General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA hearty "FUCK YOU" to anyone who helped bigots and fascists capture the Supreme Court.
This includes, but is not limited to:
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
-misanthroptimist
(1,825 posts)He stole one from Obama.
He stole one from Biden.
Without those thefts, Republicans would be 4-5 on the Court instead of 6-3.
Be mad at him instead.
lapucelle
(21,119 posts)Last edited Sat May 2, 2026, 11:00 AM - Edit history (1)
and no initial erosion of the Voting Rights Act.
If Hillary Clinton had won, there would be no Neil Gorsuch, no Brett Kavanaugh, no Amy Coney Barrett, and no absolute demolition of the Voting Rights Act.
As for the rest who just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Kamala Harris despite what was anticipated by Project 2025 and then came to pass, the heartiest of all "FUCK YOUs" on the general principle that we have a civic and moral duty to reduce harm to the marginalized among us.
Polybius
(22,104 posts)Alito and Roberts were appointed in Bush's second term. If Gore wins in 2000, it's a stretch to think we win four Presidential elections in a row.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,770 posts)
DemocracyForever
(174 posts)by violating the U.S. constitution's sections that give the authority to settle a disputed Presidential election to the elected U.S. House of Representatives and NOT 5 unelected, highly partisan GOP SCOTUS judges and the states the authority to conduct elections which is what the state of Florida was doing in 2000, our country would not now be on the brink of becoming a Nazi dictatorship. 160,000 legally cast votes located in the largest and most heavily democratic voting counties in Florida sit uncounted in the Florida archives as I type this post.
Nader certainly played a crucial role with his big lie that there were no differences between Al Gore and the Rehnquist 5 appointed Bush and with the GOP funded ad campaign that Nader ran in crucial battle ground states like Florida. This is what made it possible for Bush to get close enough in Florida to have his little brother Jeb and campaign co-chair Harris refuse to enforce Florida election law that the Rehnquist 5 then rubberstamped which caused 160,000 legally cast Florida votes in democratic voting counties to not be counted..
Let's also not forget that Jill Stein siphoned off enough crucial democratic votes from Hilary in 2016 and Kamala in 2024 with the same Nader big lie to put Trump in the White House.
It's long past due to hold the Rehnquist 5, Nader and iIll Stein accountable for what they've done to our country.
Polybius
(22,104 posts)
debsy
(1,030 posts)Polybius
(22,104 posts)But Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on September 18, 2020. Four months and two days before Biden. Sorta a stretch to call it a steal, but I totally get your point.
-misanthroptimist
(1,825 posts)debsy
(1,030 posts)McConnell and Trump were laser-focused on the lower courts as well, stacking the wider judiciary with 226 right-wing justices in just four years, rivaling the appellate appointment count of two-term presidents.
Jack Valentino
(5,242 posts)during the last year of his second term based on the argument that
"the SC nomination should be made by the winner of the next presidential election"--
but when ANOTHER opening occurred in the last few month's of Trump's first term,
that rule no longer applied, and they made a different argument
about "who controls the U.S. Senate"--- and rushed it through in the last moments
before ANOTHER presidential election, which Joe Biden WON---
(by their 2016 arguments about SC openings and presidential elections,
that should have been BIDEN'S Supreme Court seat to fill--)
I realize that YOU know this well,
but am only stating it for those who might not know or remember
MichMan
(17,374 posts)McConnell was under no obligation to approve any nominee.
Jack Valentino
(5,242 posts)when we control the U.S. Senate--- regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says about it---
Right ??
I'm good with that policy. I'm still not good with
apologists for Republican hypocrisies.... whoever they may be
MichMan
(17,374 posts)McConnell was wrong to not give him one.
Jack Valentino
(5,242 posts)--- whichever party controls the Senate now decides whether Supreme Court nominations will be acted upon---- and if Democrats retake the Senate, and Trump has the chance to fill any SC openings in the last part of his term, the answer should be "no dice, we won't even have hearings--- since that is what you Republicans did not do with President Obama's Garland nomination."
And if a Democratic Senate leader does differently, I will be out for his political blood !!!!
debsy
(1,030 posts)Least we not forget, he rammed through Amy Coney Barrett 6 weeks before an election which was a180 degree spin from his position on Merrick Garland
Cha
(320,440 posts)
karynnj
(61,078 posts)I don't think there was any precedent to not hold hearing with most of year left in Obama's term. Not to mention, Obama was honoring split government by making a centrist pick.
However, Coney Barrett exposed the rank hypocrisy by being very quickly nominated, given a hearing and confirmed.
It boiled down to McConnell doing whatever he had the power to do.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,328 posts)... and the fundraising he kicked off that got businessmen first, statesmen last elected to the House and creeped into the Senate.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)I’m not sure you would like that list.
lapucelle
(21,119 posts)
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)And no one has been added to the court during Trump’s second term, whereas fully half of the current MAGA majority predates Trump’s first term.
Transforming the court to its current corrupt state has been a decades long project, not just the result of Trump’s ascension to the White House (although he clearly accelerated it, with help from McConnell).
lapucelle
(21,119 posts) 
RandomNumbers
(19,248 posts)Emphasis added ... cherry picked paragraphs to stick to copyright rules. It is well worth reading the whole thing (which only has a few more paragraphs I had to snip out.)
Edit to clarify my point: the 2024 voters referenced in the OP are RESPONSIBLE in large part for the 2nd TSF administration, which has weaponized the SC in new ways. Some of the horrible decisions issued by this SC term may have been issued eventually anyway, but some quite possibly would never have made it to the SC without TSF administration submitting them.
The memos date to 2016, when a majority of justices voted to bypass the lower courts to block the Obama administration’s signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan. At the time, it was an unprecedented use of the Court’s shadow docket. Also known as the emergency docket, the shadow docket refers to applications that seek action from the Supreme Court before the case is decided on the merits. Historically, its use was generally limited to procedural issues or requests to block serious, irreparable harms, such as a pending execution. But the Court’s use of the shadow docket shifted with the Court’s 2016 climate policy ruling, which skipped the normal litigation process in order to block a national policy.
Since then, the shadow docket’s use has exploded in both frequency and impact. The second Trump administration has filed a record number of shadow docket applications and has won 80 percent of the time. In the vast majority of these rulings, the Court has provided little or no reasoning for its decision.
... (snip) ...
Significantly, Roberts’s reasoning is also wholly inconsistent with how he and other conservative members of the Court have been assessing irreparable harm during the second Trump administration. Over the past year, the Court has repeatedly issued stays requested by the Trump administration where there was no apparent irreparable harm to the government, other than the generalized harm it faces from any delay in implementing a desired policy. For instance, the Court, through its shadow docket, allowed mass layoffs at the Education Department, racial profiling in immigration sweeps, and the termination of legal immigration status for hundreds of thousands of people.
... (snip) ...
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)Which is why I questioned the OP’s strange, inconsistent criteria for earning a hearty “FUCK YOU”.
While Trump and McConnell deserve a generous portion of the blame, the genesis of this corrupt, hyper-partisan court goes back decades.
RandomNumbers
(19,248 posts)I agree with the OP, for many reasons beyond the SC decisions issued during this administration.
To put it another way, even if the published rationale for a conclusion is not logically sound, that doesn't automatically make the stated conclusion incorrect. (and due to what I posted, I wouldn't even say the OPs stated rationale is logically unsound, but I can also see that your point somewhat weakens it).
That hearty 'FUCK YOU' to those mentioned in the OP, is deserved for SO MANY REASONS beyond the Supreme Court.
(Oh and let's not forget - there is an active push to get one or more of the oldest SC justices to retire in time for this corrupt crowd to push through yet another appointment. And there is no guarantee that we will capture the Senate in the 2026 election.)
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)Blaming a certain subset of 2024 voters for the current damage this SCOTUS is causing is simply inaccurate.
Pointing the finger at that subset of voters for the damage the current administration has done is only partially accurate, as a wider net must be cast to fully capture all those responsible for the debacle of the 2024 Democratic presidential campaign.
But that’s not the topic of this thread; it’s who deserves a hearty “FUCK YOU” for enabling the current MAGA majority on the court.
Frankly, I prefer to look for solutions rather than point fingers, and the only feasible solution I can see is to elect enough courageous democrats (including a president in 2028, but also critically, senators in 2026 who will still be in office in 2029) who will kill the filibuster and expand the court.
Court expansion, and killing the filibuster to do so, is the only way, short of amending the constitution, to neutralize the current MAGA majority and begin the restoration of lost rights and repairing the damage of the Trump era.
Bobstandard
(2,369 posts)Must every OP meet yours?
lapucelle
(21,119 posts)All of us continue to live with the consequences of their actions a quarter of a century later.
It's pretty clear at this point that, for some, Democrats will never be good enough to actually vote for.
