[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread III

[G-Tech Corporation]

Certainly- the purpose of the Judiciary is to provide a counterbalance to the shifting politics of any given point in time, to provide reason even when the popular vote might recommend irrationality. Legislature should live in fear of the Supreme Court, and precedent should only be established if some matter of law cannot in any conceivable way be addressed by existing thought on the topic. Otherwise we're no better than Venezuela, and we all know how their judiciary has turned out.

Joking about trolling the GOP aside, the idea of Trump appointed judges dominating the court for the next 30 years should scare you far more than anyone Hillary would choose.

Nah, I'm a conservative, you see. And I sincerely doubt Trump will be picking anybody of his own volition, being an ignorant buffoon. So we'll have some conservative justices who will shoot down a lot of radical legislation and judicial activism. I'd prefer to have actual centrist justices, but I'll happily take inactivity over febrile activity, given the choice.

[Corrian]

I kind of agree that they should probably be centrist more than actively one way or the other, especially after what my brother said yesterday. My brother was also saying he doesn't really feel like a president should be able to choose 2 to 3 judges at once, which I can kind of get as well.

Of course, my general stance is these damn judges should probably have term limits anyway. But eh, whatever.

[Guy]

Joking about trolling the GOP aside, the idea of Trump appointed judges dominating the court for the next 30 years should scare you far more than anyone Hillary would choose.

Nah, I'm a conservative, you see. And I sincerely doubt Trump will be picking anybody of his own volition, being an ignorant buffoon. So we'll have some conservative justices who will shoot down a lot of radical legislation and judicial activism. I'd prefer to have actual centrist justices, but I'll happily take inactivity over febrile activity, given the choice.

By far the most "activist" Justice on SCOTUS is Thomas, so you might like a dose of reality with that.

The Roberts Court, when it had its conservative majority, did anything but exercise judicial restraint. Nothing would get between it and its interpretation of the law.

Again, I can't fault it. Stare is never to be blindly afforded. Otherwise, we'd still have a Court that strikes down minimum wage laws, and upholds 'separate but equal'.

[Maineiacs]

Joking about trolling the GOP aside, the idea of Trump appointed judges dominating the court for the next 30 years should scare you far more than anyone Hillary would choose.

Nah, I'm a conservative, you see. And I sincerely doubt Trump will be picking anybody of his own volition, being an ignorant buffoon. So we'll have some conservative justices who will shoot down a lot of radical legislation and judicial activism. I'd prefer to have actual centrist justices, but I'll happily take inactivity over febrile activity, given the choice.

So you think the Judiciary Committee would tell him who they find acceptable, and manage to make it clear to him that their will be done? Not ideal from my leftward stance, but certainly better than Trump having it his way.

[Maurepas]

Joking about trolling the GOP aside, the idea of Trump appointed judges dominating the court for the next 30 years should scare you far more than anyone Hillary would choose.

Nah, I'm a conservative, you see. And I sincerely doubt Trump will be picking anybody of his own volition, being an ignorant buffoon. So we'll have some conservative justices who will shoot down a lot of radical legislation and judicial activism. I'd prefer to have actual centrist justices, but I'll happily take inactivity over febrile activity, given the choice.

Then what are you doing in the Democratic Primary thread? (i kid)

I doubt you're getting anyone centrist out of either party at this point. Even if Trump is too idiotic to pick his own justices the ones he is advised to pick will be hardline conservatives. Hell, really, with the nature of SCOTUS moderation is a tough sell in general, at least to their opposing side anyway. The GOP isn't necessarily wrong when they point out Garland is not a Conservative.

I expect they'll be engaging in judicial activism of their own, expect Obergefell to be challenged, the healthcare ruling to be challenged, etc., it's really about picking the side that best suits the things you care about. I don't blame conservatives who stomach Trump in that regard, but I would implore any liberal or progressive to do the same for Hillary.

[Corrian]

Also, I love how apparently according to the Texas governor, "Gridlock" is something to be celebrated with the supreme court justices right now. Apparently the Republican politicians not knowing how to do their damn job is something to be actively celebrated now.

[Corrian]

I started laughing so much at this

[Galloism]

I started laughing so much at this

ROFL

Classic. At least he can laugh at himself.

[New Jerzylvania]

I started laughing so much at this

Wow. I love the two of them even more, and didn't think that was possible.

[Corrian]

He looks like he is having so much fun in it too.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Henry Paulson, George W. Bush's Treasury Secretary, just endorsed Hillary Clinton.

A mixed blessing at best, but still, a sign of just how many people are openly jumping ship.

Henry Paulson was the CEO of Goldman Sachs during Hillary's term as Senator from New York, so I'm not too surprised.

[Corrian]

Henry Paulson, George W. Bush's Treasury Secretary, just endorsed Hillary Clinton.

A mixed blessing at best, but still, a sign of just how many people are openly jumping ship.

Henry Paulson was the CEO of Goldman Sachs during Hillary's term as Senator from New York, so I'm not too surprised.

Ew, that makes things worse.

[Geilinor]

Henry Paulson was the CEO of Goldman Sachs during Hillary's term as Senator from New York, so I'm not too surprised.

Ew, that makes things worse.

