Do We Have Any Bernie Sanders Supporters Among Us?

[IDBillzFan]

The country as we know it can't survive 8 more years of regressive policy. The supreme court will be loaded with hardcore liberals. The constitution will be destroyed. The divisions within the country will be even more fractured.

 

The country is phucked no matter who we elect. If we're going down, I'd rather go down like Obamacare: with absolutely no question who is responsible.

[Dorkington]

 

If their word is final, then their interpretation of the constitution itself is vital and ultimately determines how we as a nation implement and understand the constitution. Look back at history and see how many times the court has made monumental rulings that have changed not only how the country operates but how the people view the constitution itself.

 

The issue isn't whether or not the justices are going to willingly blow up the constitution, (they aren't) but how their interpretations and leanings can sway and change the nation's understanding of the document itself. A liberal judge (in the LEGAL sense, not the political sense) is going to take more liberty with how they read and apply the constitution and precedent to existing cases whereas a conservative judge (in the LEGAL sense) is going to stick more closely to the actual text and intent of the founders. Who's right? That's a matter of opinion (legal opinion and political opinion), but make no mistake, SCOTUS has the ability to dramatically change how we view and understand the constitution with their decisions.

That's a far cry from 'destroying the Constitution' imo. I guess I read the original statement incorrectly.

[KD in CA]

Bernie is just as scary as Obama, just without the overt racism.

 

But I'm still gonna root for him in the primaries because seeing Hillary go down in flames again would be even better than seeing NE lose another Super Bowl to the Giants.

[Deranged Rhino]

That's a far cry from 'destroying the Constitution' imo. I guess I read the original statement incorrectly.

 

It's hyperbole of course. But if you play out a scenario where the court is 7-2 liberal (again, legally speaking not politically) or even 5-4 liberal for three or four decades and the constitution will be dramatically different. So much so that there's a chance it'd be unrecognizable to people of the 20th century.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

 

It's hyperbole of course. But if you play out a scenario where the court is 7-2 liberal (again, legally speaking not politically) or even 5-4 liberal for three or four decades and the constitution will be dramatically different. So much so that there's a chance it'd be unrecognizable to people of the 20th century.

This was my intent.

 

There would be far reaching effects of a progressive is able to control the next 2-4 SCOTUS nominations.

[keepthefaith]

After reading through the rest of the thread since my last...finding some humor but mostly tedium, I have to say: GO BERNIE!

 

I'm going back to my first post in this mess:

 

 

 

Seriously, what is not to like? When Laffer first said the Rs were gonna carry 45 states I thought he was crazy. Now? I still think he's crazy. But, every day, another tiny straw falls, and from where I sit the camel's face looks like "Oh F Me!". How many straws until 45 is the baseline? Stay tuned!

 

He's crazy, their aren't enough straws. Too many states are absolutely safe haven for Dems IMO. O'Malley could win the nomination and still get 200+ electoral votes because party trumps thought for most voters.

[TakeYouToTasker]

That's a far cry from 'destroying the Constitution' imo. I guess I read the original statement incorrectly.

To be fair, the Constitution was decimated by Marbury v Madison; and since then the SCOTUS has simply been pissing on the ashes.

 

The Constitution, when written, was intended to have a meaning fixed in time, but with the ability to be amended through a process encoded in the document itself. The "Living Document" understanding of the Constitution means that the Document itself is meaningless in it's fluidity. SCOTUS debate is no longer based on what the Document itself says in very plain, 4th grade English; but rather on what prior black robed lawyers opined about the Document. We are not, and have not been for a long time, a nation of laws: rather we are a nation of lawyers.

[Dorkington]

I support the 'living document' idea, because it's significantly more flexible to meet the needs of the times.

[Deranged Rhino]

I support the 'living document' idea, because it's significantly more flexible to meet the needs of the times.

