What are your reasons for voting for Hillary?

[SillyAmerican]

In order of most to least important:

1. Finish the the decimation of the conservative federal judiciary from the top -> down. If a Republican is elected this year, the Supreme Court may very well remain with a conservative majority for many more years, especially if Kennedy retires at the beginning of the term to allow Trump to pick his successor. Kennedy is getting very old, after all. So at this point I don't care who the Democrat is, given the current composition of the Democratic party. Getting bad campaign finance decisions rolled back and voting rights protected again is my number one issue right now.

2. Prevent a Republican federal trifecta from setting back liberal causes god knows how long.

3. Sanders is too much of an activist-type for me, and I think once the attacks were to really start, he wouldn't fare so well in the GE. His no-PAC fundraising scheme really did it for me - It's crazy to go against Republicans without it. I want CU overturned, but I think for now it might not be wise / possible to try and take the high road to win. I' don't think he would be great for the party long-term, either. Not everyone is as liberal as him, yet he hasn't seemed like he has factored them into his campaign.

That's the most noteworthy reasons I have. I do want a woman president, but the issues really matter more than that, imo. I know that it's unlikely (so far) Democrats will be able to take back all of Congress while basically any Democrat holds the White House (as the president's party always has trouble making gains during such a time), but we can work on that later. The federal judiciary can not just be shaped at a whim.

(as for the courts - many times, there are some fundamental differences in how conservative and liberal judges interpret the law/constitution, and I have completely lost faith in conservatives after the evisceration of election laws/voting rights under the Roberts court)

Yes. This is exactly why Hillary should not be elected president. A left leaning, activist court will set the country back for a couple of generations. Having justices who interpret what the Constitution says, not what they want it to say, that is actually quite an important issue.

[SillyAmerican]

In order of most to least important:

1. Finish the the decimation of the conservative federal judiciary from the top -> down. If a Republican is elected this year, the Supreme Court may very well remain with a conservative majority for many more years, especially if Kennedy retires at the beginning of the term to allow Trump to pick his successor. Kennedy is getting very old, after all. So at this point I don't care who the Democrat is, given the current composition of the Democratic party. Getting bad campaign finance decisions rolled back and voting rights protected again is my number one issue right now.

2. Prevent a Republican federal trifecta from setting back liberal causes god knows how long.

3. Sanders is too much of an activist-type for me, and I think once the attacks were to really start, he wouldn't fare so well in the GE. His no-PAC fundraising scheme really did it for me - It's crazy to go against Republicans without it. I want CU overturned, but I think for now it might not be wise / possible to try and take the high road to win. I' don't think he would be great for the party long-term, either. Not everyone is as liberal as him, yet he hasn't seemed like he has factored them into his campaign.

That's the most noteworthy reasons I have. I do want a woman president, but the issues really matter more than that, imo. I know that it's unlikely (so far) Democrats will be able to take back all of Congress while basically any Democrat holds the White House (as the president's party always has trouble making gains during such a time), but we can work on that later. The federal judiciary can not just be shaped at a whim.

(as for the courts - many times, there are some fundamental differences in how conservative and liberal judges interpret the law/constitution, and I have completely lost faith in conservatives after the evisceration of election laws/voting rights under the Roberts court)

Yes. This is exactly why Hillary should not be elected president. A left leaning, activist court will set the country back for a couple of generations. Having justices who interpret what the Constitution says, not what they want it to say, that is actually quite an important issue.

The purpose of a living Constitution, which they all should be, is that they should be flexible enough to be interpreted to reflect the priorities, values and concerns of the community it SERVES. Why have a court or any capacity for amendment if it was meant to be set in stone?

True enough. However, when you have the Court specifying what a woman can do in which trimester of her pregnancy? That starts looking a lot like legislating, which is not the function of the court. Yes, I want the Constitution to be a living document but no, I do not want the nine people sitting on the high Court dictating policies that should be coming from Congress, no matter how altruistic and reasonable those nine people are. When the Court starts handing down decisions that get into the nitty gritty of specific issues, it's time to take a good hard look at whether the line is being crossed.

[SillyAmerican]

Yes. This is exactly why Hillary should not be elected president. A left leaning, activist court will set the country back for a couple of generations. Having justices who interpret what the Constitution says, not what they want it to say, that is actually quite an important issue.

I didn't say activist. How do you define that? Not all judges interpret the Constitution the same, and that is why there are different wings of the court that diverge on numerous issues. I don't believe in the textualist view, maybe you do, but you should also accept that there different opinions on a lot of this.

Interpreting the Constitution is not the issue; I understand that there will be differences of opinion regarding how to apply what the Constitution says. Where I draw the line (and where I believe the Constitution draws the line) is at the point where Justices start getting into the minutiae of an issue. The politics of a person on the Court should be of secondary importance; the primary concern should be having people that will not try to impose their politics from the bench, as that goes beyond what the Court was designed to do, and will just lead to problems down the road.