In 2000, there were those who argued that there was really no difference between George W. Bush and the "corporatist" Al Gore. Many of them voted for Ralph Nader. Had essentially all of the Nader votes gone to Gore, Gore would have carried Florida and New Hampshire, and would have been inaugurated for his first term in January 2001. And there is simply no way that a President Gore would have nominated anybody with the views of either Justice Alito or Chief Justice Roberts. More recently, some here have argued that they won't actively support Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee, because there's no real difference between her "corporatist" stance and that of the Republicans.
Today's Supreme Court decision should, I hope, open some eyes. In both cases, the 5 member majority of the Court included every Justice nominated by a Republican President, while the dissenters included both Justices nominated by President Clinton, and both Justices nominated by President Obama.
If there were no other reason to actively and enthusiastically support the Democratic nominee in 2016 (and I think there are a number of other reasons to do so), the effect on the composition of the Supreme Court, possibly for decades to come, is reason enough for me. And if there were no other reason to pitch in and work hard to keep the Republicans from taking over the Senate in this year's elections, the effect on the Supreme Court in the event of a vacancy in the next two years is ample reason to do so, since I think that if one of the liberals on the Court were to die or retire in the next two years, there is almost no way that a Republican-controlled Senate would confirm ANYBODY that President Obama nominated.
Here is a link to the DSCC contribution page: