4 ms·

If you're going to blame voters for the Supreme Court nominees of their presidential picks, then it's fair to say that the political class is completely disconn

by lawpoop 10y ago

If you're going to blame voters for the Supreme Court nominees of their presidential picks, then it's fair to say that the political class is completely disconnected from the common people. In other words, it's not their fault, but rather the Elites'. Those nominated for the Supreme Court come from a short list of federal judges and other legal wonks. No average voter has any idea of the name of any of these people. Therefore, they cannot be said to be voting on a candidate based on their Supreme Court picks, except in the most liberal/conservative sense. Case in point: Merrick Garland. He was on everyone's short list, including mentions by Republican leaders as a candidate who could be confirmed by the Senate. But the average voted hadn't heard his name before he was nominated by Obama. It's really the political class that sold us out to privatization and globalization. That's where the buck stops. It happened regardless of who was voted in. Both parties were captured, and 3rd parties are not a realistic option in our system. We are /not really/ a democracy.

Roboprog 10y ago
This fall's upcoming presidential election so perfectly illustrates that: which Wall St friendly New Yorker would you like? Both suck? Well, too bad!
- Roboprog 10y ago
  Note: I still feel it's important to participate in local elections to try to have some counterbalance to the a-holes at the "Imperial" level of government.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > This fall's upcoming presidential election so perfectly illustrates that: which Wall St friendly New Yorker would you like? Both suck? To the extent that's true, its the result of major party primary elections and other processes and the decisions voters made in those (including the decision to stay out of them.)
  - Roboprog 10y ago
    FWIW, I did vote in the primary, just not for either of the remaining candidates :-) I can understand that many people did not / would not show up, though. That's a problem...
groby_b 10y ago
> it's not their fault, but rather the Elites'. "Whoever is responsible, it's not me and my friends!" > No average voter has any idea of the name of any of these people. "I would like to not do any research, because taking responsibility is hard" > the average voted hadn't heard his name before he was nominated by Obama. Which is fine. The average voter knew (or should have known) what Obama stood for. What Bush stood for. What Clinton stood for. And so on. They could've then reasonably inferred what kind of judges they'd pick. And by looking at the age of SCOTUS judges, you have a good guess when replacements happens. The only judge where you could've made the case is surprising given who nominated them is Scalia - he tipped a bit further on issues than Reagan. Merrick is right in line with everything Obama ever stood for. Nobody is surprised that Obama would nominate a centrist with slight liberal leanings. The particular name might be unknown, but the choice isn't. > It's really the political class that sold us out to privatization and globalization. That political class didn't come into life fully formed. People voted for them, and shaped the direction of politics. And they're there because of money in politics. Which points us right back at the Supreme court, via Buckley vs. Valeo. (and Citizens United vs. FEC) (Not to mention that many people liked the initial effects of globalization and privatization. It's not like nobody voted for NAFTA, e.g.)

by lawpoop 10y ago

Roboprog 10y ago

This fall's upcoming presidential election so perfectly illustrates that: which Wall St friendly New Yorker would you like? Both suck? Well, too bad!

Roboprog 10y ago
Note: I still feel it's important to participate in local elections to try to have some counterbalance to the a-holes at the "Imperial" level of government.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> This fall's upcoming presidential election so perfectly illustrates that: which Wall St friendly New Yorker would you like? Both suck? To the extent that's true, its the result of major party primary elections and other processes and the decisions voters made in those (including the decision to stay out of them.)
- Roboprog 10y ago
  FWIW, I did vote in the primary, just not for either of the remaining candidates :-) I can understand that many people did not / would not show up, though. That's a problem...

groby_b 10y ago

> it's not their fault, but rather the Elites'. "Whoever is responsible, it's not me and my friends!" > No average voter has any idea of the name of any of these people. "I would like to not do any research, because taking responsibility is hard" > the average voted hadn't heard his name before he was nominated by Obama. Which is fine. The average voter knew (or should have known) what Obama stood for. What Bush stood for. What Clinton stood for. And so on. They could've then reasonably inferred what kind of judges they'd pick. And by looking at the age of SCOTUS judges, you have a good guess when replacements happens. The only judge where you could've made the case is surprising given who nominated them is Scalia - he tipped a bit further on issues than Reagan. Merrick is right in line with everything Obama ever stood for. Nobody is surprised that Obama would nominate a centrist with slight liberal leanings. The particular name might be unknown, but the choice isn't. > It's really the political class that sold us out to privatization and globalization. That political class didn't come into life fully formed. People voted for them, and shaped the direction of politics. And they're there because of money in politics. Which points us right back at the Supreme court, via Buckley vs. Valeo. (and Citizens United vs. FEC) (Not to mention that many people liked the initial effects of globalization and privatization. It's not like nobody voted for NAFTA, e.g.)