Why Haven't Dems Educated The Public On The Danger Of Another Scalia?

[eniwetok]

I hate it when there's a chance to educate the public during an election, and big issues are never discussed. Take Scalia... the issue here isn't just the right to choose or same sex marriage rights... but Scalia's bastardization of the Constitution that is the basis of his positions. So why do right wingers love Scalia?

Bork, who was rejected and Scalia were gifts from Reagan to social conservatives in that they intended to negate the Ninth Amendment fearing it would protect rights social conservatives didn't want the People to have. Instead of protecting the Constitution as they were sworn to do, the negation of the Ninth radically transformed the Constitution from protecting pre-existing rights minus those surrendered to create government powers, to an assumption of government powers over rights... unless the People created created new rights. To quote libertarian Sheldon Richman writing about Scalia

"His point is painfully clear: the government can do anything unless the Constitution expressly forbids it. No surprise here; Scalia has long made his views known. They are horrifying nonetheless. His views are based on an incorrect, indeed, a pernicious, notion of what the U.S. Constitution was and is supposed to be. In fact, he stands the Constitution on its head. Instead of a document that protects individual liberty by reining in government power, Scalia would make it one that protects government power by reining in individual liberty."

Scalia also bastardized the Second from an amendment states asked for to protect their state militias from Congress's new Art 1, sec 8 powers... into an individual right unconnected to militia service. Any right for a responsible citizen to own a firearm could be found in the Ninth... but in Scalia's world, the Ninth is meaningless.

Then there's Scalia's radical agenda for corporate personhood... where creations of government were being given rights beyond what was necessary to carry on business... thus turning our creations into Frankensteins that could use their wealth and power to mold government to its needs.

So why wasn't Hillary out there trying to educate the voters on this issue... building the foundation for rejecting future Scalias? It might also change the views of some right wingers on Scalia.

[world wide wally]

1. Do you really expect Trump voters to understand all that legal mumbo jumbo?

They didn't even figure out that pussy grabber is offensive.

[eniwetok]

2. why not?

This effort should have kept up ever since it was clear this was the GOP's strategy back in the 80's. But then the Dems can be clueless. They've had 35 years to take on and expose Starve The Beast... to educate the public on debt and money pissed away on interest... and even though it poses an existential threat to New Deal and Great Society programs, they still haven't.

[KamaAina]

3. Because half the public can't name even ONE Supreme Court justice.

[eniwetok]

6. So Dems should not challange ignorance?

Not sure what you're saying. Is it that Dems should not bother educating the public because too many don't care?

I believe Dems must be taking on at every turn the constitutional rationale the far right uses to limit civil rights while expanding corporate rights. Just think of how dangerous expanded corporate personhood is... and yet I don't recall either Bernie or Hillary exploring the roots of the corporate form...

If one only fights for issues, such as the right to choose, it doesn't teach anyone the constitutional rationale behind the right... but once one does deal on the level of constitutional principle, it can disarm some of the arguments right wingers use.

[etherealtruth]

4. Many are heavily invested in "Guns, god, and 'Gays" ... plus a heavy dose of

"anti-reproductive choice" for women ... your list is a list of positives (and must haves) for the right wingers that are aware .... the rest have no idea what the SCOTUS is/ what it does (nor do they really care).

[eniwetok]

10. there are more issues than what makes the news

But there are other issues that don't make the news that raise Ninth Amendment issues. For instance the use of pot by responsible adults. If we were to be a nation where government powers were subtracted from natural rights, where was government ever given the power to limit the rights of responsible pot users? Isn't ANY government action that exceeds legitimate intent an abuse of power?

[haele]

5. Because only the Conservitives with Roe V Wade in their crosshairs really care about the Court.

There was plenty of information and attempts to convince voters about the Supreme Court make-up; heck, that's been a Democratic call to action to "vote" since 2003.
However, to be honest, most people don't think about the Supreme Court when they decide they're going to get out and vote, just as they don't really think about who's going to run cabinet positions in the Administration that wins the presidency.

I think it's probably because those aren't elected position where someone actually comes out to their community and talks about what they represent. And the idea of a judge is something only people who have to go to court think about, not any of the real law-making or leading sort of process they vaguely have an idea that government is supposed to do.

If I ask any of my non-political/history wonk friends today about Scalia, he's still an abstract - just as I suspect he was to most people. They don't know why he would have been important to them. He wasn't really on the celebrity/news radar except for the day he was appointed, and the day he died. Clarence Thomas is only remembered because of Anita Hill. Ginsburg - because she sniped at Trump. There are people at work who were surprised when Trump started complaining about her; they honestly thought "she died a few years ago and had been replaced by that guy who's name was similar to the other guy who just died - or maybe one of those women Obama nominated".

Haele

[eniwetok]

8. if Scalia was "abstract" that proves the Dems aren't doing their job

The Dems had 30 years to expose him. Not enough time?

Obviously the GOP isn't going to explain to their base who Scalia was because he was a right wing politician masquerading as a Justice... and his way of advancing a right wing agenda was to bastardize the Constitution.

But one can't make that charge without backing it up.

[eniwetok]

11. so liberals don't care about the court?

Because only the Conservitives with Roe V Wade in their crosshairs really care about the Court.

Isn't the right to choose an issue liberals care about?

What about corporate personhood, same sex marriage, gun rights, etc? We ALL need to care about the court... but we also need to know the constitutional basis for our positions.

Every chance to educate the base and deprogram the right that's not taken is more than a lost opportunity because in politics if one's not on perpetual offense, they're losing ground.

[haele]

12. When talking about Liberal voters v liberal population...

Sadly, the majority liberal population seems to be more willing to let someone else make the decision on how the Supreme Court is constructed it they aren't interested in candidates or propositions.
What else can explain conservitive wins when overall voter turnout or 45 to 50 percent -when statistics indicate that at least 70% of eligible voters prefer liberal policies?
Yes, we'll come out and march when we feel we're being directly threatened, but for some reason, except for our activists, liberals are more likely to live their local lives than pay attention to political trends and long-term strategies.
Sorry if it seems unacceptable or insulting to people who have struggled and suffered for expansion of rights and fairness in justice, but history has witnessed this time and again. Good people will stand by rather than risk discomfort because they don't see how another's knawing hate or fear can change the world.

Haele

[eniwetok]

13. my sense is liberals have no vision nor strategy

I've never had any sense liberals Dems have a vision of where to take this nation in 25-50 years. The furthest out their horizon tends to go is the next presidential election. They have deluded themselves that the GOP is dying because demographics are on their side. What nonsense. This lack of vision and a strategy to get there puts liberal Dems at an immediate disadvantage to the far right which has has a long range and coordinated strategy to roll back the New Deal and Great Society.

[ismnotwasm]

7. First hit on Google-

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/hillary-clinton-heres-what-i-want-in-the-supreme-court.html

[eniwetok]

9. it's exactly what I mean...

When HRC discussed the Court, she spoke in terms of issues when the court is to decide matters of law. Her job is to also explain WHY those issues she favors is based in the Constitution... and why Scalia and company were bastardizing the Constitution by inventing new doctrine.