 

There's nothing wrong with that outlook, a lot of very smart legal minds would agree with you. The issue though is, like Tasker pointed out, treating the document in that manner reduces its importance. The document itself becomes irrelevant, only the interpretation of the court matters. Which makes the individual political leanings of each justice paramount -- and that only serves to politicize justice and our legal system more so than it already is.

 

That can lead us down a very dark and dangerous path considering the justices serve for life and their political leanings and interpretations of the document can go out of style before they've left the bench.

[Dorkington]

 

There's nothing wrong with that outlook, a lot of very smart legal minds would agree with you. The issue though is, like Tasker pointed out, treating the document in that manner reduces its importance. The document itself becomes irrelevant, only the interpretation of the court matters. Which makes the individual political leanings of each justice paramount -- and that only serves to politicize justice and our legal system more so than it already is.

 

That can lead us down a very dark and dangerous path considering the justices serve for life and their political leanings and interpretations of the document can go out of style before they've left the bench.

I also support term limits for SCOTUS (as well as Congress).

[Deranged Rhino]

I also support term limits for SCOTUS (as well as Congress).

 

What would be the appropriate length of a term for SCOTUS? The purpose of justices serving for life is to remove them from the political process (in theory, in practice it hasn't worked that way).

[Dorkington]

 

What would be the appropriate length of a term for SCOTUS? The purpose of justices serving for life is to remove them from the political process (in theory, in practice it hasn't worked that way).

I have no idea... but I genuinely believe that those who represent us (and I do consider SCOTUS to be a representative, since they are appointed and confirmed by representatives, that are heavily lobbied) need to have limits in how long they can serve, not only to hopefully lower corruption, but also to better represent the needs/wants of the country.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Dorkington

[starrymessenger]

I support the 'living document' idea, because it's significantly more flexible to meet the needs of the times.

 

This makes the most sense.

[reddogblitz]

Regressive ideology is exposed and gets thoroughly trounced on a national level. Rs win all but NY,CT,CA,NH,VT.

 

You forgot WA and OR.

[section122]

 

He's crazy, their aren't enough straws. Too many states are absolutely safe haven for Dems IMO. O'Malley could win the nomination and still get 200+ electoral votes because party trumps thought for most voters.

 

The bolded is true on both sides. I am at a complete loss that Donald Trump is still relevant in this election. Bernie Sanders is a much better option for the white house than HRC. As a dem he will be getting my vote. I absolutely can't vote for HRC.

 

On the republican side there are not any good options. Trump still being relevant is very damning to the republican party imo. The fact that this complete buffoon can not only last through several debates but also come out on top is making the republican party a joke. Much like HRC still being touted as a favorite is making the dems look like a joke.

 

This entire thread is filled with a lot of snark about how bad Bernie would be. 59 pages in I'd like to ask who is a better option?

 

HRC - liar is about the nicest thing you can say about her

Trump - zero political experience, lots of ideas and no plan to execute them, the most out of touch candidate imo

Rubio - numerous corruption scandals and a flip flopper on pretty much everything including his religion

Cruz - smarmy and disliked are 2 words you hear often about him

O'Malley - No traction, not well liked in his own state, a tax history that is worrisome.

 

Who is left? Which of the above names do you support?

[IDBillzFan]

Bernie Sanders is a much better option for the white house than HRC. As a dem he will be getting my vote. I absolutely can't vote for HRC.

 

On the republican side there are not any good options.

 

Notfernuttin', but suffice it to say if you want the country to be run by a socialist, there will be exactly zero chance you will ever find any Republican as a good option.

 

I appreciate you're trying to sound open-minded, and I'm sure you probably think you're being open-minded, but, y'know, you are voting for socialism, so...no way...in hell...you see ANYONE on the right as a good option to do anything other than get out of the way.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

 

Notfernuttin', but suffice it to say if you want the country to be run by a socialist, there will be exactly zero chance you will ever find any Republican as a good option.

