consultants are sandburs

Thursday, September 17, 2015

If Hillary Clinton is the Dem finalist for the 2016 presidential election, why I would bite the lesser-evil bullet and vote for her despite her being yet another arrogant corporatist Clinton who could coexist with Newt Gingrich as did the other; or for whoever the Dem finalist is; in a nutshell. And why every Bernie supporter likely may grudgingly feel the same.

From Wikipedia, here, Supreme Court appointees, consecutively numbered, and who appointed each - a part of a more extended table.

103 Antonin Scalia VA 1936– 1986–present
(28–29 years) — — Reagan Currently serving

104 Anthony Kennedy CA 1936– 1988–present
(26–27 years) — — Reagan Currently serving

105 David Souter NH 1939– 1990–2009
(18–19 years) — 2009–present
(5–6 years) Bush, G. H. W. Retirement

106 Clarence Thomas GA 1948– 1991–present
(23–24 years) — — Bush, G. H. W. Currently serving

107 Ruth Bader Ginsburg NY 1933– 1993–present
(21–22 years) — — Clinton Currently serving

108 Stephen Breyer MA 1938– 1994–present
(20–21 years) — — Clinton Currently serving

109 John G. Roberts MD 1955– 2005–present
(9–10 years) 2005–present — Bush, G. W. Currently serving

110 Samuel Alito NJ 1950– 2006–present
(8–9 years) — — Bush, G. W. Currently serving

111 Sonia Sotomayor NY 1954– 2009–present
(5–6 years) — — Obama Currently serving

112 Elena Kagan MA 1960– 2010–present
(4–5 years) — — Obama

Eyes against surprise, that way. Given the Reagan/Bush record, letting another Bush have the appointment power would suggest great cause to worry about more of the same. Especially more of the same from one opposing choice, and having the Schiavo history.

That possibility is downright scary, never mind terrible neocon warmongering without paying for it and instead going into debt to the Chinese. Doing that to your children and their children, in oil war fiascos that Obama had to mop up and end. We do not need more of the same regarding Iran's oil, or over Syria, where regional (Saudi) responsibility exists and it is their neighborhood instability, not ours.

But back to the prime focus: The dregs of bad Supreme Court appointments by Republicans are apparent. Again for emphasis, each of the dreadful appointees; REPUBLICAN.

Readers each must answer in his/her heart and mind:

Do YOU want more of the same?

If there is doubt why I dispise John Roberts, it is summed up in two words, independent of the two Hobby Lobby words done on Roberts' shift, the two words are Citizens United. Good for the nation, election/campaign spending reform, disastrous for the nation, Citizens United. Some dislike the Roberts decision on individual mandate equals a tax bunk, making the individual mandate just fine with Roberts, but that was only icing on the Citizens United cake.

It was the eldest of the several Bush brothers who put that monster not merely onto the Court, but in the Chief Justice's seat. It was an insult to the nation and the world for the one Bush son to have done that to us. Jeb and W - neither of those apples fell at all far from the tree, given the character of the Reagan/G.H.W. Bush Court appointments. Screwing us all that way for decades, running well beyond their terms of office in the White House.

No comments: