Obama, Hillary or McCain ... does it even matter?

No difference. Same old bullshit. There is no real difference between the Republicans and Democrats other than in rhetoric. The only time you get something different is when you get a total doofus (Jimmy Carter, outsider who doesn't kiss the ass of the establishment to make bargains; George Bush, insider who says "fuck you" to the establishment and tries to steamroll what he wants). So if you see that personality in McCain or Clinton or Obama, yeah, there is a difference. I don't. So I actually see little difference between McCain and Clinton and Obama. They all take money from the same lobbyists, and do things to advance the ones who have given them the most money. They all say or do whatever is politically expedient to seduce people into voting or them (including contradicting themselves from month to month). So McCain will say "Republican" like things to seduce the Republicans who don't understand there is no difference, and Obama will say "Democrat" like things to seduce the Democrats who don't understand there is no difference. And in a general election, they will soften the rhetoric and try to say things that appeal to the broadest number of people. And it's all bullshit. Because when they get in office, the government you get from each will be exactly the same -- favors to those who took care of them and can continue to take care of them. And regardless of the political parties, those are essentially the same groups of people. It's corrupt by its very nature.

 

And that in a nutshell is a good chunk of what is wrong with the country. The Supreme Court isn't a legislative body. Yet, because it acts like one--and has taken over this duty from the actual legislature--this is more important to people than electing actual LEGISLATORS who will legislate the way they want. Instead there are people like you reduced to electing legistators (and an executive) who they believe will appoint judges who will legislate the way they want...

If judges were being judges and not actually making the laws, this wouldn't be a problem.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that the Constitution has a defined set of principles in it. Yet, because we have totally gone bonkers and lost sight of what the Supreme Court's role IS, those principles mean little; they can just make up new laws and bullshit their way through it to give it constitutional meaning that isn't there. We can have 9 justices who at any given point make up a new law and give it the weight of the highest court in the land... and people will elect a new president based on the fact that if he gets to appoint new justices, they are afraid those new justices will overrule what that older court did and change everything.

The constitution is the constitution, though. NOTHING about the constitution has changed. The only thing that has changed is how the new judges are going to "legislate" -- which isn't what judges should be doing! Justices are no longer judges, they are legislators--but ones who were never elected by us and have more power than the actual legislators to make laws.

It's a perversion of what was intended to be a check and balance.