Call them out. Shame them. Let them know that they are among those who bear the blame.
Let them know that they need to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
Bobstandard
(2,369 posts)
betsuni
(29,264 posts)shouldn't make anyone here touchy!
Cha
(320,440 posts)wrong. 
Thank you! 
muriel_volestrangler
(106,548 posts)Yes, they were appointed in his 2nd term, but if he hadn't got in in 2000, he wouldn't have won in 2004, frankly. History would have been quite different.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,989 posts)This term isn't over yet so it's possible Trump gets more appointments.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)Clarence and Alito could retire, and Trump could appoint Barron and Melania to take their places, but the MAGA majority would remain 6-3.
Any new appointments to SCOTUS during Trump’s second term won’t make a bit of difference in the long run, as long as enough courageous democrats are elected so the court is expanded in 2029.
That is why court expansion, and killing the filibuster to do so, must be Democrats #1 priority moving forward. (Reminder: Dems can walk and chew gum, so while court expansion must be priority #1, protecting the rights and wellbeing of Americans is the assumed foundation for everything Dems pursue in power).
SocialDemocrat61
(7,989 posts)who ever is appointed can be there for 30-40 years. And if Harris were President, the majority could ultimately shift. The longer a republican is in the White House the longer it will until the majority can shift. So yes, any appointments Trump makes this term make a lot of difference in the long term. So F**K anyone who didn't vote for Harris in 24!!!
Crunchy Frog
(28,299 posts)Which would be avoided if a Dem makes that appointment.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)And once the court is expanded (to at least 13, preferably 15 seats) in 2029, we will be looking at a 7-6, or preferably 9-6 liberal majority, so whoever is appointed to the court in the next two years can have decades of collecting a paycheck without any meaningful power.
If a Dem had won in 2024, Clarence and Alito would have just delayed their retirement, or would have retired in the lame duck period after the election and before inauguration day.
Like I said, as long as Dems #1 priority is court expansion in 2029, then it truly doesn’t matter who Trump gets to appoint in the next two years (and if Dems retake the senate, he’s only got about 7 months to make any more appointments).
SocialDemocrat61
(7,989 posts)The Supreme Court is a long term issue and there is no guarantee that it can be expanded in the future. I refuse to make excuses for anyone who didn’t vote for Harris in 24, Clinton in 16, Kerry in 04 and Gore in 2000. They fucked the country.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)And the only viable solution is to expand the court.
Identifying candidates who support court expansion (and killing the filibuster to do so), and then working to get them elected and is a far better use of time and resources IMO.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,989 posts)But all options need to be considered. Not just one that’s a longshot at best. That’s just unrealistic.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)Especially compared to impeachment, which has a much higher threshold.
All it takes for expansion is a simple majority and the courage to get it done.
What other options besides impeachment do you see as more feasible than expansion?
SocialDemocrat61
(7,989 posts)And it will take 60 votes. That assumes democrats take the house, the Senate and the White House,
Plus it still doesn’t excuse those who refused to vote for Clinton and Harris.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)On January 3, 2029, at the commencement of the new congress, the senate can change its rules, and abolish the filibuster, or create restrictions on its use (no more emailing the clerk with intent to filibuster to block legislation).
Also, at any time (if they know they have the 51 votes) a courageous senate majority leader can execute the “nuclear option”, (as Harry Reid did) and suspend the filibuster rule for a particular piece of legislation.
If it’s made a priority, and a concerted effort is made to educate the electorate, court expansion wouldn’t be the long shot you think it is.
Still waiting to hear your feasible ideas.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,989 posts)I was defending the op for condemning those who didn’t vote for Harris in 24. That was my point.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)Expansion is the last, best and only feasible solution to neutralizing this corrupt, extremist court.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,989 posts)is that anyone who didn’t vote for Harris in 24 deserves to be condemned.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)I prefer to seek solutions.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,989 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)You have refused to identify any others, and the status quo is untenable.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,989 posts)to defend the op condemning those who didn’t vote for Kamala Harris. I’m not trying to move the goal posts nor pretend that I have all the answers. Forgive me. I’m just not that arrogant.
mzmolly
(52,853 posts)We would have to win congress, the senate and the White House. We will not win with this as a litmus test.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)From as few as 6 justices to as many as 10.
mzmolly
(52,853 posts)Yes it was expanded in the 1800's from what I've read. That doesn't mean we should run on such an agenda, though I'm not opposed to the idea.
DemocracyForever
(174 posts)that gives Congress the authority to regulate the SCOTUS. Anything having to do in any way with elections should be taken away from the highly partisan GOP SCOTUS and moved to a non-partisan commission to review and decide on.
DemocracyForever
(174 posts)which gives Congress the authority to regulate the SCOTUS. Any cases referring in any way to elections must be taken away from the radical, anti-democracy pro GOP, GOP controlled SCOTUS and given to an impartial, independent commission to rule on so that we never again get 5 unelected, highly partisan, anti-democracy, pro GOP hacks thwarting the will of we the people by throwing out our votes and installing their personally preferred candidate in the White House again.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)The constitution gives SCOTUS primary jurisdiction in resolving matters involving the states, and that’s not going to change until the constitution is changed.
However, the impact of this corrupt court can be mitigated by neutralizing theAGA majority via court expansion, which only requires simple majorities in both chambers, a Dem president and the courage to do it.
DemocracyForever
(174 posts)gives Congress the authority to regulate the SCOTUS and decide what cases SCOTUS will handle. No constitutional amendment is needed to do this. Furthermore, the U.S. constitution gives the elected U.S. House of Representatives the authority to settle a disputed Presidential election, NOT 5 unelected, anti-democracy GOP SCOTUS judges. The U.S. constitution further gives the states the authority to conduct elections which is what Florida was doing in 2000. Most of the authority the SCOTUS thinks it has is NOT in the constitution. It's been taken by the SCOTUS over the centuries by unconstitutional power grabs that've never been stopped by Congress. Not only did the founders of our country never envision 5 unelected SCOTUS judges deciding who occupies the White House, they also never envisioned the all powerful SCOTUS that exists today and that's now shredding the very constitution they fought and died for.
Court expansion is not enough to solve this I think at the very least our country needs a 2nd reconstruction and even possibly a 2nd revolution to fix this. No offense but someone from Canada really shouldn't be telling Americans about our U.S. constitution. I would never think to tell Canadians about their constitution. Just saying.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)Gives SCOTUS original jurisdiction in all cases involving the states.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-2/ALDE_00001220/
That cannot be altered without amending the constitution.
You are cherry picking bits of the constitution to suit your perspective, rather than reflect reality.
Congress could pass laws stripping SCOTUS jurisdiction which would stand, until a state became a party to the case, then SCOTUS would get involved, whether you like it or not.
DemocracyForever
(174 posts)You fail to understand that not only does the U.S. constitution give Congress the authority to regulate the SCOTUS, it also gives the states the authority to run elections, NOT the SCOTUS. American elections are run by the states and NOT the federal government or SCOTUS. This came about because the states existed before the federal government existed. Please don't think that as a Canadian, you know more about the U.S. constitution than we Americans do. Your lack of understanding that the U.S. constitution gives the states the authority to run elections in addition to giving Congress the authority to regulate the SCOTUS indicates to me that you don't know as much about the U.S. constitution as you think you do.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)But whatever you do…
DemocracyForever
(174 posts)I take great offense at someone from Canada trying to impose their inaccurate view of the U.S. constitution on Americans. If you really knew the U.S. constitution and American history, you would not be making the wrong claims that you're making. As an American, I would never attempt to tell Canadians about the Canadian constitution. Doing so would be highly offensive.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)Bush v Gore is both the history and reality that supports my position that SCOTUS can indeed insert itself into election cases when a state is a party.
Looking forward to your list of cases where SCOTUS denied cert to an election related case because it was out of their jurisdiction.
DemocracyForever
(174 posts)I don't understand what part of the U.S. constitution that says that the U.S. House of Representatives has the authority to settle a disputed election and the additional part that gives the states the authority to run elections you don't understand? These points are both in the U.S. constitution. I suggest that you read them. FYI, I spent years working on election campaigns in Florida. I know exactly what happened there in 2000.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)You said congress could pass a law restricting SCOTUS from ruling on any election related cases, and that is constitutionally, and historically inaccurate when it comes to any case where a state is a party.
The constitution is clear that SCOTUS has original jurisdiction when it comes to adjudicating matters involving state governments, such as the equal protection issues addressed in Bush v Gore.
If your theory was correct, then in 2009, congress could have passed a law that Obama would have signed blocking SCOTUS from taking on election related cases, including voting rights act cases.
The Colorado case regarding 14th amendment disqualification by state courts would never have gone to SCOTUS, and neither would all the redistricting cases.
But, because of the Original Jurisdiction clause in Article III, all those cases, and more, came before the court,
I’m still waiting on your case citations supporting your assertions.
