OK, now no question, I'd vote for Hillary in the general, no reservations

[Sam Spade]

Why judicial nominations matter: The Clean Air and Water Acts could be weakened. The Endangered Species Act could be overturned. Gun control laws could be overturned. Workplace protections of women and minorities will be further weakened.  Much of the precedent from the Warren Court is at stake. SCOTUS does matter.

None of that will happen.  Sorry.

Actually, it's already happening.

Just look at these recent cases decided by the Roberts Court:
Rapanos v. United States
Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers
Rancho Viejo v. Norton.
National Association of Home Builders et al. V. Defenders of Wildlife et al.

Rapanos and Carabell deal with the same statutory issue under the CWA.  Quite frankly, it's the dissent that wishes to expand the definition of "navigable waters" under the CWA past normal statutory interpretation. (i.e., reading stuff into the statute that ain't there)

Also, considering this is a statutory decision, if you want a different result, change the statute.   The result is not set in stone - rather say that "navigable waters" are "adjacent to tributaries of waters of the United States" instead of its present wording.

Rancho Viejo was decided by the DC Circuit, and Roberts was on the losing end there.  I don't see the relevance.

I don't know much about the other case, but I skimmed through it and it looks like another statutory interpretation thingy - see above. 

[MarkWarner08]

Why judicial nominations matter: The Clean Air and Water Acts could be weakened. The Endangered Species Act could be overturned. Gun control laws could be overturned. Workplace protections of women and minorities will be further weakened.  Much of the precedent from the Warren Court is at stake. SCOTUS does matter.

None of that will happen.  Sorry.

Actually, it's already happening.

Just look at these recent cases decided by the Roberts Court:
Rapanos v. United States
Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers
Rancho Viejo v. Norton.
National Association of Home Builders et al. V. Defenders of Wildlife et al.

Rapanos and Carabell deal with the same statutory issue under the CWA.  Quite frankly, it's the dissent that wishes to expand the definition of "navigable waters" under the CWA past normal statutory interpretation. (i.e., reading stuff into the statute that ain't there)

Also, considering this is a statutory decision, if you want a different result, change the statute.   The result is not set in stone - rather say that "navigable waters" are "adjacent to tributaries of waters of the United States" instead of its present wording.

Rancho Viejo was decided by the DC Circuit, and Roberts was on the losing end there.  I don't see the relevance.

I don't know much about the other case, but I skimmed through it and it looks like another statutory interpretation thingy - see above. 

Thanks for writing a brief rundown of those cases...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

your first sentence is just a mimic of what I said about the psychological benefits of being active in the process.

No, some of those benefits are quite real.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was exaggerating for dramatic effect Still, if corruption is your thing you should get involved in local politics.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

For a start at present the Trend is towards increasing turnout. I suspect alot of this has to do with emotions towards Bush rather than anything really substantial. When turnout fell below 50% for the first time ever in a Presidential race in 1996 there was alot of typical meaningless soul-searching about "American Democracy" Whatever that is - The simple fact that both candidates in a way benefited from the low turnout (Clinton got re-elected while with high turnouts that would be more dubious as you get alot of independents while Dole didn't get destroyed as some predicted which might have happened if it weren't for the perception of it being a pointless and finished race.) was ignored.

Also between 2000 and 2004 there was a clear attempt by some Democrats to court Nader voters (many of whom are quite worth hating..) which clearly would not have happened if 3% of voters in 2000 didn't go for Nader (and o\c exaggerated by the whole "close Election" thing.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For it to reach that levels you would have make voting an elitist exercise away from the notion of "Civil duty" in the first place - and for that to happen within the present course of events (which is unthinkable..) would probably mean your revolution has already started.

But whither Revolution?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Less true (not but entirely untrue) btw in countries which have a more proportional electoral system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Essentially true - and Apathy is the reason most people don't vote. I think there is a sense even among non-voters that 'the system' works, but they don't quite the people running it. Which is different from you want Tweed.

Btw BRTD from what I know Nader ain't going to run. I *think* Camejo or possibly Medea Benjamin might (as the Greens nominee.. unless they choose McKinney. Which I really hope they don't.)