2016 Democratic Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

I can't believe so many intelligent people want Hillary Clinton. Would I vote for 4 more years of Obama?? Are you kidding me? Our country is in the worst shape imaginable. Social issues, overseas issues with Russia, China and Korea. The economy? My gosh it is AWFUL. And health care??? Give me a break.

He is the Robin Ventura of the USA. he has to go and he's going. That said, I love his personality and the fact he's a big Sox fan and fan of all things Chicago.

LOL

 

Violent crime is less than half what it was 15-20 years ago, we're seeing inroads on "social" freedoms like marriage, the economy has done nothing but improve (albeit slowly, that's certainly true) in the last 7 years or so, and far more people have access to real health care now than did before (though prices do continue to skyrocket - that's true).

 

GREG IS HAVING NONE OF THIS!!!!!!!

 

Also as others have pointed out, situations in Korea, China and Russia are not really under the control of the USA, let alone the President themselves.

 

BUT IT'S ALL OBAMA'S FAULT!!!!!!!

 

Seriously, Obama has made some bad decisions and I am all about discussing those. But you watch way too much screamer TV or something, because your idea of what America is today is just not backed by any sort of reality.

 

[Soxbadger]

Care to cite some examples?

 

 

EVERY RULING IN THE HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT?

 

I mean the Constitution is like what 4 pages?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

the first political issue we agree upon.

Definitely some areas economically that things are not good. We can do better.

 

The idea that Greg has though, that Obama has somehow taken the country massively downhill, is laughable. Not only has that not happened, Obama (or any President) only has so much control over those things.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

One that has judges that do not create law by their judgements, they align it with what the constitution says.

 

I get the gist of what you're saying here, and I'm generally on the side of Scalia/textualist decisions, but you have to acknowledge both sides becomes activists and "make" law by their decisions (nature of the beast in many situations), and there are both good and bad results when SCOTUS "reads into" the Constitution. Privacy rights, for example, are completely made up, but hugely important.

 

I think the argument you're going for is that you'd rather we have justices that want to stick within their role as reviewers of the law, not creators of the law, in the sense that they will abide by the laws passed by the people (through Congress and state legislatures) except in extreme cases where constitutional rights are infringed without an overwhelming reason to do so.

[Quin]

I expect this court discussion to end in a Badger smackdown.

[illinilaw08]

EVERY RULING IN THE HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT?

 

I mean the Constitution is like what 4 pages?

 

 

Haha! In every 5-4 decision, there are 4 judges who totally understand what the Constitution means and says and 4 who are liberal activist judges who are creating laws. Then there's Kennedy who is either a true defender of the Constitution, or a guy who makes laws depending on the day.

 

As an aside, I think it's funny that any person can look at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby and interpret those decisions as being supported by the text of the Constitution while at the same time finding decisions like Obergfell as judicial activism...

[brett05]

Care to cite some examples?

Been thru this already in this thread I believe. The court is too liberal and needs to change to a more conservative court.

[brett05]

I get the gist of what you're saying here, and I'm generally on the side of Scalia/textualist decisions, but you have to acknowledge both sides becomes activists and "make" law by their decisions (nature of the beast in many situations), and there are both good and bad results when SCOTUS "reads into" the Constitution. Privacy rights, for example, are completely made up, but hugely important.

 

I think the argument you're going for is that you'd rather we have justices that want to stick within their role as reviewers of the law, not creators of the law, in the sense that they will abide by the laws passed by the people (through Congress and state legislatures) except in extreme cases where constitutional rights are infringed without an overwhelming reason to do so.

Said much better than I. Yes.

[illinilaw08]

Been thru this already in this thread I believe. The court is too liberal and needs to change to a more conservative court.

 

Well, then you seem to assert that the political leanings of the justices are the most important point of the makeup of the Court. I wasn't aware that the text of the Constitution was Conservative vs. Liberal.

[illinilaw08]

Said much better than I. Yes.

 

Then you must have been pretty mad when SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act...

[StrangeSox]

Man remember when the court just decided to give itself the power to review the legislature? And this was back in 1803 when every person (or close to it) who drafted the Constitution was still very much alive and in power?

 

The idea that there is a singular correct interpretation of a document that's 5 years old let alone 200+ and how it applies to every possible situation that arises is just plain nutty, let alone a political document drafted by many parties and ratified by many, many more.

Edited October 5, 2016 by StrangeSox

[RockRaines]

Thats a joke right? Judges arent supposed to interpret the constitution and apply it to modern society? WTF

[RockRaines]

EVERY RULING IN THE HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT?

 

I mean the Constitution is like what 4 pages?

 

Yeah but there are extensions of the constitution, like the christian bible.

