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?
