One way Clooney is just like Clinton is that he wants Supreme Court Justices who will be dedicated to overturning Citizens United v. FEC. That is a reason why I refuse to support him just like I refused to support Clinton. If you want badly to overturn a Supreme Court precedent, propose a constitutional amendment, but don't appoint anyone to the Court based on a one-issue litmus test.
Is there anything you care about that isn't SCOTUS appointees?
In presidential politics, no.
In legislative politics, I want to see a constitutional amendment that rewrites Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to make its meaning narrower and clearer.
They're related, of course. The SCOTUS renders more erroneous decisions about the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th than anything else in the Constitution, IMO, and I decided there needs to be a a two-front battle for how to improve the Court's interpretation of them.
So you genuinely don't care about anything but SCOTUS appointees and rewriting an amendment in a way that probably takes away peoples rights? Why are you on this site?
I care about those issues much more than anything else.
You assume that my idea for rewriting the 14th Amendment will "takes away people's rights." Most of the "rights" I want to "take away" from people are the "rights" that came from the Supreme Court Justices, not from the intended meaning of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th. I want to "take away" from the Supreme Court (and other federal courts) the power to
define the rights of the people. The Court has said, twice, that they have an "obligation ... to define the liberty of all," and I want to tell the Justices:
Oh no, you don't! You never had that obligation; there never was anything, in the Constitution, that obligated you, the judicial branch, to define how much freedom people deserve to have! Your obligation is to expound on the rights that are in the Constitution, not expand them! I want to tell the judiciary - and the whole country - that the Ninth Amendment is only binding on the federal government, not the states (as our Founding Fathers originally intended). The rights that states are obligated to respect and to not violate are ones which will be enumerated in the proposal I envision, and the kinds of discrimination that any level of government are not allowed to engage in will also be enumerated in the proposal.
A little over 3 years ago I drafted a long and detailed proposal, and I tried to make it ideologically balanced - a compromise; a collection of ideas not all of which will make conservatives completely happy nor liberals, but both sides can find some things in it to root for. The last section of it denounces the Court's decision in
Bush v. Gore, and tells the courts to never make a mistake like that ever again, which is something very important to me and will be one of the things liberals can root for.
I am proposing to take away from the Supreme Court a huge chunk of the power to "legislate from the bench," and return that power back to legislatures where it belongs. Once that is accomplished, then the various other issues that I have opinions about -- abortion, gay equality, gun ownership, this, that and another economic issue, national security -- will be things I'll spend more time conversing about.
Finally, I'm on the site because sites like this are where people will discuss Supreme Court appointments, and ideas for amendments to the U.S. Constitution. I have not posted exclusively about the two issues most important to me.
