"Bernie or Bust!"

"I could never vote for Hillary"

"We need a revolution!"

These are the catchphrases I hear coming from the extreme wing of the Sanders supporters. In their minds, we are teetering on a precipice, and - like the Grinch whose heart grew 3 sizes - only he can save us from going over the edge. But there's also a little bit of the "if I don't get my way, I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude. These people feel that if Sanders does not become the Democratic Party nominee, then they will either a: write him in, b: stay home, or c: vote for Trump. Those options are based on whether they really love Bernie, think there's no point in choosing between Clinton and Trump, or think that having an incompetent, racist, narcissistic outsider is better than a more-than-competent, experienced insider.

Susan Sarandon is just the latest high-profile celebrity to weigh in on this shit show, but her rationale fits the narrative:

Yes - she (and numerous Sanders supporters) actually think there will be some sort of "revolution" sweeping the country, from sea to shining sea, replacing our sloth-like government with idealists who will usher in a bright new future where everyone shares the benefits of America's bounty. Perhaps they should all watch Les Miserables to see how ad-hoc revolutions tend to end up. They should also remember which side of the political spectrum tends to be well-armed.

The notion that Trump is no worse than Clinton (or that Clinton is as bad as Trump) is absurd. Sure - she's fairly moderate, and her positions tend to drift in the direction of political expediency. But there are still hard and fast boundaries between them, as it relates to women's rights (and just respect for women in general), minority rights, LGBT rights, religious freedom, etc. There is more at stake here than the 1% and Wall Street.

Two news items illustrate that importance. Yesterday, the SCOTUS deadlocked on a case involving unions that allowed a lower court ruling in favor of the unions to stand. It was Scalia's absence that made the difference. There is also the case that Trump's campaign manager has been charged with simple battery for assaulting a news reporter.

In both of those cases, the Court matters. The Courts have long been the final arbiter regarding laws and over-reaching public officials. Sometimes (in Trump's case), it's all that stands between our liberty and a politician's private "security" force. A Trump-friendly court would mean we'd begin to look a little more like a banana-republic - except one with an extremely powerful and well-funded military.

Regardless of anything else that this campaign is ostensibly about, it is ultimately about the Supreme Court. There is already one vacancy... 3 of the current members are in their 80s, so the next president may be putting 3-4 new members into that court. Do you really want Trump (and his "advisers") to be the ones doing the picking?

America or Bust.