[Soxbadger]

Haha! In every 5-4 decision, there are 4 judges who totally understand what the Constitution means and says and 4 who are liberal activist judges who are creating laws. Then there's Kennedy who is either a true defender of the Constitution, or a guy who makes laws depending on the day.

 

As an aside, I think it's funny that any person can look at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby and interpret those decisions as being supported by the text of the Constitution while at the same time finding decisions like Obergfell as judicial activism...

 

I was going to ask whether Citizens United and Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana were cause of activist judges.

 

Then I just decided that decisions like Michael H. v. Gerald D were obviously based in the constitution because a lot of the constitution deals with whether the actual father should have parental rights versus the presumed father. Cause back when the constitution was written I think they still used the "look test" to determine who the father was.

 

Then I realized that I should just stick to the constitution. 3/5's vote!

Edited October 5, 2016 by Soxbadger

[brett05]

Yeah but there are extensions of the constitution, like the christian bible.

You are a raging atheist. I have no issues with that, except this isn't a thread on religious beliefs.

[RockRaines]

I mean those slave-owning, wig-wearing- wooden tooth having politicians were completely perfect in writing their blueprint for the next few centuries.

[RockRaines]

You are a raging atheist. I have no issues with that, except this isn't a thread on religious beliefs.

Why do conservatives think abortion should be illegal? The constitution?

[Soxbadger]

You are a raging atheist. I have no issues with that, except this isn't a thread on religious beliefs.

 

But when you make a comment about "judicial activism" it does open the door for arguments about whether the court should base their rulings on things like "judeo-christian" beliefs.

 

And an even bigger question would be, what "judeo-christian" beliefs are we supporting. Cause nobody seems to mention that a lot of the guys in the Old Testament had multiple wives.

[lostfan]

I really wish people would just be honest about this.

 

"(Candidate X) will appoint Supreme Court justices and federal judges who will do things I agree with most of the time" instead of inventing all these unnecessary contortions to justify that statement, that nobody actually believes. This is a valid reason for just about every other issue, so with judges it's no different. All the Constitution says about it is that the President appoints them with the advice and consent of the Senate, and it was written to be that open-ended on purpose.

[Soxbadger]

I really wish people would just be honest about this.

 

"(Candidate X) will appoint Supreme Court justices and federal judges who will do things I agree with most of the time" instead of inventing all these unnecessary contortions to justify that statement, that nobody actually believes. This is a valid reason for just about every other issue, so with judges it's no different. All the Constitution says about it is that the President appoints them with the advice and consent of the Senate, and it was written to be that open-ended on purpose.

 

Boo this man, booooooo

 

Dont you know that the constitution is a special document that can only be read one way. Its like the bible, it can never be open to interpretation.

 

 

[Middle Buffalo]

I mean those slave-owning, wig-wearing- wooden tooth having politicians were completely perfect in writing their blueprint for the next few centuries.

That's why it has never been amended.

[The Beast]

You liberals are so funny. Give me Donald time and time again over a Hillary Clinton. It's not even close. But keep the attacks up.

I'm a moderate voting for Clinton and two republicans in Illinois and I'll still keep my attacks up against Biff Tannen every day of the week.

[caulfield12]

Conservative judges follow the Constitution, using no level of interpretation whatsoever. Liberal judges ignore the Constitution and interpret whatever they want. Duh.

 

So the Founding Fathers would be for Citizens United, right?

Wouldn't that mean African Americans would still count as 3/5th's of a person?

Women shouldn't have the same rights as men, or even the right to vote?

Only land/property holders would be entitled to basic rights?

 

Sounds like back to the 1950's again, when everything was right in the world.

 

Pretty sure they wouldn't be happy seeing so many children mowed down by gun violence in or near their schools. But I guess school prayer and having the 10 Commandments prominently displayed would fix that. If only we could go back to celebrating Christmas without all those darned PC nuts and agitators trying to ruin it for everyone with their safe spaces!

[CrimsonWeltall]

So the Founding Fathers would be for Citizens United, right?

Wouldn't that mean African Americans would still count as 3/5th's of a person?

Women shouldn't have the same rights as men, or even the right to vote?

Only land/property holders would be entitled to basic rights?

 

Sounds like back to the 1950's again, when everything was right in the world.

 

Pretty sure they wouldn't be happy seeing so many children mowed down by gun violence in or near their schools. But I guess school prayer and having the 10 Commandments prominently displayed would fix that. If only we could go back to celebrating Christmas without all those darned PC nuts and agitators trying to ruin it for everyone with their safe spaces!

 

My post was sarcastic, but a lot of your comments about the FF are likely true.

[pettie4sox]

OK brett is f***ing greg's alias. He has the same stubborn troll like posts as him too.