatives. That is, we are to be given lip service and symbolic gestures but nothing of substance.
=========MARTIN RESPONDS===========
I have not forgotten. I disagreed with Welfare Reform (sic). A whole host of things. But I know that on SCOTUS her choices would be better than any GOP candidate running. And it's that simple.
===============================
Of course you are absolutely correct about this fact. I tried telling people this in 2000, 2004 and now again. The Supreme Court affects all of us much more than a political party or president. We are already experiencing the fall out of having this loser place the recent conservative hacks onto our supreme court. It can only get worse....which is why I will vote for anyone on the Democratic ticket. Wake up all Dem's, Independents, Greenies and Libertarians....we need to protect our supreme court in order to maintain our democracy.
Martin,
Do you really believe that Hillary can win a general election...and, decisively enough to accomplish anything?
===========MARTIN RESPONDS=============
Yes. I believe that Hillary Clinton and several other Dem candidates could win the presidency. And that there would be decisive enough majorities in House and Senate. And so do the GOP. Hence its fear. And hence the foolishness of people on the left wringing their hands. This is time to use our hands to awaken as many as possible of the 100 million people who DON'T usually vote.
================================
Agreed! Absolutely, positively!...about the 100 million who don't vote, that is. As for the GOP, I remaind unconvinced that they are predicting a Clinton nomination out of fear. I could be wrong.
Now, at the risk of being blatantly solicitous but hopelessly bipartisan, allow me to say...
'Make Hope and History Rhyme'...Biden/Hagel 2008 It's written in the stars
To win decisively, the Demos will need to take
many more seats in Congress, as well as the
Presidency. There's no point in one without
the other. Except that there is much to be
said for a veto-proof majority in both houses
of Congress, if it comes to that (only).
The problem with 'awakening' the huge mass
of non-voters is that you have NO IDEA what
they will do if/when they plunk themselves
down in a voting booth.
You say Biden/Hagel, I say Kucinich/Paul.
Let's call the whole thing off? Repos say,
'That works for us!' Anyway, mixed-party
teams do not offer much (politically) to
recommend them - it just isn't done, for
good reason.
I hear ya, but don't you think the time is ripe for a hybrid ticket like this.
I really think that the general election is going to come down to one issue - who has the upper hand on foreign policy and national security?
Of course, most of us know very well which party that really is...but half the electorate can and will be swayed by the GOP spin machine, make no mistake about it.
If the Democrats don't nominate a candidate who can supply impeccable and unimpeachable foreign policy and national security credentials, like Senator Biden can, and a candidate who personifies bipartisanship, which Senator Biden has demonstrated, and can carry a fair number of red states, then America will be in for a very long and dreadful decade...can we all really take that much more?
If Biden fails to win the nomination - and if there were any justice in the world, his nomination would be a virtual coronation, all things considered - then I would hope he and Hagel would put all of their talk into action and form a third option or hybrid ticket, if you will, and really shake up the politics-as-usual status quo.
There are, to my mind, only two reasons to vote Democratic:
1. As bad as the Democrats are, they are not quite as bad as the Republikaaners.
2. Supreme Court appointments.
Reason number 2 is the really important one.
==========MARTIN RESPONDS=========
Agreed. That's all I'm saying.
===========================
of course i will support whoever our dem candiate is but i do fear after talking to some hilliary is the only candiate that divides us its like we drank the rep. cool-aid, one woman said she would not support hilliary and would write in biden , i have all the candiates buymper stickers and tshirts ,however i'm out of bumper (i have gore,edwards and biden on currently, but im ready for all) joe biden has a very extensive background in the senate withpone of the best chances of moving congress along. however i'm ready for any one as long as its a dem. please as an obama fan said to me after the primaries we are one. she righton . cjw
Congratulations, Martin. You rolled out the "vote for Hillary or the SCOTUS gets it" threat fully three months earlier than I thought anyone would do so.
==========MARTIN RESPONDS===========
Congratualtions MrLion. You rolled out the reflexive complaint about the irrefutable logic of my argument fully three months earlier than I thought anyone would!
=============================
Martin, your bedside manner leaves much to be desired. Wagging your finger and making threats is not the best way to win friends and influence people. It reminds me of the Gore campaign's ham-fisted "outreach" effort to Nader supporters: sending out tired old warhorses like the AFL-CIO's John Sweeney to make threats. Evidently the Democratic Party mandarins have learned absolutely nothing from 2000.
For the record, I will vote the Democratic ticket but if the mandarins shove a DLC hawk like Hillary Rodham Clinton down our throats, I'll vote for her strictly out of duty and with the realization that money and celebrity have triumphed over the will of the people.
=========MARTIN RESPONDS==========
I am not out to win friends. I am still angered by the needless loss of votes to Nader in 2000. What part of the GOP/Bush winning and controlling SCOTUS was preferable to not voting for Al Gore? Duh! What was any Nader voter thinking? (Clue: They weren't.) I'm all in favor of principles, idealism and fighting for one's beliefs. But on election day - you vote pragmatically for the future. And if that means the lesser of two evils - well so be it. Gore or Kerry over the past 8 years would have been vastly preferable to the ravages of Bush & co. I'm still open to forgiving Nader voters who are gracious enough to concede their error.
=============================
You ought to direct some of your anger at the Democratic Party and in particular Al Gore for running a stunningly inept campaign in 2000. The country was at peace, prosperous, and the Democrats were in the White House. Gore should have won the election by 5 million votes, Nader or no Nader.
==========MARTIN RESPONDS===========
Agreed. I have been very vocal for a long time about Gore's screw-ups and the crass stupidity of Bob "I've never sent an email in my life" Shrum. 2000 should have been a small Dem landslide. But by election day - no left-leaning person who voted for Nader was unaware of what was at stake. They were just as stupid as Gore and Shrum on that day...
===============================
One of the screwier tendencies in US politics
is for voters to choose 'Z' instead of 'X' or
'Y', so as to 'make a point'/'teach them a
lesson'.
Folks did NOT vote for Hubert Humphrey because
he was too close to 'evil' LBJ, so Dick Nixon
got elected. Folks voted for moderate John
Anderson instead of inept Jimmy Carter, so
Ron Reagan got elected (only a 'little bit'
true - almost like Ralph Nader in Bush v. Gore).
See also Clinton v. Bush v. Perot.
Very weird things happen in Two-Party-Only US
politics whenever a Third Party gets involved.
It's built-in to the mechanisms of operating
a republic-not-a-democracy.
But the 'rugged individual' US voter is always
entitled to make their 'free choice', even if
it has a totally undesireable effect. One
might say, 'It's the vote that matters, not
who wins the election.'
==========MARTIN RESPONDS=========
Tell that to women who would be denied the right to choose. And it will be those of limited means who will suffer most. Voting your conscience has consequences... Usually for others.
================================
If a candidate said that we should have used more force in Iraq much sooner than Bush's surge, would you vote for that candidate, even to save the Supreme Court? I don't think I can. Hillary's recent comment, meant as a stinging critique of Bush's war, was "Too little, too late." What do her words mean? Were they just to show all the poor Republican and Independent voters who are so frightened of terrorists that the re-elected this corrupt and incompetent Duce-wannabe that she has the toughness to be President? Is that why she voted to authorize the war without having read the intelligence report? (A woman whose greatest virtues include reading everything, knowing everything?)
Voting to save the Court is crucial, essential to save the country, and many of us are prepared to make compromises to do that. But "Too little, too late." Iraq.
Is this a compromise we can make? Will voting for "too little, too late" save the country? There are a lot of reasons, I think, to hope that Hillary is not the nominee. "Too little, too late" is why I may not be able to vote for her, despite your passionate and intelligent post.
Well, I'll vote for her in November '08 if she gets the nomination. Not gladly, rather out of s sense of duty to my country, which can not withstand another four, let alone eight years of Republican malfeasance.
============MARTIN RESPONDS==========
THAT is all I ask and beg. Thank you for a mature response. It doesn't matter how heavy the heart. The alternative is far, far worse. And would be borne by many far less fortunate than ourselves.
=============================
Bill Richardson is anything but Hillary-lite. With 15 years in Congress, a background as a successful international diplomat, a governorship, opposition to the Iraq War from the before the beginning and a clear,unequivocal pledge to end it upon taking office there couldn't be more difference between them in background or vision.
Ok.. Ok.. out to pound pavement for Obama... Thanks for reminding me how important it is for a real democrate to win the primary.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Could be important.
Loading comments…
Posted September 25, 2007 | 10:25 AM (EST)