Quite the comeback by him in Iowa. All I know about him is he married to widow to the heir of the Heinz fortune. I really haven't thought much about the Democrat primary. All of this politics starts way to soon for me. Wish football season was this long. I'd consider voting for the Democrat. I voted for Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Reagan. But what scares me about the Democrats is they seem to lately be more concerned with appointing judges who follow the Rule of Judges rather than the Rule of Law. That Rule may result in some decisions you like and some you don't, but I still think its a bad thing for democracy.
Both parties are guilty of appointing judges to be policymakers. "Activism" or "making law" simply means making rulings you don't like. "Following the law" just means you agere with it. Judges like Scalia are very creative when it comes to expanding state power. Scalia believes it's OK to keep soeone locked up if they can prove they're innocent. Conservative judges have upheld forfeiture laws even though the Constitution explicitly forbids depriving a person of property without due process. All a bunch of hypocrites.
he has a terrible hair thing going on. he will lose the democratic nod for that alone. people in Iowa are looney!
Oh I know what you are saying about critics, picking and choosing what they don't like and calling it actvism. I believe the current Court protects 2 interests: big business and those who can't carry their crusades at the ballot box. Whether its the Court overturning laws meant to rein in the power of big business or the Court overturning laws meant to set community standards, I disagree with that type of activism. That's what I refer to as Rule of Judges, rather than Rule of Law. We are becoming a society ruled be Elites moreso than ever. Whether its the Big Business Elites or the Academic Elites. I support due process. I don't support substantive due process. I think that's a tool for anti-democratic forces and Rule of Judges.
