Skip to main content

Money
It's easy to rail against the endemic corruption of our political process, the policy and strategic failures of Democrats, and the increasing inability of the 99 percent to make itself heard in the nation's capital. With the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases, the Supreme Court majority seems to be deliberately attempting to make the United States government a wholly owned syndicate of the extreme wealthiest. The dangers of these Supreme Court rulings can be read right in the dissenting opinions of their respective Court minorities. That's the point.

Both Citizens United and McCutcheon were decided on 5-4 votes. All the justices nominated by President Clinton and President Obama voted against both. All the justices nominated by Democratic presidents voted against both. All the justices nominated by Presidents Reagan, Bush and Bush voted for both. The only justice nominated by a Republican president to dissent against either of these opinions was Justice John Paul Stevens, who was nominated to the Court in 1975 by President Ford, and who voted against Citizens United, but is now retired.

If the United States ever is to enact lasting campaign finance reform, it will do so with a Supreme Court majority nominated by Democratic presidents. If the United States ever is to cleanse itself of the corrupting power of money in politics, it will do so with a Supreme Court majority nominated by Democratic presidents. Don't be fooled into believing that the two major political parties are no different. To the degree that one understands how much Citizens United and McCutcheon matter, one also necessarily understands how much it matters to elect Democratic presidents and Democratic senators.

Originally posted to Laurence Lewis on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 12:17 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  You're Suggesting a GREEN President (5+ / 0-)

    wouldn't nominate GAHHHHHHHHHHHH sorry couldn't even get all the way through the sentence.

    This is spot on.

  •  Conversely, if the survival of the republic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryabein, lunachickie

    depends upon a particular party holding power, then the structure of the government has failed. Hence the need to change that structure, via constitutional amendment.

    Yin and yang with that is a populism-driven overhaul of the economy.

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 12:27:18 PM PDT

    •  nothing will change (7+ / 0-)

      with republican nominees controlling the court.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 12:29:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True. But (8+ / 0-)

        I was very depressed to read just today:

        GOP GAINING GROUND

        Preferences for control of Congress are tight, but Republicans have gained on Democrats since January. Thirty-six percent in last month's poll said they would rather see the Democrats in charge of Congress and 37 percent chose Republicans.

        Democrats held a narrow advantage on that question in January, when 39 percent favored the Democrats and 32 percent the Republicans.

        This, despite the success of the ACA, despite the improving job numbers, despite the incredible obviousness of how the Republicans in Congress have obstructed and subverted and undermined and wasted billions shutting down the government in their attempts at extortion, and blocked every single piece of legislation that might help the middle class, while never flagging in their attempts to shift even more money upward on the backs of the working poor.

        The absolutely pervasive effects of relentless propaganda financed by big $$$$$ is the only thing that can explain this. Astounding numbers of Americans literally hate Obama. Yes, racism is responsible for some of this. But Fox, RW hate radio, and airways already flooded with RW ads financed by the Kochs and other dark money have to be playing a major part in this. How else to explain it?

        I think it's a real question as to whether the corruption is now so deep, so ingrained and the system has been so deliberately subverted, that it is already too late. The Republicans will stop at nothing to undermine and block any attempt to reverse Citizens United.

        But yes, we must keep a Democrat in the White House, and we absolutely must retain control of the Senate. As bad as things are now, all we have to do is remember the incalculable damage done by 8 years of W to understand how much worse this could get.

        "We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. But we can't have both." - Justice Louis Brandeis

        by flitedocnm on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 07:21:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  W stole an election, (6+ / 0-)

          And, now we have to suffer through a Roberts Court and with Samuel Alito as a justice.  What a farce!

          Voters should select people to represent them in their government. People in government should not select people who may vote!

          by NM Ray on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 07:35:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Politics is cultural (0+ / 0-)

          White America, by in large, feels cornered and subjugated. It's crazy, but it's true.

          American politics is cultural. It doesn't matter that they agree with what Democrats or Obama want, all that matters is he's black, they're the party of minorities and immigrants.