 

I appreciate you're trying to sound open-minded, and I'm sure you probably think you're being open-minded, but, y'know, you are voting for socialism, so...no way...in hell...you see ANYONE on the right as a good option to do anything other than get out of the way.

Thanks for stating the obvious. If the framework is the socialist being the best candidate, that debate won't get very far because of completely different ideologies.

[section122]

 

Notfernuttin', but suffice it to say if you want the country to be run by a socialist, there will be exactly zero chance you will ever find any Republican as a good option.

 

I appreciate you're trying to sound open-minded, and I'm sure you probably think you're being open-minded, but, y'know, you are voting for socialism, so...no way...in hell...you see ANYONE on the right as a good option to do anything other than get out of the way.

Weeelllll a democratic socialist isnt the same as a socialist.

 

That said I'm not tied to voting for either party. Unfortunately I am at an age where I have only been able to vote for the last 4 elections. Each time I was forced to pick the person based on not wanting the other guy in the white house. My vote for gore and Kerry was a vote against bush. My vote for McCain was because Obama was not qualified in my mind to be president. My vote for Obama was a vote against Romney who was a terrible candidate and it was revealed after didn't even want to run.

 

I can actually get behind some of what Bernie says. Universal health care is extremely important to me. People are acting like Bernie getting into the white house would turn the us into communist russia. I find that to be nothing more than fear mongering.

 

Not all parts of socialism are bad just like not all parts of capitalism are good.

[GG]

What's the difference between a democratic socialist and a plain vanilla socialist?

Edited January 21, 2016 by GG

[starrymessenger]

Weeelllll a democratic socialist isnt the same as a socialist.

That said I'm not tied to voting for either party. Unfortunately I am at an age where I have only been able to vote for the last 4 elections. Each time I was forced to pick the person based on not wanting the other guy in the white house. My vote for gore and Kerry was a vote against bush. My vote for McCain was because Obama was not qualified in my mind to be president. My vote for Obama was a vote against Romney who was a terrible candidate and it was revealed after didn't even want to run.

I can actually get behind some of what Bernie says. Universal health care is extremely important to me. People are acting like Bernie getting into the white house would turn the us into communist russia. I find that to be nothing more than fear mongering.

Not all parts of socialism are bad just like not all parts of capitalism are good.

I think some of what you are saying makes sense. Bernie Saunders would not turn the US into a communist country. Heck I don't know that communist countries are communist anymore. Even the Ruskies now understand that Bolshevism was a mistake that set them back 70 years.

I live in Canada where we have socialized medecin. In a way I dislike it because when I require medical attention I want the best and I want it immediately, but thats only because I can afford to pay for it (or for private medical insurance). Most people couldn't do that given the costs. At the end of the day the medical services available to all here are very good even if at times you have to wait your turn in line. And although we dont have a two tiered system as a practical matter I do have the option of going to the States and simply cracking a cheque. I would rather do that than live in a place where people who need them are denied medical services because of their inability to pay and if that accounts for my relatively high rate of personal tax I'm ok with it.

I'm not familiar with every plank in Bernie Saunders platform but what bothers me is that he inspires no confidence as Commander in Chief and appears to be very weak generally in the matter of foreign affairs. I think we live in a crowded world with lots of things going on affecting US and western democratic interests. I find it interesting that for some countries foreign policy has a very prominent place in the national agenda. I'm not sure it does or ever has (Woodrow Wilson and FDR notwithstanding) in the US. Republican candidates have a lot more to say about it than Bernie this time around but what they say (certainly the front runners anyway) makes little or no sense and is clearly just used to activate support amongst certain of their constituents.

I'm very disappointed by the parsity of Democratic contenders for the nomination. It reeks of cronyism and moral bankruptcy. I think it could possibly bite HRC in the ass, but if things boil down to a contest between Bernie and The Donald, I really feel Americans are being short changed. I think I have even amongst my acquaintances Americans who are a clear cut above any of these characters.

Edited January 21, 2016 by starrymessenger