Wednesday, October 12, 2016

How Madame BleachBit conceives of the Supreme Court

There is one exchange from Sunday night's debate that ought to be getting more attention. Each candidate fielded the question, "How would you go about appointing SCOTUS justices?"

Donald Trump answered mostly as expected for a candidate who owes a great deal of whatever remaining appeal he has to his promises regarding the court. Referring to the kinds of justices he would appoint, Trump said that he would pick those who “will respect the Constitution of the United States” and the Second Amendment. 
Clinton, on the other hand, used the opportunity to not outline the kind of Supreme Court she wants, but more of what she wants it to give her politically:
I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but, you know, maybe they tried some more cases, they actually understand what people are up against. 
Because I think the current court has gone in the wrong direction. And so I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark, unaccountable money out of our politics. Donald doesn't agree with that.
I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country, that we don't always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise. I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose, and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality.
Notice that the word “Constitution” wasn’t anywhere in her answer.
It's going to be all about identity politics, obliteration of the notion of the value of human life, class warfare and eradication of any opposition.

BTW, what the hell does "exercise their franchise" mean?


  1. What's wrong with a Supreme Court packed with students who became scholars of the law, then practiced (both sides), then judged (up the ladder) then can continue to argue the law, based on, well, the law. I can brook a sinner for a judge, as long as they don't become a saint.

  2. What I can't brook is that shit Madame BleachBit uses as criteria