          You see it here in NYC. It's as if everything Mayor de Blasio does, he does for blacks only. It's as if no white kids will go to pre-K, or not white kids will get free lunch at school, or no white kids will benefit from safer streets.

          A lot of this is what we rued for electing a black president. Luckily, we have the numbers, the problem is they don't always show up when it counts.

          •  In the City, the GOP has zero say. (0+ / 0-)

            48 Dems; 3 GOP'ers. Most of de Balsio wants can be done without the Legislature.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            No excuses. Same for out here in California.

            New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

            by AlexDrew on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 05:59:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And he does it (0+ / 0-)

              but I'm speaking more in terms of approval. I spend a lot of time around white working class Catholic/Jewish types in NYC and they hate de Blasio

              but agree with everything he wants to do. They just don't think they'll benefit

    •  The Repubs ARE changing the structure (5+ / 0-)

      They are doing everything they can get away with to make sure no other party can ever again hold power.  We are being restructured from a democracy to a plutocracy.  The ONLY way to stop it is to elect good Dems to take our democracy back, and tolerate the bad Dems until we can replace them.

  •  To me this is clear (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    I´ll take Joe Machin as president for the next cycle for sure. We have 2 to 3 possible vacancies to cover and young ultras like Scalito or ROberts that are going to be there for another 20 years for sure.

  •  Either a democratic president, or 5 impeachments, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Simplify

    or a constitutional amendment.

    Preferably, all three.

  •  And A Dem President needs a Dem Senate to confirm (6+ / 0-)

    If the Republicans take control of the senate this fall, Obama will not be able to nominate anyone who will reverse the anti-democracy legislation the Supreme Court just made.  And make no mistake, this is not a court, it's a conservative legislative body the MAKES laws, not decide the constitutionality of laws.

    So we not only need a Dem Pres. we have to have a Dem Senate.  No Dem Senate, no sane SCOTUS.

    •  I worry about poor (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pollwatcher

      Justice Ginsburg if the GOP takes the Senate. Their majority will not hold after 2016, but the Presidency is far from a lock then.

    •  Um... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Creosote, Greenfinches, White Buffalo

      We've got a Dem Senate now and how many nominees are getting through, exactly?  Oh yeah, basically none.

      First it was the Blue Dogs, then we needed 60 votes with the filibuster, then after much hand-wringing the filibuster was removed for judicial nominees, and now we got blue slips holding everything up.  The tragi- comedy comity of the Senate never ends.

      There is simply no will on the part of Dem Senate leadership to address the issue of nominees.  Why?  Because they're holding on to the false hope that when their sorry, unproductive asses are back in the minority (real soon now), that the Republicans will honor their noble and gentlemanly conduct and not stomp all over their precious minority rights.  What a joke.

      There is no organized or effective Dem push to reverse the anti-democracy legislation the Supreme Court is advancing.

    •  Yes, that's why the Senate has to be top priority (0+ / 0-)

      With the funds and GOTV boots on the ground we have available, we have to choose our battles, and I think we should dedicate every weapon in our arsenal to holding the Senate. GOP gerrymandering and corruption have locked down the House at least until 2016 and probably until the next census in 2020, and as infuriating as that is, there's not a whole lot we can do about that now. Whereas the Senate really is up for grabs, and 2014 is the toughest challenge we have simply due to the calendar. The map gets much more favorable for us in 2016 and 2018, so the defining electoral battle of 2014 is the Senate-- we have to hold the Senate if Obama is to get his appointments through. That's where we should be focusing our efforts.

  •  You presume Justices appointed by (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryabein, Simplify

    Dem Presidents will vote to protect our Constitutional rights. While this may be true generally, the occasional exceptions likewise do great damage. Witness Justice Breyer (appointed by Clinton) signing on with the four conservatives on the Court to further gut the 4th Amendment via California v. Fernandez.

