Damn. Back in my day we waited three years for the first xpac to a new MMO.

Usain Bolt

Yes. Because this election is about Populism.

We’re “still dealing” with shit because in addition to gender locks we now have very consistent class-locks. This article itself spend a lot of time lamenting the place of women who hold immense power via husbands. And politically useful wives have always, always been a benefit.

OMG I think we could talk all day about real issues and have a real amazing discourse. You’re getting a follow. I don’t see my “defense” of Mussolini as a defense as much as as a realization that populism can go either way and we let the right win on that one... so we can nominate a corporatist who people her policies…

Christ, Anna. Your comment page due to Gawker’s popularity indexing means that the only discussion most people see when loading this page is about how we want to have the attacker’s hair.

Look. He made more liberal appointments when he was still up for public opinion.

What the fuck is a “new democrat?”

I think that populism rearing it’s head in both primaries is a big shift. Sanders and Trump are both populist candidates. The shame is that we let Trump take the working class. But that’s been a constant for almost thirty years where the DNC has consistently taken the needs of the few elite over the needs of the many.

No. She’s pick a centrist because it is in her own benefit. And POTUS is about Clinton’s benefit.

I keep seeing the claim that Garland is “liberal” but his actual record is overwhelmingly in support of corporate law over civil law.

I don’t think placing another moderate on the bench is a good idea if we can avoid it. In another decade he’ll be far over to the right side. Society changes a lot quicker than the SCOTUS. Which is why progressive voices are necessary.

Sure, you won’t argue that but he has. Greatly. As time has churned on older justices become less progressive. Even the right-wing of SCOTUS has moved because of culture and progress.

Pretty much Sanders’ whole argument overall. We shouldn’t be content to raise a moderate to SCOTUS. But we need to retake the House and (especially) Senate if we want to do anything other than having sitting Dem Presidents who aren’t politically moderate regardless of their campaigns.

Obama picked someone that some GOP members (Orrin Hatch, off the top of my head) have praised in the past.

What makes you think Clinton wouldn’t see him as a perfect nominee? He hits every New Democrat point that is important to them.

It also gives Obama cover when he puts a centrist on the court. “I didn’t think they’d accept him” is the kind of brinkmanship that, politically, has little effect. If the GOP accepts him Obama made a centrist appointment and avoid wrath from the corporatist side of the DNC who don’t want to see Citizens United overtur…

would greatly prefer this guy to whoever Bernie/Hillary would pick

Hillary will just nominate Goldman Sachs lead counsel.

Garland was chosen because multiple Republicans have supported his career in the past and are on record as saying he would be a good SCOTUS choice.