2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Dotsudoku]

all good examples of where I think it's beneficial to have a hyperliberal court. Beyond those is where I'm not sure what my feeling is on the matter

[Gredival]

There's lots of bad precedent set in the Roberts/Rhenquist eras I'd love to see reversed during a liberal court reign. Wal-Mart vs. Dukes comes to mind.

[Byrthnoth]

Hyperliberal justices become conservative over time because society moves relative to them. It isn't like they wave their hands and we have unfinanced universal healthcare.

There's not much wrong with liberal appointees, imop.

[Zealot]

As an attorney I'm a little offended people want Justices they think will come down on their side of the issue instead of those who will interpret the law fairly and correctly.

[Byrthnoth]

As an attorney I'm a little offended people want Justices they think will come down on their side of the issue instead of those who will interpret the law fairly and correctly.

I'm a little surprised you don't see the incredible amounts of ambiguity in our constitution, which the supreme court interprets on the regular. Your statement implies there is a "fair and correct" interpretation of ambiguity.

[Zealot]

What the Supreme Court is called upon to do in almost every instance is interpret a state or federal statute as applied to the Constitution. Those definitely have readings of either "this is Constitutional or it isn't," or in some cases parts of it can stay but others have to go. We've had a lot of bad laws on the books for a long time because Justices with social or political leanings (re: Taney, Rehnquist) decide to read the law the way they want it to be instead of how it would actually function under the Constitution. Basically I was responding to bum calling Garland a bad choice because he's not liberal enough. He's still one of if not the most well-respected legal mind in service today.

[kuronosan]

I'm a little surprised you don't see the incredible amounts of ambiguity in our constitution, which the supreme court interprets on the regular. Your statement implies there is a "fair and correct" interpretation of ambiguity.

And yet subjectivity bred the Bible and New Testaments.

[Quicklet]

As an attorney I'm a little offended people want Justices they think will come down on their side of the issue instead of those who will interpret the law fairly and correctly.

I would agree with you except that on the most divisive issues the justices basically decide how they're going to vote and then come up with the reasoning after the fact.

In other news, we're going to see if donors mean more to Hillary than having the best VP pick available.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...esident-224489

I think a lot of progressives who distrust Hillary would have their concerns allayed with a Warren VP pick. Warren also is frankly much better at being the attack dog against Trump than Hillary has been, and I think for this particular cycle it would be a very complementary pick to shore up some of Hillary's weaknesses. That being said, if Warren is passed over because donors say so, I think you lose some of the Bernie crowd because it reinforces what they already believe (that Hillary puts Wall Street over the middle-class). I also think this would cause some real tension between the Warren and Hillary camps going forward were she to win the election.

[Zealot]

I would agree with you except that on the most divisive issues the justices basically decide how they're going to vote and then come up with the reasoning after the fact.

That is true. If you've ever read the opinion for Heller it reads like Scalia authored an opinion on the Second Amendment and then just waited for a case to come along that he could apply it to.

[Xno Kappa]

I would agree with you except that on the most divisive issues the justices basically decide how they're going to vote and then come up with the reasoning after the fact.

In other news, we're going to see if donors mean more to Hillary than having the best VP pick available.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...esident-224489

I think a lot of progressives who distrust Hillary would have their concerns allayed with a Warren VP pick. Warren also is frankly much better at being the attack dog against Trump than Hillary has been, and I think for this particular cycle it would be a very complementary pick to shore up some of Hillary's weaknesses. That being said, if Warren is passed over because donors say so, I think you lose some of the Bernie crowd because it reinforces what they already believe (that Hillary puts Wall Street over the middle-class). I also think this would cause some real tension between the Warren and Hillary camps going forward were she to win the election.

This is a bit disingenuous to say. You're trying to imply there's no other possible alternative to Warren, and that this is the sole reason she didn't choose her.

[Quicklet]

It's clear at this point that Warren is the favorite for VP. Harry Reid wants her as VP. Bernie supporters would love her as VP. She's already shown herself to be effective in attacking Trump in a way that other picks would be unknowns. If she's not picked as VP it's hard to see how it's not over either this or not wanting to lose her Senate seat. I mean maybe you could argue that having two women on the ticket would be too much but that seems like such a nonsense argument to me.

Also, I'm pretty sure if Warren doesn't get picked and it's because of this, word will get back to her.

[Greatguardian]

There's absolutely no other reason you can think of that someone else - anyone else - might get the VP nod? Do you even know the names of the other people on the short list? Do you know anything about them? Are you familiar with what a Vice President actually does? What they're supposed to be?

And while you gloss it over pretty quickly, not losing one of the most powerful, nationally recognized progressives in the Senate is kinda a big fucking deal. A popular senator can do a hell of a lot more to push an agenda than a Vice President can.

[Xno Kappa]

Why is it always all or nothing with you berniebros? Such petulant behavior is fucking old and tired at this point. You're already trying to frame a narrative in the event Hilary doesn't choose her.

[archibaldcrane]

I love Warren.

She doesn't add gender or ethnic diversity to the ticket. She's not from a swing state or even a different region of the country. She's very valuable in the Senate and we could lose a seat without her there.

Let's not pretend like there aren't significant negatives to the Warren for VP idea.

[archibaldcrane]

I'm kinda into the Xavier Becerra idea myself.

[Ksandra]

I figured this belongs here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/cook-...mp-fans-2016-6

A legendary fast-food chain is in hot water after refusing to serve Donald Trump supporters.

Shannon Riggs and her cousins were turned away from a Cook Out in Colonial Heights, Virginia, on Friday night, when they showed up in Donald Trump shirts and hats, WTVR reports.

Apparently, when Riggs attempted to order from the window, decked out in Trump apparel, an employee yelled "Hell no! I'm not serving them."

I hate hate hate Trump, but I actually don't like the actions of the employee. It's one thing if the people were scream to the guests to vote for Trump or some shit, but people shouldn't be denied service over their political affiliations imo.

[Ragnus]

I love Warren.

She doesn't add gender or ethnic diversity to the ticket. She's not from a swing state or even a different region of the country. She's very valuable in the Senate and we could lose a seat without her there.

Let's not pretend like there aren't significant negatives to the Warren for VP idea.

Yeah, despite Hillary barking up Warren's pantsuit since annoucing, she would be a terrible choice. She's pretty much vilified among even moderate, right leaning voters and she'd be giving up her Senate seat to a guaranteed Republican appointee by our governor.

[dasva]

I figured this belongs here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/cook-...mp-fans-2016-6




I hate hate hate Trump, but I actually don't like the actions of the employee. It's one thing if the people were scream to the guests to vote for Trump or some shit, but people shouldn't be denied service over their political affiliations imo.

Sounds like the company doesn't care about politics so probably didn't come from them. So basically employee just refusing to do their job... yeah gunna get fired. Now if it was a company decision then well no burger for you!

[Greatguardian]

"Once you witness [discrimination] firsthand, it's a totally different experience," Lauren Wolfrey, one family member, told WTVR. "I was in a state of shock."

Yeah, no shit.

[Quicklet]

You guys are reading too much into my comments. All I'm saying is that if the donors were the reason Warren didn't get picked, that could be a problem for Democratic unity either during the election or afterward. A lot of people will be pissed if they feel like they were sold out so that Hillary could make some deals with Republicans that give billions of dollars in new tax breaks to corporations.