    We need to stop blindly presuming Dems will have our best interests at heart in making their nominations. Do you imagine for one moment that Obama, if another vacancy arises, will nominate a candidate who opposes surrendering our national sovereignty via TPP? Ain't gonna happen. On the BIG issues, Presidents, both Dem and Repub, strive to appoint their ideological kindred spirits to the Court.

    It is beyond naive to assume that HRC's appointments wouldn't further cement in place the primacy of Big Money as the shot callers in our tattered democracy.

    Obama is apparently OK with TPP's price tag of thousands of preventable deaths, due to projected increase in drug costs in impoverished nations. Does it make a difference to you if HRC supports TPP as well?

    by WisePiper on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 01:15:35 PM PDT

    •  as i said (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bear83
      Both Citizens United and McCutcheon were decided on 5-4 votes. All the justices nominated by President Clinton and President Obama voted against both. All the justices nominated by Democratic presidents voted against both. All the justices nominated by Presidents Reagan, Bush and Bush voted for both. The only justice nominated by a Republican president to dissent against either of these opinions was Justice John Paul Stevens, who was nominated to the Court in 1975 by President Ford, and who voted against Citizens United, but is now retired.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 01:22:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, you said that. (0+ / 0-)

        Awaiting your response to my comment re a Democratic appointee voting to gut the 4th, and your response as to whether HRC can be counted on to nominate candidates who'll champion the people's rights over the privileges for the 1%. (Her long and undisputed track record would argue otherwise.)

        Obama is apparently OK with TPP's price tag of thousands of preventable deaths, due to projected increase in drug costs in impoverished nations. Does it make a difference to you if HRC supports TPP as well?

        by WisePiper on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 01:27:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  waiting for your response (0+ / 0-)

          to the diary.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 01:28:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My response was, I think, evident in (0+ / 0-)

            my first comment.

            In other words, electing Dem Presidents is far more likely to result in acceptable SCOTUS decisions, but is certainly no guarantee.

            Instead of feeding the fantasy that Dem candidates will always have our backs in their appointments, it would be more productive to focus our activist energies on issues.

            Building a broad based, cross-party movement opposed to the continued rape of the economy by Wall Street will make it more difficult for our next President, Dem or Repub, to get away with appointing a Wall Street sycophant.

            Obama is apparently OK with TPP's price tag of thousands of preventable deaths, due to projected increase in drug costs in impoverished nations. Does it make a difference to you if HRC supports TPP as well?

            by WisePiper on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 01:54:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  unless you're trying to make the case (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bear83, edrie

              that hillary would appoint people like roberts, alito, thomas, scalia and kennedy rather than people like breyer, ginsburg, sotomayor or kagan, you have added nothing to the conversation.

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 02:03:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If Hillary is the best we can do we are in dire (0+ / 0-)

                straits indeed. Whatever she may or may not do regarding the court, I doubt she'll be moving in a progressive directions on Wall Street, war and peace, globalization, unemployment, the social safety net and so on.

                The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

                by Wolf10 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 02:15:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  blah blah blah (0+ / 0-)

                  try addressing the content of the post, mmmkay?

                  The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                  by Laurence Lewis on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 02:17:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're the blatherer who linked Hillary with (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    WisePiper

                    the court with campaign financing, not me. I'm just following your lead.

                    The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

                    by Wolf10 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 02:19:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  as i said (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bear83, edrie
                      unless you're trying to make the case that hillary would appoint people like roberts, alito, thomas, scalia and kennedy rather than people like breyer, ginsburg, sotomayor or kagan, you have added nothing to the conversation.

                      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                      by Laurence Lewis on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 02:20:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So narrowly limiting the focus of the discussion (0+ / 0-)

                        renders it largely irrelevant to the great mass of voters and apathetic non-voters that need to be mobilized.

                        The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

                        by Wolf10 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 02:25:12 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Repeatedly block quoting your own (0+ / 0-)

                        words within a single comment thread appears to be the new version of YELLING IN BOLD CAPS.

                        Look, I get it. You're all in for Hillary, and where she stands on some of the gravest issues the nation faces doesn't really appear on your radar. She's less evil, and likely to appoint less evil Justices. And that, apparently, is good enough for you.

                        Obama is apparently OK with TPP's price tag of thousands of preventable deaths, due to projected increase in drug costs in impoverished nations. Does it make a difference to you if HRC supports TPP as well?

                        by WisePiper on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 02:27:54 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  i know this is hard (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          bear83, edrie

                          but i'm not all in for anyone. but mccutcheon proves why we need democratic presidents. which was the point of the post.

                          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                          by Laurence Lewis on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 02:47:40 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Cut the "i know this is hard" crap. (0+ / 0-)

                            Without naming her, you made an explicit case for supporting HRC, the presumptive nominee, based on the "think of the Supreme Court" argument.

                            That rationale naturally spawns a larger discussion of what damage a Clinton presidency might entail - a discussion you're attempting to derail.

                            You're not "all in" for Hillary? I look forward to you employing your high profile Front Pager voice to calls for identifying, encouraging and promoting a populist alternative to HRC.

                            Obama is apparently OK with TPP's price tag of thousands of preventable deaths, due to projected increase in drug costs in impoverished nations. Does it make a difference to you if HRC supports TPP as well?

                            by WisePiper on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 03:29:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry. Meant to say "implicit." (0+ / 0-)

                            (But it bordered on explicit.)

                            Obama is apparently OK with TPP's price tag of thousands of preventable deaths, due to projected increase in drug costs in impoverished nations. Does it make a difference to you if HRC supports TPP as well?

                            by WisePiper on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 03:36:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i know this is hard (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bear83

                            but this is about any democratic president, including obama and bill clinton, and it's about one over-riding reason for keeping democrats in the oval office. as for populist alternatives, at this point there are none on any horizon. as a political writer, in any venue, i am reality-based. i'm not all in for hillary, but you seem to be all out against her. thanks for playing.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 03:41:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, you are correct. (0+ / 0-)

                            I am very much opposed to HRC. While no one candidate could faithfully represent all of my beliefs and wants, nor would I withhold my vote for their inability to do so, there DO exist certain key lines that, in my view, must never be crossed.

                            One was voting for the AUMF, knowing full well Bush would use that authorization to slaughter thousands of human beings to further his geo-political wet dream. When I'm standing in the voting booth, weighing the prospect of more conservative appointments to the SCOTUS vs. being complicit in electing someone who cynically chose to burnish her "tough enough" creds with the blood of innocents, I'll be passing on both. "The Dem candidate will kill fewer non-combatants than the "Repub" candidate" is not a winning argument for me.

                            Obama is apparently OK with TPP's price tag of thousands of preventable deaths, due to projected increase in drug costs in impoverished nations. Does it make a difference to you if HRC supports TPP as well?

                            by WisePiper on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 04:09:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yes (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            edrie

                            and who cares about cases like citizens or mccutcheon or the supreme court. but at least you'll have even more to complain about under a republican president.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 04:29:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your logic gave us Bush 43 (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            freakofsociety

                            Gore was too far to the right so a lot of folks voted for Nader.

                            As a result we got Citizens United and McCutcheon.

                            And that will result in a lot more deaths of innocents than you will get from Gore, Obama, or Clinton in a thousand terms.

                            It is the Nader voters with blood on their hands.  

                          •  They don't care about that... (0+ / 0-)

                            Don't bother.

                            I love president Obama!!!

                            by freakofsociety on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 07:47:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sure you _must_ know (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            brightlights, AlexDrew

                            after thirteen years that Mr. Gore could not win either his putative state of Tennessee or his boss's home state of Arkansas. Additionally, more Democrats in FL voted for Bush than for Gore. These are verifiable, incontrovertible facts that do not rely on "rox/sux arguments" and do not place blood on anyone's hands.

                            The only person who lost the election for Mr. Gore was...Mr. Gore. Period. After more than dozen years, isn't it time to admit that?

