Warren endorses Biden

boing
#23

Leaving a mountain of other meaningful differences aside, one of the more important things the next President of the United States will do will be appointing Supreme Court Justices that will shape our law and policy for the next 30 years.

There are two possible reasons to argue that the Supreme Court Justices Trump is appointing (and will appoint) are “about 3.12% worse” than the ones that Joe Biden will appoint. One is sheer ignorance, the other is a lack of good faith.

I have patience for neither of these excuses at this point.

23 Likes
#24

Yes, thank the gods Obama got Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court by recess appointment at the last minute. So glad he wasn’t overcome by a spirit of bullshit non-partisanship in the face of Mitch McConnell’s obstructionism.

1 Like
#25

In trying to move the goalposts, you demonstrated my point. There is a gulf of difference between the Justices Trump is appointing and those Biden will appoint, and the effects on the country, will be profound. There’s a reason McConnell was willing to break our system of government to get another seat on the Court–it matters a lot.

I’m sure there are some people that don’t really care all that much whether the Court effectively overturns Roe or ends affirmative action completely or undoes a host of other civil rights legislation, but I don’t happen to agree.

27 Likes
#26

If a Republican had been in office and appointed the replacements for Souter and Stevens a number of very important SCOTUS decisions likely would have gone the other way. Unless you want to sound like someone who doesn’t care about the rights of people to marry those that they love, or the rights of people with pre-existing conditions to obtain affordable medical insurance, I suggest you don’t make light of the very important role that a president has in shaping the makeup of SCOTUS.

21 Likes
#28

I didn’t move the goalposts, I implied out that Biden’s appointments don’t mean shit if the Senate is still Republican, and Trump’s don’t if the Senate goes blue. (That’s assuming, of course, that Democrats manage to grow a fucking spine for once in their goddam lives, laughable I know). Either way no one gets an open seat, so the question is moot.

(This leaves open the possibility that Biden wins and the Senate is Dem-controlled, but in that case I guarantee you that Biden will pick someone from the Federalist Society-approved list in a gesture of bipartisanism, in which case the GOP filibusters just to maintain their unbroken record of being fascist shitheads. That’s just a guess based on Biden’s campaign rhetoric and decades of experience, though.)

#29

I’ll let that statement stand for itself in indicating your seriousness here.

21 Likes
#30

Note: he picks BEFORE he wins, so that’s not a useful point. He’s already committed to picking a female candidate, too. And he knows he needs to given the allegations being leveled against him.

As for all the rest of the thread (and not related to what you’re saying): there’s literally no reason to think she “made a deal” to endorse him. He’s the only candidate left. He’s a democrat. Just like 2016, she’s endorsing the last person standing. She even endorsed him AFTER Bernie did. I have every belief the only “deal” she made was to decline a VP nod so she can stay in the senate and, hopefully, work with Bernie to drive home their policy views when/if the Dems take it back this fall.

8 Likes
#32

I don’t know if you’re familiar with the judicial record of Merrick Garland, but he was a bipartisan choice. And given that Biden is more centrist than Obama, coupled with the fact that he said he was open to choosing a Republican running mate four months ago out loud (making him either an idiot or a liar, or both), I put nothing past him.

2 Likes
#33

You mean what is right for Elites and maintain the status quo. Elizabeth Warren, much like us was given the illusion of choice, old white rapie racist dude or old orange more rapie more racists dude…only a crazy person would vote for more rape more racism, are you crazy? Oh then you have to vote for rape and racism. Do you want to cut off your primary hand or your secondary hand? Only a [foolish] person given a choice would chop off the hand they use to write, eat, go to the bathroom. Are you a [foolish] person? No, then chop off your nondominant hand like the very very smart, intelligent, non-[foolish] person you are…Also I need all your money.

#34

Voting for Trump I assume?

13 Likes
#35

I didn’t make light of it at all. If anything, I point out how unconcerned Obama was with it by not hammering on the Senate every day for refusing to consider his nominee for SIX MONTHS.

I’ll be fair, though. Maybe he just assumed that HRC would win. How does that complacency look to you now, four years later?

1 Like
#36

Honestly, I’d rather Warren stay in the Senate and become Senate Majority Leader. That is a way more powerful and influential position than VP.

14 Likes
#37

Just out of interest, what are your thoughts on the Trolley Problem? It’s on topic, I promise you.

12 Likes
#39

The fact that the Republican Senate wouldn’t even entertain the idea of allowing a moderate like Garland on the bench ought to be a big fat warning sign that it really DOES matter which party appoints SCOTUS judges.

14 Likes
#41

'Muricans are a funny people; don’t vote for Biden, on principle, because he’s not 'progressive enough", so you can spend four more years bitching about how Trump is devolving the country back to a caucasian, 1950’s, ideal !? I’m verklempt; discuss…

19 Likes
#42

Instead of reflecting on the moral victory of naming someone to the court who never sits on it, I’d say it matters more who ends up on the Court, and it should be apparent right now that that power rests solely in the hands of the Senate. Which is why the DNC should be raising hell and gang-suing every state with voter suppression statutes instead of the fucking nothing they’re doing now.

1 Like
#43

The VP role is largely ceremonial, where your job is to be quiet and support the President’s policies. Cabinet secretaries (State, Treasury, Labor, Defense, AG) – those are the positions that really matter, and we don’t get to learn those until after the election.

I’m certain that the deal between Obama and Clinton in 2008 involved the Secretary of State, where Clinton was able to significantly shape America’s foreign policy (for better or for worse). If there is a deal here, it’s probably for Secretary of Labor or Treasury, where Warren’s passions lie.

Let some lighter-weight (but competent and popular) person have the VP slot. I’d like either Klobochar or Whitmer there. Warren is simply too valuable a person to have in that spot.

4 Likes
#44

Obviously. Which is why it really, really matters that Trump isn’t the person who gets to pick the next two SCOTUS justices and anyone who suggests Biden would be just as bad is speaking nonsense.

16 Likes
#45

Not 1950s ideal. The 1850s ideal.
We have a confederate president and MAGA is all about restoring the confederacy. http://rebeccasolnit.net/essay/the-american-civil-war-didnt-end/

9 Likes
#46

Placate Bernie supporters? You mean the ones who flooded Warren’s social media with snakes because she had a disagreement with Bernie about a years-old conversation? (And I say this as a Bernie supporter – second choice after Warren this year.)
P.S. - Warren is much more useful in the Senate.

3 Likes