DemocracyForever
(174 posts)Here's the portion of the 12th amendment that gives the U.S. House of Representatives the authority on disputed Presidential elections.
" if no person have such majority,(referring to a majority of the electoral college votes) then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President
Here's the 10th amendment:" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively ,or to the people."
Article 3, SECTION. 2. Is really a list from Congress of the cases that the Supreme Court can handle. There's nothing about the Supreme Court handling elections cases. You also need to note the last 8 words of this section of the constitution, " under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." This gives Congress the authority to regulate the Supreme Court and the cases the Supreme Court takes
These portions of the constitution give the U.S. House of Representatives the authority to handle a disputed Presidential election where no one has gotten a majority of the electoral college votes, the states authority to conduct elections and Congress's authority to regulate the Supreme Court
You further don't understand again that never before 2000 did the Supreme Court intervene in a disputed Presidential election. Some notable disputed Presidential elections before 2000 are 1824 which did go to the U.S. House of Representatives for resolution and 1876 which was resolved by a commission set up by Congress. There was no Supreme Court intervention in either of these disputed Presidential elections.
You also don't understand that the Bush vs Gore ruling blatantly violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause because it blocked the counting of 160,000 legally cast ballots located in the largest and most heavily democratic voting counties in Florida. The throwing out of these democratic ballots while counting republican ballots is a direct violation of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause because democratic cast ballots were treated differently than republican cast ballots. In addition, Bush has signed the same intent of the voter counting standard in Texas as was the vote counting standard in Florida. Most states have the intent of the voter as the vote counting standard which makes the Bush vs Gore ruling all the more bogus in addition to its anti-democracy, unconstitutional problems.
I recommend that you leave this to people who actually worked on Florida campaigns and know all of the laws and disputed Florida territory involved. There would be no Trump today without the Bush vs Gore ruling.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)First it was “the court has no authority to rule on any elections”, then it was something else, then another thing, and now it’s “disputed presidential elections, which still isn’t completely true.
What you quoted from the 12th amendment relates to elections where no candidate wins a clear majority of electoral votes after the state has certified the results and appointed the electors which would come after any and all challenges had been resolved, challenges which the court could absolutely become involved in,, especially if a state was one of the parties.
You can keep quoting your cherry picked sections of the constitution, but history and reality show that nothing you have quoted overrules the Original Jurisdiction clause in Article III. The examples you have given about a lack of an EV majority was never part of our conversation prior to this post.
You’ve gone from Evidence free hyperbole, to shifting goalposts, to now, just wasting my time.
DemocracyForever
(174 posts)It's abundantly clear to me that you've never worked on an election campaign and certainly not an election campaign in Florida. You don't seem to grasp the historical facts that I've been providing you with. The bottom line is that a radical, out of control GOP SCOTUS majority is destroying our country in broad daylight and you're defending their radical, anti-democracy behavior. You bet I have a problem with that.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)I’m not defending anything but reality.
You still haven’t provided any evidence to support your claim that Congress can block SCOTUS from taking election related cases despite the court’s Original Jurisdiction mandate in the constitution.
All you have responded with are ad hominem attacks, and no substance, just continued ranting.
This has been boring
DemocracyForever
(174 posts)It's clear that you can't handle actual facts. You once again ignore the last 8 words of Article 3, section 2, "under regulations Congress shall make". You also ignore the list of cases that Article 3, section 2 authorizes the SCOTUS to take. There are no election cases on that list. This is what gives Congress the authority to regulate the SCOTUS. You once again also ignore the fact that never before 2000 did the SCOTUS rule on a disputed Presidential election. I previously noted a couple of particularly well known disputed Presidential elections, 1824 and 1876. There were NO SCOTUS rulings handed down concerning these 2 disputed Presidential elections or any other disputed Presidential elections.. This is a fact that you can't handle.
I find it pretty scary that you think it's boring and ok for the GOP controlled SCOTUS to destroy our country with their anti-democracy behavior in broad daylight. This is exactly what you're doing. BTW, walking precincts is only a portion of what goes into a campaign, especially a Presidential campaign in a battleground state. I've done way more than walk precincts.
FYI, thanks to the anti-democracy GOP controlled SCOTUS, 160,000 legally cast Florida ballots located in the largest and most heavily democratic voting counties in Florida sit uncounted in the Florida archives because of the anti-democracy Bush vs Gore SCOTUS ruling by the GOP controlled SCOTUS majority. You're making it clear that you think it's ok for the GOP controlled SCOTUS to throw out the votes of democrats and make harder for people who vote for democrats to be able to vote as in the destruction of the 1965 Voting Rights Act This is exactly what the GOP controlled SCOTUS is doing. It's time for you to wake up.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)I don’t find any of that boring, in fact I’m one of the loudest voices here calling for expanding the court to neutralize the MAGA majority.
What I find boring is you and your ill informed, pedantic, armchair hot takes on the constitution using cherry picked data and ever changing, narrowly defined examples of limits on judicial powers.
Is that clear?
I find you boring.
Don’t bother replying - I won’t see it.
DemocracyForever
(174 posts)Unlike you, I've worked on every dem Presidential campaign from Carter 1980 through to Gore 2000. I've worked on dem U.S. Senate campaigns, dem U.S. House campaigns, dem Governors campaigns and dem state legislative campaigns all in battleground states like Florida. I did much more than walk precincts in 1 Presidential campaign like you. Your level of actual campaign experience pales in comparison to my level of campaign experience and it shows with your every post. You're very mistaken if you think your level of election campaign experience is the same as mine. That couldn't be further from the truth. You've been given the actual language that's in the U.S. constitution, you've been given examples of previous disputed U.S. Presidential elections that the SCOTUS never intervened in and you still can't face the reality that what the GOP controlled SCOTUS did in 2000 to thwart the will of the people and install Bush was blatantly anti-democracy and unconstitutional. Your refusal to face this reality speaks volumes and is all I need to know about you.
FYI, expansion of the SCOTUS will not solve the issue because the GOP will just undo it the next time they get control of the federal government. You're the one who is ill-informed and has no understanding of the law or the history of U.S. Presidential elections.
I suggest you read the book, "The Shadow Docket" by law professor Stephen Vladeck. Congress's failure to regulate the SCOTUS is one of the important issues Vladeck raises in this book.
RandomNumbers
(19,248 posts)what is the mechanism for that, and why are you so sure that it will be accomplished?
(I have thoughts on both sides of whether we should or shouldn't ... those thoughts are irrelevant to the likelihood and mechanism of it happening, which is my question here)
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)The court has been shrunk/expanded before - from as few as 6 justices to as many as 10, all through congressional legislation.
The likelihood of expansion depends on two factors:
1) the awareness and motivation of the voters to select and elect candidates who support expansion, and
2) the courage of the elected officials to pass the legislation, especially the courage of those in the senate, who will need to kill the filibuster to pass court expansion.
To those who say we shouldn’t expand the court because the republicans will just do the same thing once they regain power, I say:
Democrats must never again govern out of fear of what republicans might do in retaliation.
After all, republicans never govern out of fear of what Democrats might do, do they?
If the court is expanded, and with the filibuster dead, Democrats ram through bill after bill restoring lost rights and repairing the damage of the Trump era, and then govern fearlessly, unhesitatingly and progressively for the benefit of all Americans (well except maybe the billionaires), it will be decades before republicans again have a chance to regain the trifecta of power, if ever.
RandomNumbers
(19,248 posts)(for Congress, house or senate), plus those who retain their seats now and in 2028, will support such legislation?
Regardless of arguments for or against, frankly at this time it seems a stretch, and more of a hope* than a strategy. That said, by the time of the 2028 elections, if TSF continues as he has ... the sentiment may be much stronger in favor of doing ANYTHING to reverse the damage.
* brings to mind the expression ... hope in one hand and shit in the other ... which one fills up faster?
Another strategy is to figure out what TSF and his cabal have on John Roberts and others on the court ... and figure out how to nullify that hold and sway them back to acting at least less dishonorably. Yup, probably just as much or more of a long shot ... but we should be trying everything.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)If the voters don’t demand expansion be made the #1 priority, then we will get politics-as-usual that pleases nobody but the oligarchs.
Expansion should be raised at every Dem candidate town hall, and Indivisible/No Kings should make it a central component of their protests.
AFAIK, Janet Mills was the only openly pro-filibuster Dem candidate running for senate this cycle, and now she’s out.
Do you know of others? Angus King was staunchly pro-filibuster, but has softened his position, especially around reproductive rights.
mzmolly
(52,853 posts)I disagree. This "test" would be another excuse to enable Republicans to gain more power. It would also encourage disenfranchised MAGA to vote R in the coming elections. Let's not distract them with anything but the war and the economy.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)That doesn’t mean, when liberal donors meet with candidates when those candidates ask for big donations, and when constituents attend town halls, that liberal donors and constituents shouldnt demand they take a position on expansion.
mzmolly
(52,853 posts)It's a recipe for disaster.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)Regardless of who is president or which party controls the house and senate.