                          •  And Nader helped (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Laurence Lewis

                            Fracture the party regardless...

                            I love president Obama!!!

                            by freakofsociety on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 07:55:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nader not running (4+ / 0-)

                            and Gore easily carries FL and NH. End of story. No Iraq war. No trillion dollar deficits. Two good SC appointments. Citizens United and McCutcheon go away losers.

                            I can't understand how the Nader apologists don't see this.

                          •  Usually because (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            freakofsociety, charliehall2

                            they argue Nader voters would never have voted for Gore.

                            But even if 75% of them didn't, Gore still wouldn't have won Florida and New Hampshire.

                            If 95% of Nader voters didn't vote, and only 5% went to Gore, he still would have won (without any controversy) Florida.

                          •  actually (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            maltheopia, charliehall2

                            the tennessee of 2000 was a far different state than the one that elected liberals like gore and sasser. in case you haven't noticed, tennessee, like all the border states, and bucking the overall national trend, has been growing redder. the gore-lost-his-home-state always was a dishonest argument.

                            beyond that, the reality is that after promising his longtime supporters not to undermine gore, nader did exactly that. he created a fasle equivalency between gore and bush. he campaigned in states gore shouldn't have had to worry about, forcing gore to waste time and money in states he otherwise would have won easily.

                            and please show me verifiable proof of this:

                            Additionally, more Democrats in FL voted for Bush than for Gore.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 11:16:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That one was a shameless lie (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Laurence Lewis
                            Additionally, more Democrats in FL voted for Bush than for Gore.
                            It would effectively mean that MORE Republicans voted for Gore than Bush, given that there were only 500+ votes separating the two.  

                            Nader creeps always use the lame "Gore didn't even win his own state Tennessee" as if Tennessee was/is a liberal state.   Even if things worked out great for Christie, nobody would expect him to carry New Jersey, regardless of whether he could win the presidency or not.   The Tennessee argument shows how far removed from reality the Naderites are.  

                          •  exactly (0+ / 0-)

                            or, given that republicans overwhelmingly favored bush, it would mean every florida independent voted for gore- probably a dozen or two times each...

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 09:28:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Because as the president (0+ / 0-)

                      She has the power to nominate Supreme Court judges? What do you not understand about the importance of this?

                      I love president Obama!!!

                      by freakofsociety on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 07:54:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Lol (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm sorry you suxxers are so hilarious.

                    I love president Obama!!!

                    by freakofsociety on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 07:45:49 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  i think the fantasy (0+ / 0-)

              is that building that broad based cross-party movement will bear fruit in time to have an effect on changes to the Court that could very well happen soon, and that electing a Democratic President in 2016 is the only even potential firewall we have in the meantime.
              It seems pretty clear that anyone with a clear view of the world would advocate for building that movement while acknowledging that electing Democrats is absolutely essential in the meantime.
              which is the point of the diary

    •  Good god - are you a Nader voter? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      edrie

      Don't make that mistake again.

      Face it - the odds of a Democratic appointee voting to overturn Citizen's United is somewhere north of 80%.

      The odds of a Republican nominee voting to uphold Citizen's United is somewhere north of 90%. Republicans are better at that pure ideology shit.

      Focusing on issues won't do jack when it comes to the Supreme Court - they could care less about public opinion.

      Democrats have to hold the White House in 2016. Otherwise, the Court could swing to a 7-2 Republican majority and be out of reach for a generation or more.

      Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

      by bear83 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 03:56:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It also shows we need to turn out to keep (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, starduster

    the Senate and take back the House.

    They Killed Will? Those Bastards!

    by blueoregon on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 01:29:48 PM PDT

  •  Any Democrat will do, I suppose. Good (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cany

    luck with that.

    Differentiation based on possible supreme court nominees as it relates to campaign financing is an important issue but voting yet again for another status-quo Dem is a less than thrilling prospect.

    The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

    by Wolf10 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 02:10:35 PM PDT

    •  It's more than campaign finance "issue" (0+ / 0-)

      It's control of Congress and a majority of state legislatures and governors at stake, along with every law they may pass or choose to repeal.

      The only way to put campaign limits back in place is to retake the Supreme Court.

      This is not happening any time soon:

      The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention
      .

      http://www.archives.gov/...

      Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

      by bear83 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 04:13:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  An important issue? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chicago minx, Creosote, Tweedledee5

      Umm excuse me? The Supreme Court is influencing elections. If we have all radical conservatives on the Supreme Court nothing the other 2 branches does makes any difference. What the hell is wrong with you? Do you not understand what impact that decision has on elections? They are making it harder for candidates to raise money. Why don't you and others like you who keep coming on here to diss democrats wake up for Christs sakes?

      I love president Obama!!!

      by freakofsociety on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 07:51:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Certainly. And not NEARLY enough. Next Dem (0+ / 0-)

    President may be a wholly owned product of large institutional investors.

    Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

    by the fan man on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 08:20:09 PM PDT

  •  I'm with you on this Laurence. (7+ / 0-)

    If we can't change the balance of the Court, our future as a democracy is dim indeed.  Once we lose our democratic system, the environmental damage from climate change---certainly the most crucial of issues--will be left unchecked and swamp us along with the rest of the world.  Then it won't matter at all where we stand on Wall Street or the NSA or the Post Office or any other issue.  Keeping the right to vote intact outweighs individual antipathy for Obama and Hillary.  

    "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

    by SottoVoce on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 07:23:23 PM PDT

    •  Ideological purity of Leftists (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      freakofsociety, Tweedledee5, AlexDrew

      may be the Republicans' greatest advantage for 2016.

    •  Absurd to the Extreme (0+ / 0-)

      The notion that only elections matter, and not governance is another indicator of just how far removed Bloggo world is from Reality.

      Congress has the most power, not the SCOTUS_, to change the course of our nation, and they aren't doing it.

      Congress crafts and passes legislation (less and less of that these days) not the SCOTUS.

      There's a reason why public approval rating of Congress stinks. Stop letting the deadbeats in Congress off the hook.

      "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

      by Superpole on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:51:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't believe Scotty (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SottoVoce

        Said what you are claiming he said...

        I love president Obama!!!

        by freakofsociety on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 09:04:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  nobody is letting Congress off the hook (0+ / 0-)

        Of course they are abysmal, and are abdicating their responsibilities in the extreme by refusing to do anything except block legislation and appointments, and bend over backwards to do the bidding of big money.  But we can't change the Congress for the better if SCOTUS takes away our right to vote.

        "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

        by SottoVoce on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 11:22:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

    Because being a Democrat means we can't trust a Democratic Senate to stand up to corporate assholes. We have to have nominal Democratic President as well.

    And even then, we can be assured a corporate lawyer will be nominated.

  •  The road to victory is long but worth it. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tweedledee5, BeninSC

    The repubs are doing everything they can to stay relevant
    with an america that increasingly hates them minorities, and young people voting more and more democratic.
    All we have to do is organize and GOTV and we win it will take a lot of work but definitely doable!

    •  They're out of touch with the people. (0+ / 0-)

      Unfortunately, they have so much money, in many places, with lies and attack ads, they literally CAN buy elections. And they do. we have our work cut out!

      Thanks windylink!

      Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT -9.62, -9.13

      by BeninSC on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 07:34:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Don't be fooled ... (3+ / 0-)

    into believing that the two major political parties are no different."

    sorry (if I'm about to offend), but anyone who really believes there's no difference is psychotic.

    I thought of this also when I saw this diary the other day:
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    •  I don't think really anybody thinks there is... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      freakofsociety

      no difference because thats the whole point of wedge issue to split the electorate down relatively even lines for highly emotional issues.

      If you believe ALL Americans deserve the same rights regardless of race, color , creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc then you HAVE to vote Dem.

