I get how you feel about Clinton or for that matter anyone out there that might be considered a moderate democrat. But I really posted the article because of my concerns over a Trump presidency. Of course the Clinton haters can and will dodge that issue and use it as a vehicle to attack Clinton. As I said earlier the attack on middle of the road democrats are -on this board- far more intense than the spectrum of Trump becoming President. That scenario is far scarier to me than Clinton ever could be. Of course there are those who say its hopeless, the system is rigged. Even the opening sentence in your post is “were out of time on climate change”. Well I’m not as cynical as you and I don’t believe we are “out of time”. The part that is given is that climate change is here to stay. But we can do things to not further escalate it at the pace we have been going. A Trump presidency may well further the escalation at an even faster pace. But maybe climate change and the continued pouring of fossil fuels into our atmosphere ain’t all that important to you. That seems to be the case when you casually state its all over and “were out of time”.

The one thing I notice about my “moderate” republican and democrat friends is that they are not susceptible to “group think”. They are mostly independent thinkers who believe in some policies advanced by republicans and some by democrats. And they even disagree among themselves on issues. However my far right -and I mean far -as in tea party-relatives (wife’ side) in Arizona and Colorado are all on the exact same page on every single issue. I sense the same with the progressive left.

The training of lawyers:

An interesting personal experience that validates WV’s post on how lawyers are trained to think: First day in law school and first class -Torts. Literally weeks had gone into my preparation for this first day. Mostly out of fear. Read all the cases, outlined them, even researched the issues in the library and ended up “knowing what was right”. Come to class which had about 60 people. Professor Kleinberg tells everyone to close their books and put away all written material they have brought. He then brings out a wooden spoon and a wooden fork. He starts by calling each student by name to stand up and tell him what they see. The first 20 or so students say roughly the same thing:” I see a wooden spoon and a wooden fork” Sometime around half way through the session a middle age woman stands up and says: I see two utensils”. Then someone else gets the idea: “I see two tools”. Another:”I see pieces of art”. Still another: “I see two weapons”, etc,etc. After class there was a rush to the podium with many asking the prof. what about the cases I spent so much time reading and outlining? Kleinberg says: ” if by the end of this semester you don’t understand the exercise we just went through you should not be a lawyer”. I went to his retirement not long ago and-you guessed it-he brought out his wooden “utensils”. (He also confessed that when he was a young student at Yale that same exercise was trust upon his initial class)

True story.

Zooey: I appreciated your lengthy post and most certainly can agree with your principals especially the environmental concerns. But I don’t know. I suppose its because of my age (77) that I have never identified with revolutionary politics. I grew up with the belief that our country is best left in the hands of a pragmatic president as opposed to an idealist. I look at those supporting Sanders and -likely because of their youth-they appear to come from a different world. I look at the Republican party today and they too look like aliens. I grew up in a Republican household-as much as it was (one parent)-where the party was controlled by moderates in the form of Eisenhower and Rockefeller. But when the face of America began to become darker and darker due to the migration of more and more people toward the northern hemisphere the Republican party began its movement to the right-beginning with the Goldwater “revolution”. To me that simply represented a group of mainly white older people who buried their heads in the sand, dug their feet in, and said collectively “we need and want to go back where this country was in the 50s “. Sound similar to Trump ? Anyway that’s when I became a democrat sensing a lot of the Goldwater rhetoric was racist based, reactionary, and simply an inability to see and accept what was coming no matter what.

