The Supreme Court and Bill Clinton

We keep telling others that we have to vote for the nominee for one important reason - the Supreme Court. It is generally accepted that whoever the next president is, s/he will face two, perhaps three vacancies.

Now think about who are the current liberal Justices and you will find that two of the four were nominated by Bill Clinton.

So for all of you who, all of a sudden are so indignant (why, exactly? I have bee absent from GD-P for over a week) about former President Bill Clinton, who trash him, who, for all I know, wish that papa Bush and Bob Dole won in 1992 and in 1996 - think about these nomination.

Because, were it not for Bill Clinton and his nomination of Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, any appeal to unite behind the nominee because of the Supreme Court would not hold water. Had it not for Bill Clinton, the Supreme Court now would be beyond hope for upholding the Constitution.

I mean beyond the whole Lewinsky thing.

with his actions, I thought.

blue dress belonging to Monica Lewinsky.

...and deep down, maybe he still is.


But ambition has gotten the better of him.... and his wife.



Their better angels have been snuffed out.

but it appears that many on DU are now trashing his whole presidency.

His inability to keep it in his pants directly brought us the 8 years of Dubya.


If Lewinsky never happened, Gore would be wrapping up his second term now.


4000+ of America's best and brightest would still be alive.


But because Bill couldn't resist getting blown by a 20-year-old, we were left with Bush.


1992 to 1998 - Great man, great presidency.


Then he pissed it all away.... and sent this country hurtling toward the sorry state we're in now.

the Lewinsky scandal left a stain on the national fabric of this country.

;-)

Bill's approval ratings were high throughout the Lewinsky scandal. If gore would've used Bill completely in the 2000 campaign, he would've gotten thousands more votes in many states. The media turned gore into an unlikeable liar, Bill did not.

Maybe the 4 years of investigation of Clinton by the congressional republicans and the proliferation of talk radio like Rush hating on Clinton 24-7 caused millions of unintelligent people to learn to hate the Clintons and believe lies about them had more to do with Gore not winning the election.

I think it is ridiculous for posts like yours to lay the blame for all the horror of the Bush administration on Bill Clinton. It's just like the right wingers on 9-11. They did what was comfortable to them in a time of crisis - blame it on Clinton. We should not be doing this.

and welcome to DU

Looking forward to more interesting posts from you



:toast: :bounce:

He loft office with the highest approval rate of any departing President. Had he not been barred by the Constitution, he would have been re-elected again in 2000.

That Gore did not know how to use Bill, how to capitalize on the expanding economy - across all income levels - and on turning a huge deficit into a surplus, is something that I will leave for historians. Plus, the 20,000 votes (or so) that Nader gained in Florida that pale the 400 votes (or so) that Bush gained over Gore.

I don't find anyone here complaining about JFK affairs while president, or about Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick, or even Kennedy challenging Carter that probably contributed to Reagan's winning.

In contrast to our cerebral, intelligent candidates - and I have admired them all: Dukakis, Gore and Kerry and, perhaps, Obama - Bill knew how to connect with the common man (and woman), and this contributed to most voters (men) winking at that affair.

and he will be a great campaigner.

Isnt that kinda like expected? Do you give yourself credit for not robbing the bank yesterday? Or feeding your kids? Its just expected.

The vast majority of posts about Bill Clinton in GDP are as negative as the right wingers' comments were in the 90s. I know he's said some things that Obama supporters had offense to, but his presidency was the best one overall since at least the 60s.

It shouldn't be that if someone is not perfect to us or says something we disagree with, then he is by definition ridiculously horrible and deserving of hatred and scorn. And I don't mean what was said in this thread, but in hundreds of posts in this forum every day.

The world doesnt revolve around Hillary's 2008 failed run. Sorry. Also ran.

And I know Bill Clinton was a centrist democrat. I think it is essentially impossible for a very liberal person to win the presidency now with the demonization of anything progressive and the success in turning the word "liberal" into a similar connotation to "pedophile" or "douchebag" by the republican noise machine.

gave away the presidency to bush.

Anyway, Democrats nominate liberal judges
and Repukes nominate conservative judges.

Bill Clinton did not do anything different or extraordinary here. This is a non-issue.

to be moderates.

Don't forget that Orin Hatch okayed them before Clinton nominated them.

And Breyer is liberal but not as liberal as the justice he was replacing.

So a Democratic President nominated liberal instead of conservative judges. What kind of cookie should we give Bill? Perhaps a gold star too? :rofl:

Yes, every Democratic president would have appointed liberal justices. But it was Bill Clinton sitting at the White House and it was he who nominated them.

Thus, for supposedly progressive people who care about the direction of the Supreme Court to trash his presidency is to dump the good with the bad.

You may not like him now; you may not like some or all of his policies in the White House, but if you are honest with yourself, you will have to credit him with the chances that we have to move the court back toward civil rights.

This year's class is especially unruly. Some of us think it's the IPods and the whole immediacy-of-entertainment thing.

The accelerated class--Honors Civics--is better with the subtleties of history, but it's a very small group right now. :hi:

We were traveling last week and I read an op-ed piece in USA Today (that quickly went into paid archives) about how a person working at the cash register that was down, could not calculate how much change was due; about young people who have no idea what "patience of Job means.."

Thanks for your kind words.

:)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

People do criticize his presidency.

And to blame him on Gore's loss is really a poor excuse. Gore should have used him, Nader attracted too many - many, no doubt, are currently on DU. And, of course, Gore does not have the charm and the approach that Bill has and that our series of aloof, intelligent, multisyllables candidates lack.

Plus, in the past 50 years, at least, papa Bush is the only sitting V.P. to be elected, and he lasted only one term.

The reasons are simple: every administration has its own share of scandals - Bush had to fight the Iran-Contra deal - and it is difficult for a candidate who, for four (or eight) years was a loyal member of the administration, to all of a sudden present himself as his own man.

And, yes, every democratic president would have appointed liberal judges, but the fact is - it was he who did it. If you are honest and not blinded by your hatred or ignorance, you will acknowledge this fact. But DU has become so full of bile against the Clintons, that it is hard for these DUers to be honest. Exactly like the freepers.

Doesn't negate their current tactics though.

but some of the recent posts on DU could have been made by freepers and by Rush in his glory days of the 90s.

He should have appointed judges younger than he was.

Because unlike the Democrats, the Senate Republicans realize that the bipartisan judiciary era has long since passed.

Yes we need a Democratic President, but the court still gave us Bush over Gore.