      IF you are one who believes only 'Good Christian' are real Americans and anyone who doesn't live by your religious standards doesn't count then you HAVE to vote Repub.

      After this all the other policies can blur...

      When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

      by fToRrEeEsSt on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 10:00:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK, So on the Cultural Issues (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fToRrEeEsSt
        If you believe ALL Americans deserve the same rights regardless of race, color , creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc then you HAVE to vote Dem.
        Yeah, I get that, but where is the big difference between the two parties on financial issues, anything involving big money, corporate profits? stopping corporate welfare?

        Sorry, saying democrats support raising the min wage to a feeble $10.10 doesn't count for much, since this will never pass the House, where there are more than a handful of democrats who oppose it.

        "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

        by Superpole on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:35:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your tone implies I don't agree with you, (0+ / 0-)

          but just read my sig and you will see you misunderstand.

          When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

          by fToRrEeEsSt on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 12:50:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Great Sig Line (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fToRrEeEsSt

            as long as we understand there's just not a vast difference between the "two" parties regarding crucial financial policy; wasting our money on phony enemies and so forth.

            dems being progressive on cultural issues is great, but it don't pay the mortgage.

            "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

            by Superpole on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 03:53:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you! Honestly after social issues I see... (0+ / 0-)

              the parties these days as:

              Do I want to give our tax money to Oil and Big Pharma or to the Banks and Insurance Companies.

              When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

              by fToRrEeEsSt on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 10:58:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Cultural issues become financial issues (0+ / 0-)

          Take gay marriage.  Giving a gay couple the same financial security (inheritance, survivor benefits, etc.) is clearly a bread and butter financial issue.  Pays the mortgage in case of the death of the other.  Same with equal pay for women.  Same with Immigration Reform.   Of course, fighting Republicans on their attempts to cut $40 Billion in food stamps is a survival issue for Millions.   Just don't let reality hit you in the face there.  

          Also, the federal government raising minimum wage as a executive order is not only important for federal workers themselves, but any supply company that deals with the federal government must be in compliance as well.  Further, many states are following the Democrats' lead on minimum wage increase on their own.  So, don't ever think or say that these efforts are unimportant or futile because the GOP controls the House.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  

    •  try addressing (0+ / 0-)

      the content of the post.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 10:59:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Democracy - R.I.P., 2014. (0+ / 0-)

    “My soul is from elsewhere, I'm sure of that, and I intend to end up there." - Rumi

    by LamontCranston on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:59:56 PM PDT

  •  Our only options (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    freakofsociety, Tweedledee5

    This is so cynical but it seems like our only options are:

    -- get super-rich liberals to give more to compete (are you listening Soros? Hollywood?)

    -- hope that liberal-leaning prosecutors investigate quid pro quo corruption and prosecute it wherever it occurs

    -- pressure media to shine a bright light on these big donors and what their aims are (I want full profiles on these people!! and hidden cameras in their meetings!!)

    -- pressure Dems to pass bills that begin to rebuild campaign finance/anti-corruption

    The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

    by LiberalLady on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 09:31:21 PM PDT

    •  Warren Buffett and Bill Gates should step up too (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      freakofsociety

      They're Democrats but were reluctant to enter the political fray in 2012, but it needs to be made clear that if the Supreme Court is kept as is and democracy in the US is overwhelmed by crony capitalists, the economy will collapse and so will their foundations and philanthropic work. I think sometimes idealists shoot themselves in the foot when they try to stay above the fray and outside the muck of US 2-party politics, it stinks but this is the system we're stuck with. If wealthy Democratic billionaires stay on the sidelines, then we cede control to the crony-capitalists and all those idealistic philanthropic goals will fail along with our Third World economy and society. Sitting out is not an option.