In any event I paid attention to the debates this year-more so than in the past. The Republican debates just proved to me how sad that party had become (i.e. further and further to the goose stepping right) I watch the Democratic debates not so much to see how Clinton performed (I saw how she handled those Senate hearings dominated by Republicans out to destroy her) but how Sanders would be able to muster his knowledge of the facts in support of his very general positions on corporations, education, foreign interventions, etc. IMO he failed miserably. He simply was unable to articulate the means to accomplish what he believed should be done other than vague and simplistic solutions like “we will make Wall Street pay” That was disappointing to me since I too would like the perfect world he claims he can make. Clinton on the other hand a command of the details and the facts behind the issues and clearly demonstrated-to me-her toughness. For Sanders -its find to give Knute Rockney speeches before the game but you also have to know how to cross the goal line. When Sanders claims “we will get rid of Citizens United”-who the heck is “we”. As far as I know that will be left-if at all-to 9 justices on the Sup. Ct. And that faces the clear challenge of something we lawyers like to call Legal precedent. With all of Sanders rhetoric I kept hearing in my head Shakespeare’s quote in Macbeth re sound and fury signifying nothing.

I also genuinely believe that Clinton in her heart would like the same perfect world Sander’s describes. But she has a far better understanding when it comes to the practicalities of warfare politics. Moreover, she has demonstrated -to me-she can stomach
the war. I doubt Sanders has that quality. I suppose in sum at my age I’m simply old enough to realize that merely raging against the machine is not progress.

What is distressful to me is that on a board like this there seems to be little disgust at what a Trump presidency would mean to this country especially to our children and grandchildren in terms of the environment, economy, the rights of women, etc etc. I see little if any posts here on that subject. OTOH there seems to be more interest and disgust towards someone like myself because I’m not in the same group think. Below is an article on Sanders that should cause many of his supporter to move over to Jill Stein- should they choose.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-socialists-20160525-snap-story.html

Zooey: I am no fan of Citizen’s United-believe me. However, as a lawyer I do understand the legal rational that is the foundation for the decision. Additionally I find the antagonism of some on the left interesting. I assume you are a member of the teacher’s union only because of your occupation. If so there are more than ample articles on the net and in papers explaining that one of the largest benefactors of the decision was labor unions. I understand the argument as to why should my dues to into a general fund (i.e. treasury) to support an issue or candidate I oppose. However, that same argument can -and is-raised by shareholders in a corporation.

IMO the single most important issue before us and will have an impact on those less fortunate than us will be the next Sup Ct justice. W/ Clinton as president the odds favor a 5-4 liberal majority court. That will save Roe v Wade and will also likely result in severe restrictions to Citizens’s United or possibly overrule it. Those are quality of life decisions that have far more impact on the poor than any president could have. And if Trump becomes president forget about the rights of poor women to have what is now a legal abortion and forget about any restrictions or overruling the Citizen’s decision.

If Sanders is the nominee Trump will be the president. If Clinton is then she will be along with a likely change in congress and the Court that will insure far more protection for the very people who need it more than ever. To me it is critical to vote for Clinton even if one has to hold their nose to do so.

I also think a lot of Sanders followers are really no different than the Trump supporters in terms of their lack of any analytical inclination to really explore the issues. They are the same as Trump’s simplistic lets make American great again. Instead it’s lets blame the corporations for stuff that’s wrong. To me many of Sanders supporters including on this very board have given up (i.e. it’s hopeless, big money and corporacracy controls, so why not make a statement much like “we” did in Nader) I’m simply not that cynical. Moreover, I find that notion to be misguided and even juvenile when it comes to “doing something” that might actually cause a change-especially in the fortune of the poorest among us. And again the biggest change can and will come from a more sympathetic Sup Ct on issues that actually affect the poor. Remember, if not for one vote Al Gore would have been president for the next two terms. And if it were not for Nader the Florida vote would never have been an issue.

Now you may be one who is in the camp of “our political system is rigged and there really isn’t any hope”. Well if Trump becomes president the irony is he will have proved you wrong. I just think the entire matter is far more serious than school yard politics.

Forget about Citizen’s United

I haven’t read any opinions the guy has authored but he’s reported to be -hold your nose-a “centrist”. I think the Republicans will do what’s necessary to hold off any confirmation hearings until the election-unless of course there is a huge backlash.

Speaking of the Supreme Court there’s a pretty good book I recently read by Jeffrey Toobin titled “THE NINE” (Inside The Secret World of the Supreme Court)