Without court expansion, any significant legislation will either:
1) be blocked by the filibuster, or
2) overturned by the corrupt Roberts court
That means:
No codifying Roe
No new Voting Rights Act
No substantive action on climate change
No restrictions or regulations on the billionaires robbing America
It will mean gridlock politics-as-usual, pleasing only the billionaires and oligarchs, and further reducing the Democratic Party in the eyes of the voters.
The only way Democrats can convince voters they are fighters, is to push for court expansion to remove the obstructions for good governance that benefits the people.
I can’t think of a worse disaster than Americans continuing to suffer the consequences of the Trump era for decades after he is out of office.
mzmolly
(52,853 posts)of Goverment and we will not get there with the proposed litmus test.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)And without control of the judicial branch, the power of the executive branch under a democratic president would be hamstrung and crippled by the court, as would any laws passed by a Dem majority congress.
That is by design - the court empowers Republican administrations and majorities, and weakens Democratic ones.
So, by refusing to consider expanding the court, we would lose the bulk of all real power in all three branches of government .
I am not satisfied with having mere mathematical majorities that are undermined by SCOTUS.
mzmolly
(52,853 posts)Let's not give the R's MORE power by imposing a purity test on Democrats.
We have an aging SCOTUS which if we win elections, can be replaced by a Democratic majority, including a President.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)If Dems retake the senate in November, then Alito and Clarence will announce their retirements immediately after election day, and Trump will fill their seats before the end of 2026. If Dems don’t retake the senate, then I expect Alito and Clarence to retire before the end of his term in 2028.
I don’t see any other MAGA justices heading for retirement soon- Kagan and Sotomayor are the only other likely candidates, and maybe Roberts, but I think he would take his chances that there will be a republican in the WH in 2032, or even 2036, when he would be 82.
So, Roberts is the only wild card where a Dem president might get to fill a seat held by a conservative in the next 10 years.
That would shift the majority from 6-3 to 5-4, still not be enough to overturn Dobbs, restore voting rights or strip away presidential immunity.
How long should folks have to wait?
Even with court expansion, Americans will continue to be deprived of various rights for at least another three years; without expansion, those rights remain off the table for at least a decade, likely more.
Demanding Dem candidates’ support for court expansion is in no way a “purity” test; it is an “ability to govern” test. If they seek to represent their constituents in congress, then they should take their job of legislating seriously, and not just go through the motions,
After expanding the court, all Dem legislators would be free to vote their conscience on any other bill that came to the floor. If a bill passes, the Dems could feel secure that it would be implemented, and not quickly overturned by an extremist court.
mzmolly
(52,853 posts)We have to win, period.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)You’re not making any sense.
My point is, without court expansion, there will be a conservative majority on the court for at least another decade, perhaps much longer.
You presume that supporting court expansion is an automatic electoral death sentence for the Democratic Party- I have not seen a shred of recent (2025 or later) evidence supporting that assumption.
With Trump-induced, Republican-enabled suffering intensifying and crossing regional, racial and partisan boundaries, now is the time to take this opening to show people the court’s role in how things got so bad.
Because of that suffering, We are going to win the house, and the odds of taking the senate are improving week by week.
Although I feel strongly that court expansion must be the party’s #1 priority, I don’t think it must be the #1 campaign issue- relieving the Trump-induced suffering of the people should be.
Court reform can be rolled into an attack on the widespread corruption of this entire administration- that’s something the data shows majority support for addressing.
mzmolly
(52,853 posts)I'm not going to repeat it.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,989 posts)Purity test. Those have worked out so well in the past. Lol
mzmolly
(52,853 posts)First the demands. Later the excuse to enable Republicans because the 'expand the courts' litmus test wasn't adhered to.
Set up a very high bar. Then blast democrats when they can’t reach it.
mzmolly
(52,853 posts)is another excuse to blame Democrats for the outcome of the "both parties are the same/lesser of two evils" crowd.
I too am awaiting the 'how' on this suggestion.
mcar
(46,323 posts)Thus keeping that seat securely conservative.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,987 posts)I imagine he would get bored being on the losing end of decisions for the rest of his life, as well as being limited by the new ethics rules passed by the Dems and upheld by the new liberal majority, so I suspect he wouldn’t even last five years on the court.
BeyondGeography
(41,196 posts)
Nixie
(18,100 posts)If he dies does Trump get to make a lifetime appointment?
Nixie
(18,100 posts)Why is Trump there in the first place. No Democrat would have appointed right wing justices.
whathehell
(30,546 posts)discussion and Bernie isn't on it.
Nixie
(18,100 posts)malfeasance would be an issue if Democrats were picking the court. We all knew this, but some threw their power away.
whathehell
(30,546 posts)I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how Bernie Sanders being 84 fits into all this.
Nixie
(18,100 posts)certain politicians.
whathehell
(30,546 posts)At age 76 , I'm more likely to be a victim of ageism than a proponent of it, lol..Try again.
Nixie
(18,100 posts)I laughed at your distractions also.
whathehell
(30,546 posts)Your 'history' on this board?..Recent American history, what?
As to what's 'obvious', the only thing meeting that description here is the lack of clarity in your writing.
A course in expository writing might help,. Have a nice one.
Nixie
(18,100 posts)It’s all very familiar. 
whathehell
(30,546 posts)but keep digging.. 
Nixie
(18,100 posts)Edit: the lol stage is here
whathehell
(30,546 posts)..repeat baseless assertions?
Then again, I understand that it's easier than having to explain gobbledy gook. 
Nixie
(18,100 posts)It’s all very familiar.
Cha
(320,440 posts) 
💔 💙 ☮️🌻🕯️🕊️💜Nixie
(18,100 posts)works.
Cha
(320,440 posts)Oh, and Hillary and Kamala told America All this Horror Show was going to happen.. Hillary warned about the Supreme Court, and they both warned about Putin.
I saw so-called "progs" (they call themselves that, but they are not), including Sarandan, post that the sC didn't matter. How stupid and bitter do you have to be?
So heartbreaking that many don't care about Democracy. Only themselves
Mahalo & Aloha, Nixie. 💙 ☮️🌻🕯️🕊️💜
Nixie
(18,100 posts)speeches! If someone gives a speech, that is corruption, and who cares about the Supreme Court. It's okay to send messages through voting, but then everyone was supposed to gather and shake their fists for the Revolution. Millionaires and billionaires were the buzzwords, but now both are okay.
You nailed it, Cha. It's so tiring now to be told we need power -- no shit Sherlock. That's why you don't give elections away. I miss the smart people. Hillary and Kamala would not have nominated right wingers to the SC, as we know.
Mahalo Cha
Cha
(320,440 posts)Thank You, and On We Fight for Our Democracy!
Best of Good Luck to us in the Midterms/, with Thousands of evil forces against it. 
betsuni
(29,264 posts)people. It must be Shakespearean!"
That actually happened. Giving speeches used against Democrats as evidence of evil corrupt conspiracy -- and some people actually fell for it! Still falling for it!
mcar
(46,323 posts)Told SCOTUS didn't matter, called "vagina voters" and antisemitic because we supported HRC.
The "conscience" voters screwed us all over just so they could "bring on the revolution."
betsuni
(29,264 posts)is the only important thing. Voting rights, reproductive freedom and vagina things -- distractions!
mcar
(46,323 posts)and they're still arguing that their 3rd party votes, trashing of Democratic candidates, etc. don't matter.
But, the Democrats that they helped put in minority status get slammed all the time for "not doing enough!!11"
betsuni
(29,264 posts)At least Republicans do it for a reason.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,989 posts)
Crunchy Frog
(28,299 posts)
Martin Eden
(15,858 posts)I get the anger and frustration. Really, I do. I understand the need to vent. And DU is a place to do it.
But we all understand the absolute imperative to win elections, and to do that we need every vote we can get to overcome voter suppression and other schemes.
We need those voters who went for Nader and Stein, or rejected Kamala because of Gaza.
We don't have to forgive them.
But we should not alienate them.
leftstreet
(41,236 posts)lapucelle
(21,119 posts)We'd still have Citizens United and the initial erosion of the Voting Rights Act. There would still be at least a 5-4 conservative majority.
The 2016 election was the first presidential election after the Roberts Court originally took a sledge hammer to the Voting Rights Act. I worked the ground game in a swing state that year. The consequences were devastating for marginalized voters.