His reason is that she's far better than Trump. He'd be going Republican with any other nominee.

[Novus America]

Ew, that makes things worse.

His reason is that she's far better than Trump. He'd be going Republican with any other nominee.

His reason is that she is better than Trump for Wall Street elites. Which she is of course. He and his friends (along with the Saudis) own her. This hardly reflects well on her. Not that it reflects well on Trump either.

[Guy]

His reason is that she's far better than Trump. He'd be going Republican with any other nominee.

His reason is that she is better than Trump for Wall Street elites. Which she is of course. He and his friends (along with the Saudis) own her. This hardly reflects well on her. Not that it reflects well on Trump either.

But the real question is, have we landed on the moon?

[Ngelmish]

His reason is that she's far better than Trump. He'd be going Republican with any other nominee.

His reason is that she is better than Trump for Wall Street elites. Which she is of course. He and his friends (along with the Saudis) own her. This hardly reflects well on her. Not that it reflects well on Trump either.

She's better for literally everybody than Trump is with the possible exception of Trump's family and longtime friends.

Nor does this constitute proof that she's "owned."

[Maurepas]

His reason is that she's far better than Trump. He'd be going Republican with any other nominee.

His reason is that she is better than Trump for Wall Street elites. Which she is of course. He and his friends (along with the Saudis) own her. This hardly reflects well on her. Not that it reflects well on Trump either.

I might disagree with his reasons, but that doesn't make him wrong. The same things that are bad for Wall Stree elites with regard to Trump's tariffs and his trade wars, would be equally bad for everyone else.

[Kelinfort]

His reason is that she's far better than Trump. He'd be going Republican with any other nominee.

His reason is that she is better than Trump for Wall Street elites. Which she is of course. He and his friends (along with the Saudis) own her. This hardly reflects well on her. Not that it reflects well on Trump either.

What's good for Wall Street isn't always bad for Main Street Americans.

What's bad for Wall Street isn't always good for Main Street Americans.

[Novus America]

His reason is that she is better than Trump for Wall Street elites. Which she is of course. He and his friends (along with the Saudis) own her. This hardly reflects well on her. Not that it reflects well on Trump either.

But the real question is, have we landed on the moon?

Look where her money comes from.

[Novus America]

His reason is that she is better than Trump for Wall Street elites. Which she is of course. He and his friends (along with the Saudis) own her. This hardly reflects well on her. Not that it reflects well on Trump either.

What's good for Wall Street isn't always bad for Main Street Americans.

What's bad for Wall Street isn't always good for Main Street Americans.

True. It would be nice to have a president who was actually loyal to Main Street Americans though. I know that will never happen though.

[Kelinfort]

What's good for Wall Street isn't always bad for Main Street Americans.

What's bad for Wall Street isn't always good for Main Street Americans.

True. It would be nice to have a president who was actually loyal to Main Street Americans though. I know that will never happen though.

Presidents are loyal to their constituency, which is without fail, the middle class. Why? Well, they're usually the most prone to swing elections and on top of that, it's the middle class who starts revolutions. The upper class is content with the status quo, the lower classes are either too poor or too uninvolved in the process to openly revolt, without leadership. But it's the middle class which determines whether they side with the discontent of the working class or the material complacency of the upper class.

[Novus America]

His reason is that she is better than Trump for Wall Street elites. Which she is of course. He and his friends (along with the Saudis) own her. This hardly reflects well on her. Not that it reflects well on Trump either.

I might disagree with his reasons, but that doesn't make him wrong. The same things that are bad for Wall Stree elites with regard to Trump's tariffs and his trade wars, would be equally bad for everyone else.

Agressively destroying American jobs has benefited Wall Street. Not everyone else. But yeah, Trump has no clue either. NAFTA is good. China is not so much. He does not get the difference. Nor the need for moderate carefully targeted tarrifs, instead of blindingly throwing them out.

[Sane Outcasts]

What's good for Wall Street isn't always bad for Main Street Americans.

What's bad for Wall Street isn't always good for Main Street Americans.

True. It would be nice to have a president who was actually loyal to Main Street Americans though. I know that will never happen though.

Are Main Street Americans actually a thing or just one of those imaginary demographics like True Scots?

[Kelinfort]

True. It would be nice to have a president who was actually loyal to Main Street Americans though. I know that will never happen though.

Are Main Street Americans actually a thing or just one of those imaginary demographics like True Scots?

Main Street Americans are the middle class, so to speak. They can be subdivided into two groups, the lower and upper parts.

[Novus America]

True. It would be nice to have a president who was actually loyal to Main Street Americans though. I know that will never happen though.

Presidents are loyal to their constituency, which is without fail, the middle class. Why? Well, they're usually the most prone to swing elections and on top of that, it's the middle class who starts revolutions. The upper class is content with the status quo, the lower classes are either too poor or too uninvolved in the process to openly revolt, without leadership. But it's the middle class which determines whether they side with the discontent of the working class or the material complacency of the upper class.

Well yes, we ultimately chose the people in charge. Even though they screw us over. I am not sad Trump and Sanders lost, they are the wrong people at the wrong time. But they do show the people are growing restless. The rich are getting scared.