Even if something is Constitutional, If there is no good Enough reason, and progressives don't

like something,then we should implore people to do as we insist.

If you don't make a law against something, you are for it. You should never waver in your convictions, nor allow politics to taint your choosing of battles.

... "even if it's something constitutional or legal, if we don't like it we'll scold people until we get our way" ...


:shrug:

How we negotiate, and how we make a stand, are crucial. How we appear to others is crucial.

This also tells how well we tolerate Dino's. Big or little tent.

The constitution is not designed, nor is it an arbiter of - what law is GOOD POLICY. It is, specifically the BOR, a limitation on Govt. power. That's all.

There are plenty of entirely constitutional laws that are fucking horrendous policy. Just because something is constitutional says NOTHING about whether it is good law, from a policy basis.

Contrarily, there are potential laws that would be good policy (rare, but they exist) but cannot be passed because of the constitution.

The problem imo that EVERYBODY does- conservatives, liberals, progressives, libertarians, etc. is that they tend to view constitutional analysis through a skewed lens, in that generally speaking if they support a law as policy they are likely to see it as constitutional and if they oppose it as policy the opposite is true. It's a general tendency, but it's SO true, and we see it all the time.

How would we govern, if we controlled all three. How we negotiate when we are in minority. How ready we are to CHANGE THINGS.

Sure I threw in what APPEARS to be spin. It is not scientific. Nor would it likely apply to Dems in general.