I'm no Democrat, but I voted for these: tax reform, SS reform, the Equality Act, the constitutional amendments for campaign finance and electoral college, and "other."
Here's my suggestion for "other."
Improve the Supreme Court in a way that no Democrat has talked about in ages. Make sure that the people who get appointed to the Court are the most objective interpreters of law that can be found in this country. The kind of people who should be appointed are those like Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, and Judge Learned Hand. The Democratic Party has got to give over their ideological litmus tests - just like the Republicans have got to. I knew last year I would not be voting for Hillary Clinton when I heard her specifically say that she would have a litmus test for her Supreme Court appointees, that test being that her appointees must be predisposed to overturning
Citizens United v. FEC. I see nothing wrong with overturning that decision with a constitutional amendment, but I find it completely unacceptable to appoint anyone to the Court on the expectation that the appointee must overturn it. Also, the Democratic Party has got to stop clinging to their notion that
Roe v. Wade was a wonderful and irreversible precedent, and the same goes for the Court's same-sex marriage decisions. During the 2nd televised presidential debate last year, held about six miles from where I live (the campus of Washington University), Hillary said:
1) "I want to appoint Supreme Court Justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience, ... they understand what people are up against."
2) "I would want the Supreme Court to reverse
Citizens United and get dark, unaccountable money out of our politics."
3) "I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of the country."
4) "I want a Supreme Court that sticks with
Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose."
5) "I want a Supreme Court that sticks with marriage equality."
6) "I want a Supreme Court that doesn't always side with corporate interests. I want a Supreme Court that understands because you're wealthy and you can give more money to something that doesn't mean you have any more rights or should have any more rights than anybody else."
(
Source)
Number 1 was just a bland platitude that is neither here nor there. Number 3 was a valid, legitimate thing to say. Numbers 2, 4, and 5 all happen to be misinterpretations of the Constitution. The fact she said those three things was why I refused to vote for her. Regarding number 6, it would be interesting to see if she could point out any time when the Supreme Court always did rule in favor of corporate interests - always, every single time a case came up that involved the interests of a corporation - or when did the Court ever say that people with more money have more rights than anybody else.
The Supreme Court should not be either party's political tool. It should be made up of the nine most highly objective interpreters of law that can be found anywhere in this country. I need to hear a presidential candidate say that.
Poll