Sorry, but blaming a liberal female justice for what Republicans and third party/no show members of the purity patrol did in 2000 and then again in 2016 just doesn't cut it, no matter how many times Briahna Joy Grey repeats the talking point.
leftstreet
(41,236 posts)11 Democrats shouldn't have voted to confirm Thomas
4 Democrats shouldn't have voted to confirm Alito
22 Democrats TWENTY TWO shouldn't have voted to confirm Roberts
we could do this all day....
n/t
ColoringFool
(1,036 posts)DemocracyForever
(174 posts)in South Florida. To add to your list of bad votes by U.S. Senate democrats, let's also remember that not 1 of them would co-sponsor the Congressional Black Caucus's challenge to the fraudulent Florida 2000 vote count.
Behind the Aegis
(56,195 posts) lapucelle
(21,119 posts)Subtlety is not their strong suit.
DemocracyForever
(174 posts)I too remain disappointed that there are still those who try to blame the victim instead of the GOP election stealers. Bush and his election stealers were cowards who refused to accept the will of the people who chose Al Gore and Bush and his election stealers were thieves because they took what wasn't theirs. This is what needs to be focused on.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,770 posts)Crunchy Frog
(28,299 posts)
Goonch
(5,546 posts)
mcar
(46,323 posts)lapucelle
(21,119 posts)but have nothing whatsoever to say about third party voters and whiny, entitled stay-at-homes who consistently cannot bring themselves to vote for a Democrat.
betsuni
(29,264 posts)Well, the goal there certainly isn't progress of any kind.
Behind the Aegis
(56,195 posts)It is amazing how fast people will ignore the REALITY of the past for one they have made up in their head or based on shit "after the fact". I think it is called "anachronism".
mcar
(46,323 posts)Cha
(320,440 posts)What actually happened.
Mahalo, lapucele.. many of us wee.
TBF
(37,113 posts)insult everyone you can think of. Best of luck w/that approach. 
lapucelle
(21,119 posts)is "everyone I can think of"? Maybe that's everyone you can think of, but don't presume to speak for me.
As for third party voters and folks for whom Democrats are never good enough: fuck them all.
progressoid
(53,357 posts)WASHINGTON, D.C. — A record-high 45% of U.S. adults identified as political independents in 2025, surpassing the 43% measured in 2014, 2023 and 2024. Meanwhile, equal shares of U.S. adults — 27% each — identified as either Democrats or Republicans.
In most years since Gallup began regularly conducting its polls by telephone in 1988, independents have been the largest political group. However, the independent percentage has increased markedly in the past 15 years, typically registering 40% or higher, a level not reached prior to 2011.
...https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-political-independents.aspx
Link to tweet
?s=20
lapucelle
(21,119 posts)progressoid
(53,357 posts)Isn't that the premise of your OP?
lapucelle
(21,119 posts)So no, that is not the premise of the OP.
Cha
(320,440 posts)DemocracyForever
(174 posts)with their big lie that their were no differences between Dems and GOP. Nader and Stein siphoned off just enough crucial dem votes to prevent Dem victories. Let's not forget the GOP help they got to do so.
LeftInTX
(34,835 posts)I could see this coming a 1968 mile away. But no, "They're stopping genocide".
How did they stop any genocide?
"This will end the war in Gaza and they're protesting the Democrats who are in power and that's a good thing".
History does repeat itself....
dlk
(13,322 posts)The consequences of their actions (or inaction) impacts us all.
When someone doesn’t vote, they are giving away two votes to the person they don’t agree with. And like it or not, third party candidates can skew election results.
We may be the richest nation on earth but too many Americans have no idea of how our democracy actually works, and what it needs to survive.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(137,218 posts)Last time I heard about him he was at a CISCO shareholders meeting complaining his dividend wasn't high enough.
ColoringFool
(1,036 posts)Ralph Nader https://share.google/bYOdZuLvGUUiQCqAR
lees1975
(7,182 posts)the same old attempts at political games. More people interested in protecting their own turf and feathering their own nests instead of going after Trump based on multple indictments. Letting the foot dragging and all of the incompetence of the Justice department go on as if Republicans hadn't turned into Fascists.
Yes, there were risks and dangers. But what would be better, Trump ineligible for the Presidency and in jail because a Supreme Court removed all of the legal obsticals he was using to let Garland dilly dally around, or what we have now?
lapucelle
(21,119 posts)
The studied reluctance to blame anyone but third party voters and *protest* nonvoters for whom Democrats will never be good enough is a sight to behold.
Melon
(1,652 posts)The voters who don’t vote. That way it’s easy to avoid internal blame and instead direct their anger towards an ethereal attacker that they know they can’t correct. It’s why the party can have the same failures repeatedly for the entire world to see and we lose voters to frustration. Everyone knew that Ginsburg was too old and losing her faculties, but she fought to hold on. Repeat.
RandomNumbers
(19,248 posts)with followings - I guess they are called "influencers" now - who TELL people not to vote. Who throw sand in the gears of Democrats actually winning elections, because their preferred candidate didn't get the nomination.
Sometimes said not-chosen candidates themselves who only belatedly, grudgingly, and half-heartedly say, well of course you should vote for Clinton ... while their influential lackeys keep fanning the flames of grievance against the chosen candidate ... thus demotivating their followers from getting behind the nominee. (If those not-chosen candidates are truly leaders, why aren't they doing a better job getting their mouthpieces to support the goal of ELECTING DEMOCRATS?)
In this internet world, people who truly prefer a Democrat over the alternative in the general election, cannot wait until the day or even a month before the election to start talking positively about the ACTUAL candidate, and drop the issues that they argued about before the primary. As someone who supports many policies of the far-left, I wish the left's leaders which get better at working strategically for PROGRESS ... not insisting on purity tests and reaching immediately for what they consider the end goals of "progressive" policies.
I am not going to blame RBG for the failure of the far-left to talking heads to help, instead of hurt, the goal of electing a Democrat in 2016. If anything, more blame goes to the mainstream party leaders who didn't find a way to talk HRC out of running. She would have made a fine President, but no way in hell was this country going to elect her. "20 years of smears" even more than being a woman, was always going to do her in. Except that TSF was SO AWFUL she ACTUALLY HAD A CHANCE. Until she was undermined by people professing to support "leftist" policies.
betsuni
(29,264 posts)"The radical mind-set was identified by Max Weber ...The radical ethic of conviction: Make your moral judgements without considering that there are bad actors who may cause your action to result in an unwanted outcome. An example of this would be a radical who voted for Ralph Nader because he believed Nader was better than Gore; and voting one's conscience is best; end of thinking. ... It is a 'moral' rule that says, 'vote as you would as if there are no bad actors in the real world.' To this day, if you read a radical analysis of the Nader voters, they will say, ... 'It's not Ralph Nader's fault ... Gore ran a lackluster campaign.' This is exactly the type of excuse that Weber predicts would be used by those following the radical ethic: If an action of good intent leads to bad results, then, in the actor's eyes, not he but the world, or the stupidity of other men is responsible for the evil. Just as Weber predicted, the radical blames Gore's loss on his stupidity, not on those who knew the danger of wasting their vote and chose to ignore it.
"Weber's liberal ethic of responsibility says people are responsible for taking account of real-world consequences, as best they can, including the likely actions of bad actors. Liberal ethic of responsibility: People should strive for good outcomes given reality, bad actors and all. If the radical Nader voters had followed the liberal ethic, there would have been no Iraq War. That cannot be disputed. That's why the liberal ethic is more progressive than the radical ethic, and it's why radical righteousness so easily leads to evil outcomes.
"When you think about it, Weber's insight is a bit of a shock. It says quite plainly that in some crucial ways, radicals are not trying to win. ... Given a choice, radicals would rather be 'right' than obtain what they agree is the best possible outcome.... But really, they do what they do because their religion tells them what's 'right,' saving them the trouble of taking responsibility for their actions. The difference between liberals and radicals ... is not in wanting fundamental change for the better. The difference is that liberals think strategically about the real world when trying to change it for the better. And that's why they have had success."
Steven Stoft, "How Democrats Win, Resisting Dark Side Radicalism"
aeromanKC
(3,960 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(181,770 posts)Look who is funding the No Labels assholes
Remember Ralph Nader? So forget about voting for Jill Stein!
— Jonathan Emmesedi (@jemmesedi.c.im.ap.brid.gy) 2024-10-22T05:17:42.000Z
Ralph Nader Was Indispensable To The Republican Party | HuffPost Latest News
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065
#USElection2024 #ThirdParty #GreenParty #JillStein
Remember that Nader was funded by Karl Rove in 2000 and 2004 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
Furthermore, Karl Rove and the Republican Party knew this, and so they nurtured and crucially assisted Nader’s campaigns, both in 2000 and in 2004. On 27 October 2000, the AP’s Laura Meckler headlined “GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads.” She opened: “Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. ... ‘Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,’ Nader says [in the commercial]. An announcer interjects: ‘What’s Al Gore’s real record?’ Nader says: ‘Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.’” Meckler’s report continued: “A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader’s speeches.” Bush’s people - the group sponsoring this particular ad happened to be the Republican Leadership Council - knew exactly what they were doing, even though the liberal suckers who voted so carelessly for Ralph Nader obviously did not. Anyone who drives a car the way those liberal fools voted, faces charges of criminal negligence, at the very least. But this time, the entire nation crashed as a result; not merely a single car.....
