Republicans had spent the last eight years demonizing all things Clinton (not to mention all the years demonizing her husband). By the time it came to run for office she had probably lost 40% of the vote the day she started regardless of who ran against her or what she did and I think liberals vastly underestimated the depth of hatred (yes, hatred) that existed for her. They despised her on a visceral level whether it was deserved or not.
I don’t disagree she was a deeply flawed candidate and I was shocked at her diehard supporters here and among my acquaintances who refused to see those flaws. As a liberal I deeply disliked her as a candidate. I voted for her in the end only because the alternative was so profoundly bad but that’s it.
I’m an independent and ex-Republican that voted for her as the alternative was Trump and I was fiercely fearful of what the court would end up looking like if HRC lost. But I also felt she would have made for an OK President despite being a terrible candidate. She was probably more appealing to me then to true liberals as in the end as the Clintons were pretty moderate if not very likable people.
I wish the older more liberal Supreme Court Justices had chosen to retire shortly after Obama’s re-election. Now we are faced with a court that is going to be stacked with social conservatives. It is going to be ugly.
James Comey has become Hilary Clinton’s Steve Bartman. Did the letter have an impact? Yeah, sure, it played a role. But there were several factors that lost her the election. And I personally don’t believe the Comey letter was among the top three.
If Trump signs the Religious Liberty executive order today that’s democracy at work! No room for courts to decide things like discrimination. No siree. If the president says discrimination is ok then that’s the will of the people and the will of the people is the only thing that counts! :rolleyes:
What’s interesting to me is that the correlation of opinion about the impact of the Comey letter to political ideology has largely flipped in the aftermath of the election.
When the letter was released, Republicans were more inclined to think it would have an impact and Democrats to say it wouldn’t. In the aftermath of the election, Republicans are more likely to downplay the impact and Democrats to play it up.
Here’s a thread on the subject prior to the election. My own post - which I still stand by - is #44.
Let’s accept this as true (and I won’t contend that it isn’t); if Hillary Clinton is such a manifestly losing candidate to begin with, why the fuck would the DNC leadership push so hard to make her their clear choice? Not only did they undermine their base enough that a significant portion turned to a non-Democrat to the extent that the primary process–intended to showcase the options and select the best out of the field of options–became its own cavalcade of comedy.
Not so great when the legislature is dominated by people (on both sides of the political map) who are more beholden to corporate interests than they are to the needs of their constituents. Calling what we have right now a “democracy” is true only in the pravda sense of the term. These are people who couldn’t even pass an extension of the Zadroga Act without turning it into a legislative shitstorm, and it took a fucking comedian shaming them into even responding to the question of why they couldn’t support it. (I love how Senator Rob Portman tries is level best to naming Mitch McConnell as being responsible for holding up the bill.)
The Supreme Court exists to balance the legislative capriciousness of representatives beholden to political interests, and it is in everyones’ advantage to have a court that is ideologically balanced so that it doesn’t skew decisions to one political bent or the other, and that at least the minority position is represented by more than one or two voices on the court.
Because Clinton had people beholden to her all throughout the DNC and the democratic party at large.
How many superdelegates pledged to her at the outset? All of them (or at least most). The head of the DNC had her thumb on the scale for Clinton all along and ultimately had to resign over it. Hell, even most of the press (at least the non-conservative press) was shilling for her. Donna Brazile tanked a respectable career by leaking debate questions to Clinton.
Clinton probably felt she was robbed of the presidency in 2008 and, in her mind, this was her turn. She was going to take it no matter what. Nevermind how much she was disliked and all her negatives. The presidency was hers in her view. Period.
That’s not the same thing. I object to calling the actions of The People, through their elected officials, “legislative capriciousness”. The SCOTUS is not there to override the will of The People, from whom the entire government derives its legitimacy to govern.
The fundamental will of the people was laid down in the constitution. If the legislative branch passes laws counter to that document it is absolutely the role of the judicial branch to push back on that.
