But the Republicans scare me, especially that they'd continue stocking the courts with wackos; they'd feed the war machine ever more; and they'd continue grabbing power for their "unitary executive" theory.
I'll take someone who means well, and expect a reasonable performance and a supreme court that can hold off the fascists for at least another 10 years.
2 comments:
By "wackos" and "fascists", you mean "consitutionalists who don't want the judicial branch to legislate"?
I'm not excited about either candidate either, and I agree with you that the courts are the part of the battle worth fighting over, but we apparently disagree on the philosophy of "checks and balances".
The problem with the "justices who legislate" issue is that both sides complain when a justice appears to "legislate" in a way disagreeable way, but is silent or refuses to acknowledge the appearance of "legislation" when the judgment rules in their favor. Everyone is a partisan. Everyone wants to "win" for their interests.
It's easy to call one's own pick for supreme court justice a "constitutionalist" but they are all "constitutionalists" in that they are charged with ruling on the constitutionality of the cases they choose to hear. Any other use of that term appears to me as rhetorical.
I currently fear corporate and religious fascism more than I fear populism or socialism, although I want to emphasize I am not pleased with any category of politician generally, and these are all dangers to the long-term health of society.
Post a Comment