On July 9th, the San Francisco Chronicle headlined “GOP Doners Funding Nader: Bush Supporters Give Independent’s Bid a Financial Lift,” and reported that the Nader campaign “has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party,” according to “an analysis of federal records.” Perhaps these contributors were Ambassador Egan’s other friends. Mr. Egan’s wife was now listed among the Nader contributors. Another listed was “Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.” Furthermore, Ari Berman reported 7 October 2004 at the Nation, under “Swift Boat Veterans for Nader,” that some major right-wing funders of a Republican smear campaign against Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam service contributed also $13,500 to the Nader campaign, and that “the Republican Party of Michigan gathered ninety percent of Nader’s signatures in their state” (90%!) to place Nader on the ballot so Bush could win that swing state’s 17 electoral votes. Clearly, the word had gone out to Bush’s big contributors: Help Ralphie boy! In fact, on 15 September 2005, John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader, reported that, “A year ago, as the Presidential general election campaign raged in battleground state New Hampshire, consumer advocate Ralph Nader found his way onto the ballot, with the help of veteran Republican strategist David Carney and the Carney-owned Norway Hill Associates consulting firm.”
It was obvious, based upon the 2000 election results, that a dollar contributed to Nader in the 2004 contest would probably be a more effective way to achieve a Bush win against Kerry in the U.S. Presidential election than were perhaps even ten dollars contributed to Bush. This was a way of peeling crucial votes off from Bush’s real opponent - votes that otherwise would have gone to the Democrat. That’s why the smartest Republican money in the 2004 Presidential election was actually going to Nader, even more so than to Bush himself: these indirect Bush contributions provided by far the biggest bang for the right-wing buck.
LeftInTX
(34,835 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(181,770 posts)Rove fund Nader to get Bush elected. A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,770 posts)Nader is still an asshole. I noted that Nader does not admit that he was wrong in helping to elect Bush or Stein in helping to elect TFG
Here is the article cited in OP
Link to tweet
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/26/ralph-nader-joe-biden-election/
“They have no idea of all the other sine qua non variables,” he says, using Latin to refer to other Democratic failures that factor in their two defeats.
And he still brims with the sort of advice most Democrats consider heresy, when spoken publicly. For instance, he says Democrats need a better plan in case something happens over the next year to prevent Biden from standing for reelection. He considers Vice President Harris “just not capable” and all but certain to lose in a general.
“Things happen rapidly in the 80′s unfortunately to human beings, so they need to have a Plan B in case something happens,” he said of Biden, who is nearly nine years his junior.
I really do not care what Nader has to say on any issue
electric_blue68
(27,227 posts)" thanks...alot..' ralphie!
Oh I forgot about Jill Stein ! FU, again, Ralph
Initech
(109,219 posts)Who probably get their information from Murdoch owned sources.
betsuni
(29,264 posts)magicarpet
(19,374 posts)Sorry to inform you,..
Your current membership card to the Federalist Society has been rescinded.
And all future applications for membership should be considered null & void.
Thank you for your comment,... (sorta).
Cha
(320,440 posts)The LIES those RF Assholes told about Hillary, Kamaal, and Dems, to profit themselves. 
💙 ☮️🌻🕯️🕊️💜
biocube
(258 posts)Do you want the next candidate to stomp their feet and shout "vote for me you wretched bigot!"
We can't do anything about how the mainstream media is more interested in calling an equal number of fouls on both parties than telling the truth.
We can't do anything about third-party voters, especially in 2024 when Joe Biden gives the green light to let Israel kill many Arab-Americans extended families in Gaza.
We can only control how we fight. We have to campaign like New Deal Democrats. It's time. Ideas like paid family leave, higher wages, mandatory sick leave win in referendums even in deep red states. If that means kicking guys like Reid Hoffman and Mark Cuban out of the tent, then good riddance. I do not care if this stuff is on some party website no one is going to read. Campaign on it and ignore all the pearl clutchers that will call you "socialist". This centrist crap (at least on economics) isn't working.
Or we do the same crap in 2028 and then complain America is too misogynist/racist/homophobic to support our candidate.
Keepthesoulalive
(2,400 posts)They don’t care about your social programs. They vote to hurt others, fortunately they also hurt themselves. Maybe poverty will change their views but I doubt it. The poorest states in the union vote republican and the ignorance and hate make them continue to bang their heads with a hammer and go ouch. They gerrymander for a reason.
biocube
(258 posts)If you run as a New Dealer you can get young people to come out.
Keepthesoulalive
(2,400 posts)You live in a different world. These folks are so far down they believe that someone else is responsible for their misfortune. White men have consistently voted against what’s best for the country. Meth, hooch , hate and self pity is what drives them. I have invited anyone to go into these rural areas and try to make a change , so far no takers. The dems have rural outreach and they don’t want to change also there is a brain drain those who can get out leave.
biocube
(258 posts)And I've gone door to door as a campaign volunteer. I've literally heard people in 2016 say they were either going to vote for Bernie or Trump in the general. They see politics as establishment versus anti-establishment more than left versus right.
If you want to understand the Trump phenomena the best source is the Berkley sociologist Arlie Hochschild and her book Strangers in their Own Land. Literally everything in that book is things I've seen with my own eyes.
Democrats eventually stopped talking about universal health care and making college affordable and things like that (no, I don't care if it's on some party website no one is going to read). Meanwhile, they see Democrats as being more concerned with how diverse the people at the front of the line for the American dream is instead of making it move for everyone. That's the perception of the Democratic party whether we like it or not and we have to push back on it. It's obvious identity politics haven't worked with Trump getting a larger share of the minority vote in each of his 3 elections and the army of angry women Democrats expected to show up in 2024 who didn't.
But even if you're skeptical of what I'm saying, how do you know it won't work? We haven't tried it yet. The polls in 2016 showed Bernie matched up better with Trump than Hillary.
Keepthesoulalive
(2,400 posts)Democrats don’t discuss identity politics republicans do and it resonates with white males. They have not voted for democrats since LBJ. Obama busted his ass to give us healthcare and republicans fought it all the way to defeat. I have lived in 6 southern states and the city so I have seen a few things. You can tell black folks who vote to help everyone to F off and we’ll be okay because we are used to fighting for every inch but we will not let you use us to help a white male agenda. Again republicans use identity politics to divide and white folks fall for it every time and it has given us Satan’s spawn.
lapucelle
(21,119 posts)This includes having worked hard for the last year and continuing to work into general election season to reelect my moderate Democratic representative who was able to defeat a Republican incumbent in 2024.
During the off years, I work hard to elect local and county Democrats. Due to Kathy Hochul's initiative to move elections to even numbered years, there will be less to do in the off years, so I'll redouble efforts for many county and town-wide offices in the future.
My plan going into the the 2028 election will be the same as it generally is: to work hard for the primary candidate of my choice and then (after the convention) travel to a nearby swing state to help registering and strategizing voting plans for marginalized voters. and help with the ground game for the Democratic nominee.
Thanks for asking.
betsuni
(29,264 posts)Economic equality, all policies helping Americans not important.
If most important is a complicated long-term foreign policy issue turned into an emotional moral test just for the election to demonize the Democratic candidate, that is not a serious voter. That's, yet again, falling for cheap feelings of righteousness that result in stopping progress and handing over the country to Republicans.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,989 posts)How so? Use Radio and Newspapers only? No planes, just trains for travel? Support segregation and the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans? Send the army to break up labor union strikes?
flvegan
(66,499 posts)I'm not saying I disagree, just making an observation.
lapucelle
(21,119 posts) 
BWdem4life
(3,081 posts)Let go. Learn from the past and apply it to the present in a way that does not include hyperfocus on your perceived injuries.
This continued focus on 2016 is unhealthy and unhelpful.
lapucelle
(21,119 posts) BWdem4life
(3,081 posts)Although 2016 is the biggest one I hear on DU, in general it's just unhealthy to continue this focus on the past.
Based on results, shaming/blaming liberal voters for 2000 did not change their behavior in 2016. Shaming/blaming liberal voters for 2016 did not change their behavior in 2024.
So, while I won't say "get over it," I would suggest that continuing the cycle is probably not going to change anything - so why continue? Is it just an attempt to "smoke out" people deemed not loyal enough to post on DU? If so, and certain DUers prefer to enjoy the sport of hunting "too liberal for DU" people in order to purify the site, rather than engaging in a productive way with them, then I would say again this is counterproductive to making any progress with regard to Democrats winning more elections in the future.