The judicial branch gets its legitimacy from the will of the people. The executive appoints judges, the legislative confirms and the legislative can impeach and the constitution can be amended if necessary.
If congress passed a law revoking the right of women to vote you are suggesting the court has no role in striking that down because it is the will of the people to stop women from voting.
When the court overturned gun laws in Heller was that five judges unfairly thwarting the will of the people?
No, that is absolutely a fact. The judicial branch of the federal government exists to interpret and apply laws, including striking them down when they are in conflict with the Constitutional recognized civil protections and rights, regardless of what a majority of legislators vote for. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what the legislature is able to dictate, and also what the executive branch can control through regulation and executive dictate. That is absolutely a part of our federal republic system (which is explicitly not a democracy).
The notion of “judicial activism” is about as febrile and misemployed as “states rights”, e.g. it is applied perjoratively when the challenging party is not happy with the result and otherwise ignored when they get a favorable judgment. The courts cannot reach out and change legislation or nullify executive directions on a whim; they can only do so in response to a challange, and in a documented judgment that is aligned with some interpretation of the Constitution. We don’t all agree with interpretations of the Constitution–hell, even the Founding Fathers weren’t all in agreement with the document they all voted on, hence why they almost immediately passed ten amendments to it making certain protections explicit–which is why ideological balance is important in the courts, and particularly in the Supreme Court. And the notion that that interpretation should never change even as we experience changes as a society, i.e. giving the womenfolk and darkies the right to participate in the franchise, abandoning the notion that only wealthy landowners should participate in governance, having a greater understanding of science and medicine, modern technology and how it applies to privacy and freedom of expression, is just blindly reactionary.
This doesn’t mean that justices should reinterpret expressly defined rights however they please (hence why gun control advocates cannot simply waive away the Second Amendment even if they believe it to be arcane or misapplied), but when a novel technology like the Internet comes along that would never have been imagined by the Founders and challenges are made in how to regulate and use it, it is the courts that interpret the basic intent of the Constitution in terms of how this technology will be used. A Supreme Court that is ideologically predisposed to rule in a particular way essentially nullifies that check.
Yes, in her own way she is just as narcissistic as Donald Trump. The “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?” comment just served to highlight it, and her recent “I accept responsibility but it was Comey’s fault,” serves to reinforce it. A better person would step back and acknowledge that after two attempts she just isn’t the candidate best suited to get a win for her party, and out her political support behind someone who is. But she’s not a better person; she has a personal reputation of being petty, micromanaging, intractable, and spiteful that she manages to keep in check at the best of times but that comes out when she is focused on her goal of being elected. And her loss was everyones’ loss, including those who voted against her. Donald Trump isn’t going to serve anybody but Donald Trump and the interests that can sway him, and the best thing we can hope for is that when he goes down he pushes the “Deliver me a soda” button rather than the “Nuke all opponents” button, and maybe takes Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell down with him.
Legislative capriciousness is passing the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001” without ever reading the fucking thing or taking any stock in the long term implications of it.
Our system of goverment is representative of the people at large, but recognizes that there are certain “inalienable rights” that the government cannot infringe upon and is obligated to protect regardless of what 50.1% of the population wants or believes. That “legitimacy” comes from the Constiution which, with its amendments, explicated those rights and provides a mechanism for expanding or curtailing them as agreed upon by a supermajority of Congresspeople (2/3rds majority in both houses) or a convention of states (2/3rd majority). I know that you know this, so why you are insisting that the US government is purely representative of a simple majority of “the public will”, which at this point is actually more the campaign funding provided by superPACs and wealthy individuals with personal agendas rather than the desires of an informed constituency is beyond me. The courts do not exist to rubber stamp legislation just because it has popular support; they exist to check it against the agreed upon principles of our federal system and assure that people in the minority are protected from mob action.
You forget what triggered this little side discussion. We were talking about judicial rulings vs legislative action to affect social change. It wasn’t that many post ago:
If you’re arguing outside that area, then your arguing against a straw man.
