I wrote a Top Comments diary in April about the role Supreme Court nominations could play in the November presidential election.
To me, focus on the Supreme Court is Win-Win for Democrats, because there is no issue facing our country and our people on which Supreme Court justices are not relevant. And it isn’t and won’t be just Scalia’s seat.
More below.
Top Comments recognizes the previous day's Top Mojo and strives to promote each day's outstanding comments through nominations made by Kossacks like you. Please send comments (before 9:30pm ET) by email to topcomments@gmail.com or by our KosMail message board.
Rumors popped up this week that Clarence Thomas was considering resignation. (At least two diaries reported on it, here and here.) Apparently his wife has nixed the idea (for, after all, who wears the pants in his family?), but if he isn’t considering it, he should be. Too, if he isn’t considering it, it may not matter, as it did not matter for Scalia. None of them will live forever. Ginsburg, sadly, is very old now (83), Kennedy will be 80 next month and Breyer will be 80 before the end of the following presidential term of office. Were Thomas to acknowledge his own potential irrelevance in the face of sweeping Supreme Court changes, that could mean as many as FIVE Supreme Court nominations in the next 8 years.
What could five Democratically-appointed justices accomplish?! Sadly, my crystal ball is unreliable. But I could easily see Citizens United being overturned. I could easily see voter disenfranchisement reversed in powerful ways. That would change elections throughout the country. The political landscape could become far more favorable for Democratic candidates, locally and regionally, as well. Far better protections could come for minorities, in jobs, in health care, in civil rights. And for us ALL with climate change rulings. Unions could receive a huge (and much needed!) boost. 30 years from now the country could look dramatically different from how it looks right now, just based on changes in the makeup of the Court. If voter disenfranchisement was to be reversed, an entirely separate (but likely no less dramatic) series of positive changes could result.
Like many there is nothing I would rather see in the short term than some semblance of sanity when it comes to gun issues. I wish the country would move forward in positive ways on this, but right now a miracle would be restrictions on assault weapons. While important, that would only be a start. A revamped Supreme Court could make huge changes in relatively short order, with the biggest changes possibly resulting from a changed political landscape and climate.
If Republicans were smart they would confirm Merrick Garland immediately. They have already approved of him, and the current obstruction is based more on ‘Obama spite,’ than it is bona fide objection to the nominee. In the near term things are not looking so rosy for their nominee apparent. And large numbers of Republicans have grave doubts about who Drumpf might nominate in any case, should the country survive long enough for nominations to happen.
The importance of Supreme Court nominations by our next President is growing, not waning. Democrats benefit much more than Republicans from focus on that importance. This issue is receiving more attention, not less. Confirm Merrick Garland. As is your Constitutional duty. If you don’t, we’re hoping that our next president will nominate someone still MORE liberal to that opening, with a more favorable Senate for confirmation. And you will get what you so richly deserve for your spite politics.
And to my fellow Democrats I say, talk Supremes at every opportunity, with every audience. It’s worth the time. It is a big step on the path of creating the world we wish to see.
On to tonight’s comments! Provided by brillig! (Thank you!)
TOP COMMENTS
Brillig's ObDisclaimer: The decision to publish each nomination lies with the evening's Diarist and/or Comment Formatter. My evenings at the helm, I try reeeeallllyy hard to publish everything without regard to content. I really do, even when I disagree personally with any given nomination. "TopCommentness" lies in the eyes of the nominator and of you, the reader - I leave the decision to you. I do not publish self-nominations (ie your own comments) and if I ruled the world, we'd all build community, supporting and uplifting instead of tearing our fellow Kossacks down. Please remember that comment inclusion in Top Comments does not constitute support or endorsement by diarist, formatter, Top Comments writers or DailyKos. Questions, complaints or comments? Contact brillig.
From brillig:
Apparently it's not that Trump is a manipulator who expects us to believe whatever he says. Or so says mstep in this top comment from Barbara Morrill’s Trump claims he never said club goers in Orlando should have had guns. Yes, he did.
Highlighted by belinda ridgewood:
Is this first comment on Daily Kos by Lisbon, that tells a stunning tale of racism unsuspected.
Highlighted by first time commenter, exkspo (whose comment was highlighted in turn by belinda ridgewood):
Is this comment by fauxrs, that emphasizes the problem with the congregation that listened to that CA preacher calling for the killing of all LGBT human beings. In Walter Einenkel's diary on the subject.
Highlighted by raboof:
Is this comment by mbayrob that paints an earworm-style picture of Drumpf's debate fantasies. (Beware!)
Also highlighted by raboof:
Is this comment by anon004, just dripping with snark and good humor, in a thread about Trump and Fantasy Island (started in this comment by BannedAtSlate).
TOP MOJO
Top Mojo for yesterday, June 19th 2016, first comments and tip jars excluded. Thank you mik for the mojo magic! For those of you interested in How Top Mojo Works, please see his diary on FAQing Top Mojo.
Top Pictures for yesterday, June 19th 2016. Click any picture to be taken to the full comment. Thank you jotter!