Why not instead accept that leftist liberals who do not have any particular loyalty to our party should be courted rather than hated. And that the way to properly court them is to not just promise, but actually deliver on the things they want (things many on DU also profess to want).
Just an idea.
P.S. Being in a non-swing state, I have no vested interest in national elections. When/if National Popular Vote passes, I definitely would. In the meantime I consider myself an impartial viewer in this struggle between non-Democratic leftists and the mainstrem Democrtic Party.
lapucelle
(21,119 posts)because those folks are "leftist liberals" and Democrats don't live up to their "leftist liberal" standards, and that this OP is an attempt to "smoke them out" in order to "purify DU"?
Actually, the purpose of the OP is to tender a hearty "FUCK YOU" to anyone for whom the Democrat is not a good enough option to vote for in any general election, but your theory is quite revelatory.
BWdem4life
(3,081 posts)Ok, if you say so. And yet you continue with the 'hit dog hollers' innuendo. I'm trying to help, here. Sometimes when I respond to these types of OPs, I feel like I'm arguing with a MAGA because it's like talkng to a brick wall. I think I'm just gonna give up, which is what I usually do when arguing with people who don't want to listen.
lapucelle
(21,119 posts)Who are the apocryphal DUers who are so leftist that they have no particular loyalty to the Democratic Party? Which posters on DU do you think need courting to actually vote for Democrats?
As for having "no vested interest in national elections" because your state isn't up for grabs and being an impartial viewer in the struggle between Democrats and non-Democrats of any stripe ... that pretty much says it all.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,770 posts)I was a Clinton delegate to the 2016 national convention. The SCOTUS was discussed a great deal and Hilary warned up
Link to tweet
DemocracyForever
(174 posts)and we know what the Rehnquist 5 did with that.
Response to lapucelle (Original post)
Post removed
B.See
(8,798 posts)pooh poohers and naysayers notwithstanding.
The end result has been cumulative, like dominoes, each loss enabling the further harm.
The idea that the undoing of 60 years of civil rights legislation would've occurred no matter who was president over the last 25 years is, imo, a crock, if not an insult to one's intelligence.
Redleg
(7,016 posts)Let's not forget the majority culprits in this sorry saga.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,770 posts)
Torchlight
(7,023 posts)And I won't play the mertiless, "well, I guess this means you also believe..." nonsense which seems to be the trendy hipster's beverage of choice this year.
PufPuf23
(9,928 posts)The Adelsons gave over $500 million to the GOP going back to 1991.
Political activities in the United States
In May 2024, New York magazine stated that the press often misreported Miriam's political donations as having been made by Sheldon. The magazine tabulated that during their marriage, Sheldon made 848 campaign donations and Miriam made 717. Sheldon had a lifetime total donation figure of $273 million, while as of the publishing of their profile, Miriam had a total of $284 million.[6]
Miriam Adelson has been described by major news outlets, including Reuters and Bloomberg, as a significant financial supporter of pro-Israel political causes in the United States, contributing substantial funding to Republican-aligned political initiatives and organizations supporting U.S.–Israel relations.[27] She has also contributed tens of millions of dollars to Republican-aligned Super PACs in recent election cycles aimed at maintaining the party’s influence in Congress, according to reporting by Bloomberg and federal campaign finance disclosures.[28][29] Miriam Adelson made her first substantive political donations shortly after her marriage to Sheldon, in 1991. She soon switched her support from Democratic candidates to Republicans. The Adelsons were notably early donors to Benjamin Netanyahu in his 1996 campaign for Prime Minister of Israel and also gave some money to the second inauguration of George W. Bush in 2005.[6]
Following the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, Adelson dramatically increased the size of her political donations.[6] She was the top female donor in the 2012 United States elections, contributing as much as the next 15 female donors combined, a total of $46 million.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Adelson
Might want to add AIPAC and other rightwing donors to the GOP Congress as well.
How Israel chose to respond in Gaza is what has split the Democratic Party and lost Congress and the POTUS in 2024. POTUS Biden favoring a two-state solution and on providing limits on arms and how used is IMO why POTUS Biden was hounded from office. Trump is the best POTUS ever to Netanyahu and his supporters.
Response to lapucelle (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
sheshe2
(98,359 posts)See ya later alligator.
Cha
(320,440 posts)tracks. 
Good Nuke!
I was on jury.
Cha
(320,440 posts)
💙 ☮️🌻🕯️🕊️💜sheshe2
(98,359 posts)
Response to Cha (Reply #133)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Hope22
(4,858 posts)Anyone who refuses to demand that we have a plotted course to avoid the potential grand election theft is part of our problem !! Mark Elias works tirelessly on this We need a team and a plan. Living in a state where my voter information has already been turned over to the T thieves by our sick R State politicians I can say the potential for theft even in the best run race is real. We all need to be aware and prepared to stand up for a fair voting process!
Autumn
(49,014 posts)who didn't fight for Obama and voted for Trumps picks. All while knowing they were lying. Coney, The Drunk and Thomas.
Emile
(43,174 posts)who are trying to help Susan Collins beat Graham Platner?
SocialDemocrat61
(7,989 posts)Autumn
(49,014 posts)RandomNumbers
(19,248 posts)It's going to take a minute. And those who don't trust polls will cling to "the primary hasn't been held yet". But polls are not likely to be THAT wrong. So yeah, it goes both ways. I wouldn't have chosen Platner as my first choice, but it seems accurate to say he is the presumptive nominee and he is a damned sight better than Collins or any Republican. We need that seat so I hope people stop fighting against it now that he is the choice.
And yeah I totally support the OP.
DemocracyForever
(174 posts)lapucelle
(21,119 posts)I don't exonerate them. They should be blamed and shamed.
They helped create this crisis starting in 2000 and now run around whining to the Democrats they have reliably refused to empower, "Do something to fix this mess I made!"
Third party voters and purity protest nonvoters do not support Democrats. They often actively work to depress the Democratic vote and have helped Republicans to accomplish the goal of legally depressing the votes of marginalized Americans. They are fools and miscreants.
Third party voters and purity protest nonvoters need to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
Autumn
(49,014 posts)If they don't do that, they lose. As for third party voters? There are ALWAYS third party voters. They can be gotten by either party that appeals to them.
lapucelle
(21,119 posts)just as folks are perfectly free to exonerate bad actors who work double-time to suppress the Democratic vote and give the lazy an excuse to stay home.
Folks are even free to exonerate those who, after refusing to empower Democrats, blame Democrats for everything Republicans do with the power handed to them with the help of third party voters and purity protest nonvoters.
I choose to say to them "FUCK YOU six ways from Sunday".
Autumn
(49,014 posts)They get it or they don't. That's the system we have Saying fuck those people does nothing but sooth your anger.
Good luck
lapucelle
(21,119 posts)Folks are perfectly free to excuse third party voters and purity protest nonvoters, just as folks are perfectly free to excuse bad actors who work double-time to suppress the Democratic vote and give the lazy an excuse to stay home.
Folks are even free to excuse those who, after refusing to empower Democrats, blame Democrats for everything Republicans do with the power handed to them with the help of third party voters and purity protest nonvoters.
I choose not to exonerate them. I choose not to excuse them. I choose not to free them from blame.
I choose to say to them "FUCK YOU six ways from Sunday".
==========================
Exonerate comes from the Latin verb exonerare, meaning "to unburden." That verb combines the prefix ex- with onus, meaning "load" or "burden." In its earliest uses, exonerate was applied to physical burdens—a ship, for example, could be exonerated of its cargo when it was unloaded. Later it was used in reference to the freeing of any kind of burden, including blame or charges of wrongdoing.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exonerate
==============================
1520s, "to unload, disburden," a literal sense now obsolete; 1570s as "relieve (of a charge, blame, etc.) resting on one; clear of something that lies upon the character as an imputation," from Latin exoneratus, past participle of exonerare "remove a burden, discharge, unload," from ex "out, out of, off" (see ex-) + onerare "to unload; overload, oppress," from onus (genitive oneris) "burden" (see onus). Related: Exonerated; exonerating.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=exonerate
RandomNumbers
(19,248 posts)and work on their mouthpieces to stop undermining and start supporting said nominee.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,989 posts)
lapucelle
(21,119 posts)He's a coward who forgot that the internet lasts forever.
https://archive.ph/https://time.com/4402823/glaude-hillary-clinton/
==================================
=================================
=================================
SocialDemocrat61
(7,989 posts)on other platforms for his article. Then he posted a non-apology apology chastising people for criticizing him. And got roasted all over again. My personal favorite is actress Yvette Nicole Brown
But I fear you still don't get that you are not a victim in this. You have not been unjustly harmed.
YOU harmed us and ultimately yourself.
What you did publicly and repeatedly by encouraging people NOT to vote for Hillary -- the only person standing between us and *waves arms* all of this 💩 -- DID have an effect.
Folks respected you & LISTENED to you.
Some may forgive.
But we can't forget... EVER.
betsuni
(29,264 posts)
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,770 posts)Cha
(320,440 posts)How they liking Fucking Traitor PEDO Nazi now?
Rat Fucking jill LIAR Steiin.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,770 posts)These voters are why trump was elected twice and why there is no voting rights act or right to abortions
returnee
(973 posts)Al Gore won. Repubs controlled voting and courts. If Bill Clinton hadn’t had a sex scandal Gore would certainly have had more votes. Plenty of blame to go around. One may see corruption of some sort in Nader, Stein, and West, and one can argue strategy and tactics all day long. The bottom line is people get to participate in politics in any way they choose. But manipulating courts and votes counts is illegal and corrupt and that is where I believe we should focus our blame and our activism.
Cha
(320,440 posts)RF.
The OP has it exactly right.
returnee
(973 posts)…how to categorize various activists. I’m not impressed with your argument.
Cha
(320,440 posts)returnee
(973 posts)…and we might be able to converse civilly.
Cha
(320,440 posts)The same" "Hillary would be worse, she would start a war immediately.. "
Progs don't lie.. they're Fighitng for our Democracy..
returnee
(973 posts)…has been debated forever. I stand by my post and see no point in responding. I remain unconvinced of your position.
DemocracyForever
(174 posts)in Florida with help from a GOP funded tv ad campaign which made it possible for Bush to steal the 2000 election. There's no sugar coating what Nader did in Florida in 2000. Too many still refuse to face this ugly reality.
BlueTsunami2018
(5,062 posts)It’s interesting that the left is never relevant enough to be offered any policy concessions yet so powerful they can swing national elections.
Maybe trying to win the votes of people who should be your natural allies instead of trying to capture that mythical “Reagan Democrat” vote or buddying up to full on right wingers to try to capture “disaffected” Republicans would be a better strategy.
We lost twice to the least qualified, most odious person to ever run for the office. That says something. But I suppose it’s easier to punch left than to self-examine.
BeyondGeography
(41,196 posts)Only a political know-nothing would ignore the power of incumbency. Amirite?
It took the worst debate performance of all time for anyone to even dare suggest otherwise on this board. Prior to that you can be sure that many of the people who agree with the OP in this thread were alerting on anyone who dared to go against the flow.
And now we’re supposed to be lectured on the danger of purity voters. What a joke. We didn’t lose two out of three elections to Trump because the so-called adults in the room knew what they were doing.
Cha
(320,440 posts)BlueTsunami2018
(5,062 posts)The people who want universal healthcare, housing, education, food security and full, gainful employment. The anti-imperialists, the anti-capitalists, the anti-war and anti-genocide people. The full rights for everyone people.
That’s the left. Those are the votes we should be going after. Not trying to make nice with people who stand against all of it.
It’s just fucked that the right can go as far as they want, can be as in favor of inequality, discrimination, full on laissez-faire capitalism and anti-government support for people as they want and no one bats an eye. But the second people demand better, demand basic human decency, they’re told to shut up, this is the best we can do, we have to go along to get along and all that other horseshit. That we have to serve capital, that we have to accept a certain amount of bigotry and oppression, that we have to have inadequate healthcare and education because after all, what about those poor billion dollar industries? Don’t they have a right to profit off of the misery of the “underclasses?” Don’t they have a right to put people in debt for the majority of their lives?
We have to accept a “reasonable” amount of murder and exploitation at home and around the world because a handful of people want to control the majority of the resources and sell them to us so they can have more than anyone could ever spend or use in a million lifetimes.
Doesn’t that seem fucked up to you? Does this sound like an acceptable way for things to be? Can’t we do better?
It doesn’t mean it has to happen all at once but we should at least start down the road. If there’s a party for unlimited exploitation, there has to be a party that wants none.
LeftInTX
(34,835 posts)"Reagan Democrats".
Their target groups are low turnout left leaning voters.
Some well funded campaigns go after both groups, (Democrats and GOP voters) and these candidates win.
But the generic targets are low turnout left leaning voters. In my precinct, I go after both the low turnout and high turnout Democrats. However, party resources want us going after low turnout voters. I end up self- funding lit over my allotment.
Party resources are limited and the emphasis has always been on low turnout voters. Emphasis has always been on Democratic base, blue, urban areas, minority areas etc.
betsuni
(29,264 posts)It is confusing.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,770 posts)I was a delegate to the national convention and this was discussed. The solution is to elect more Democrats to the Senate and for Clinton to win.
Clinton did not talk about this issue in the real world. I attended several high dollar fund raisers when this was discussed.
Clinton made clear to everyone that the future of the SCOTUS was on the ballot in 2016 and we needed to turnout to vote and elect more Democrats https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election/clinton-warns-of-possible-trump-supreme-court-nominations-idUSKCN0WU16O
In a speech in Wisconsin, Clinton put the future of the Supreme Court at the center of the election debate, cautioning that any Trump-appointed justices would be likely to roll back workers’ and abortion rights and “demolish pillars of the progressive movement.”
See also https://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-supreme-court-obama-immigration-2016-6
She added that the ruling showed "us all just how high the stakes are in this election."
"As I have consistently said, I believe that President Obama acted well within his constitutional and legal authority in issuing the DAPA [Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents] and DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] executive actions," she said in a statement.
"These are our friends and family members; neighbors and classmates; DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful permanent residents. They enrich our communities and contribute to our economy every day. We should be doing everything possible under the law to provide them relief from the specter of deportation."
See also https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/20/supreme-court-debate-clinton-trump-guns-abortion/92452362/
Under Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court, potential nominees would be vetted for their views on court precedents, such as the Citizens United decision that allowed corporations to spend freely on elections. But she might have one less nomination to make, having urged the Senate to confirm President Obama's choice for Scalia's replacement.
Those alternate legal universes emerged Thursday from liberal and conservative analyses of Wednesday night's presidential debate, when the two candidates held their most detailed discussion to date about the future of the high court.
The upshot: Trump's list of 21 potential nominees to replace Scalia and fill any future vacancies is far more specific than Clinton's, who cannot bring herself even to cite federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland by name. She endorsed him only as "the nominee that President Obama has sent" to the Senate.
I was on the Clinton victory counsel team and on the legal finance committee. This was an important issue during the campaign. I am not sure what more could have been done in the real world other than Obama firing Comey after the July press conference.
Keepthesoulalive
(2,400 posts)They are people who are easily led. Rush Limbaugh, Oprah, Joe Rogan, George Wallace, Ronald Reagan and anyone else who can get them all up in their feels. We are in this situation because people are always waiting for someone to guide them and Trump was the perfect con he promised them their deepest wishes and then robbed them of everything. Pied pipers don’t help you when you can’t pay for gas or groceries.
SunSeeker
(58,367 posts)Response to lapucelle (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Rob H.
(5,903 posts)I live in a deep-Red state and could've literally voted for a tree stump for all the difference my vote made in the last several election cycles. (The Count of Mostly Crisco won just over 58% of the vote in 2024, nearly 57% in 2020, and nearly 56% in 2016.) The last time this state went Blue in a Presidential election was for Clinton in 1992 and Lyndon Johnson in 1964 before that.
Good luck with thinking hectoring and trying to shame people will bring them to the ballot box, though.
lapucelle
(21,119 posts)is neither hectoring nor shaming in an attempt to get them to the ballot box.
For a certain rarefied coterie, the Democrat is never and will never be good enough to vote for in a general election.
Their anti-Democratic Party talking points are amplified on social media, the MSM runs with the latest revenue-generating "Democrats in disarray" story line, and the easily influenced follow along. Fuck them all.
Anyone who lives in a red state and who has the time and inclination should work hard every year to help elect Democrats to local, state, and federal offices. That's how we flip red to blue. It's a steep uphill road in many places, but all indications point to the fact that this is a great year to start. We managed to flip two Republican congressional seats from red to blue in a Trump +4 county in NYS in 2024.
Response to lapucelle (Original post)
Post removed
A HERETIC I AM
(24,899 posts)we would be living in the liberal utopia we all would love to see.
Speculation ad nauseam.
As the first person suggested, the ENTIRE responsibility for the current SC lies in the lap of that disgusting, damned to a non existent hell, Mitch McConnell.
And if Ginsburg has been able to hold on for just a few more months, we would have been in better shape.
We need to take the Senate as well as the house, but more importantly, we need to take the senate by +15 seats, but that's not going to happen. We need a 2/3s majority in the senate and then we might get some actual change that would work for the American people instead of the people with 7 figure and above net worth's.
The system is rigged by the people who rigged it for their benefit. The only way it is going to change is to motivate the largest voting block out there to vote for their own interest;
The block that doesn't vote.