  •  Its a persuasive argument I must admit! n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

    by fToRrEeEsSt on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 09:36:47 PM PDT

  •  Succinctly and cogently expressed! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tweedledee5

    This, and really no more, explains the great divide between the parties.  Not long after the great progressive force that was Abraham Lincoln, the GOP settled into a very staid mode of becoming the party of the privileged (excepting Theodore Roosevelt, who was largely anathema to Republican big-wigs then and afterwards), such that immense amounts of unbridled capital are now essential to their retaining power.  And that also requires voter suppression at every level, as well as ridiculously gerrymandered congressional districts.

    But the GOP interests, whatever happen to be any wave of measured voter sentiment, are really with a very distinct minority.  They have not outright won a presidential race since 1988 (we in the very bell-weather Ohio can tell all the rest of you that the 2004 shenanigans here were not so very different from the 2000 shenanigans in Florida), and it now very likely they will not do so again for at least several more cycles.  But that does not mean that with suppression and gerrymandering and the Supreme Court on their side, they will not do everything in their power to achieve the presidency through stealth.

    And that is just another reason why that one additional Supreme Court Justice, with America having too long endured--more than thirty years and counting--a radical right High Court (which has been the cruelest of all the horrible Ronald Reagan legacies)--can make all the difference.

  •  SCOTUS appointments are THE reason to campaign (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    freakofsociety

    hard for Dems, vote, contribute wherever we can. As infuriating as capitulations on the TPP and chained CPI have been at times, there are very clear differences between the Democrats and the GOP on the things that make the US sorta a functional nation, and the most important is the make-up of the Supreme Court. In fact both Clinton and Obama, whatever their lapses in other areas, have done a great job of appointing progressive Supreme Court justices, and I have little doubt that Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Brian Schweitzer or anyone else we nominate in 2016 will do the same.

    There's a lot I don't like about our laughably antiquated two-party system, and the Supreme Court itself is a farce, possibly the biggest mistake the Founders made in creating our government. But the fact of the matter is the two parties are not in any way the same, and the Dems remain far more progressive and supportive of the people in general than the Republicans. The Dems' budget proposal alone is proof of that. I'll continue to support them and fight hard to elect Democrats to all offices, especially the Senate, in 2014 and then in 2016. It's for the sake of our country that the Dems win and crush the heart of the GOP over the next decade.

    •  Only in Bloggo World (0+ / 0-)

      are SCOTUS appointments at the top of the public concern list. this is a decision point that happens what? every twenty years?

      In the real world it's still JOBS, the economy, environment, education.

      "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

      by Superpole on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:31:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Taking Money From Banksters (0+ / 0-)

    From a March 2012 Bloomberg article:

    President Barack Obama’s largest campaign donors last month included employees of Wells Fargo & Co., (WFC) JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission records.
    Vampire squid Goldman?

    Again, you can't honestly maintain there's a vast difference between the "two" parties when they both take money from the same scamming corporations.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/...

    "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

    by Superpole on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:28:07 AM PDT

  •  You make a fine case for a better Court, but ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... it's Congress, not the Court, who is going to pass campaign finance reform.

    (Yes, the Court is taking the prerogative of doing so away from Congress by finessing the legislature with its trump card, the Constitution. So everything that equated money with speech beginning with Buckley v. Valeo would be good to change with the right changes in the high court. But still ...)

    Congress is all about protecting incumbencies. Its incumbencies, and largely on a non-partisan basis. We have not seen reform in campaign financing since a doddering Republican and a very liberal Democrat startled everyone by getting together on McCain-Feingold. And we ain't seen a lot of voter backlash as the Court debilitated that bill's reform principles, such as they were.

    Oh, Congress eventually will get a chance to reform campaign finance again. But the likelihood of "real" reform? You think it will define bribery more broadly than C.J. Roberts in McCutcheon? I put meaningful campaign finance reform at roughly the same odds that Congress will foreclose former Senators and Representatives from lobbying for several years after their terms.

    2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 06:38:52 AM PDT

  •  If the justices aren't impartial, (0+ / 0-)

    they need to be impeached.  

    What's the difference between the Federal government and organized crime? One's legally sanctioned.

    by FrankenPC on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 01:43:32 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site