ONLY AUTHORIZED ELECTION NEWS THREAD--no debating allowed

[B. de Corbin]

It is difficult to find a person(Judge) that can maintain neutrality in their judgments..but a person with enough integrity and honor can be just in their findings.

There's actually two problems that go on at the same time -

First, you're right. Everybody has built in biases, and, while it is possible to overcome them, one has to first become aware of them. This is why we needed a women's suffragette movement before women got to vote. The bias against women was so prevalent that most people just didn't question it.

The second problem is that the Constitution, as Thalassa said, is a LIVING document. The country's founders were better in their dreaming than they were in their life - which allowed them to talk about freedom while still holding slaves. We need to move in the direction of their dreams, not emulate their faults... So the Constitution sometimes needs amending.

Along with this, the original framers were not particularly great wizards for whom the future held no mysteries, despite what yo may sometimes hear. They could not, and did not predict many of the changes that would take place in our society in the following 220 years. The upshot of their great fault of failing to be infallible is that there are things not mentioned in the Constitution that have become of major importance today. The judges need to interpret the Constitution in these cases - but they can't go by the "letter of the law" because their IS no letter of the law.

When you add one and two together you do not always make people happy, but as long as you get three-ish, things will be OK.

[MaskedOne]

Among other things, letter of the law, would I'm relatively sure, require the Army to eat the Air Force...

Whether that's a good thing might be open to debate...

[anunitu]

All the whining about the rules in the GOP..and a tiny bit in the DNC I watched a piece on the news that mentioned these party groups are PRIVATE groups,and since they only nominate someone to run in their name,they can change the rules when ever they want. The whole people voting is more to allow the public to feel involved in the choice.

The general election is a whole other matter. That is by and for the American voters. In a technical way,the GOP,and the DNC could just pick who ever they want to run..no official government involvement in picking their candidate,except the rules as to being qualified(For Prez,being at least 35,citizen, and like that) I guess that means I can't run my pet turtle..

[anunitu]

You most likely know about the Koch brothers,and their republican backing.
Now Charles Koch has said this.

"Conservative billionaire Charles Koch says that it's possible that he could support Hillary Clinton for president over any of the GOP presidential candidates.

In an interview in Kansas that aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Koch was asked if it's possible for another Clinton to be better than another Republican after he said President Bill Clinton "in some ways" was better than President George W. Bush."

Not sure an endorsement for Hillary from him is a positive.

This election year is so full of surprises.

Buckle up kids,it is going to be a bumpy ride.

[ThePaganMafia]

He's not wrong. I would take a Clinton over an orange child and the theocrat no one can stand.

[Denarius]

She is the safest pick from a big business point of view, she loves her some corporations. The only other viable candidate as far as expanding corporate interests go is Cruz, and he's iffy at best.

[Tylluan Penry]

Out of interest... how do you pronounce Koch in the US?

[thalassa]

Like Coke in Diet Coke!

[Tylluan Penry]

Good grief! Here in Wales it would probably be Cosh.

[anunitu]

And here I was thinking this whole election could not get weirder,and then once again of course it does. Cruz being a bit of an a**hat,and trump being TRUMP(Thing is no one in the GOP likes ether one,but that's all they have left) I am glad Bernie has pushed Hillary to the left a little,even if he does not win.