Posted on 05/16/2015 3:55:19 PM PDT by NYer
According to the Washington Post, Hillary Clinton told a group of her fundraisers that she will have a litmus test for her nominees to the Supreme Court (if she should win the presidency): they will have to agree with her that the 2010 Citizens United ruling must be overturned. In that ruling the Supreme Court held that corporations have First Amendment rights to engage in political speech and to spend money on such speech. In making her pledge, Mrs. Clinton follows Bernie Sanders, who is also running for president.
If Republican critics of Mrs. Clinton wanted to be demagogues about it, they could seize on this remark and accuse her of trying to politicize the Supreme Court and destroy its independence. After all, folks on the American left have very often made this claim about conservatives who have complained about rulings that they thought were wrong and who have sought ways to push back against the Court. Mrs. Clinton’s method of getting results–stacking the Court with nominees who have made her an assurance that they will vote a certain way–is simply an exercise in raw political force. Moreover, it would be inconsistent with the ethic that seems to inform every judge these days who is nominated to the Supreme Court. When they come before the Senate Judiciary Committee, they all say that it is inappropriate for them to say how they would vote on some future case, since they are not supposed to know until they actually hear the case.
This, by the way, points to a practical problem with Mrs. Clinton’s promise. Since she has made this remark, if she is elected president, and if she gets to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, the most obvious question for the Republican members on the Judiciary Committee to ask will be: “Did the president, or anyone representing the president, seek or get an assurance from you that you would vote to overturn the Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case?” The nominee can say “yes” or “I’m not going to answer that question,” either of which answers will certainly damage his or her ability to get confirmed. Or the nominee can say “no,” in which case he or she will be revealing that Mrs. Clinton did not actually act on her campaign promise. This is messy every which way.
In any case, Republicans should resist the urge to engage in demagoguery on this question. The fact is, if Mrs. Clinton thinks the Citizens United ruling is egregiously wrong, then she has every right, and even a duty, as president to nominate justices who would correct it. And there is nothing wrong with her trying to find out of the people she intends to nominate are in fact so disposed.
On this other hand, this also means that there is nothing wrong with a Republican president applying a litmus test and nominating only justices who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Catholic ping!
The Senate seems more than willing to confirm the most blatantly unqualified and/or racist and/or anti-American candidates. It apparently doesn’t matter what the candidate believes or how damaging those beliefs are to what most of us view as the traditional American ideals.
Scalia and Kennedy both turn 80 next year. The next president will replace at least one of them, probably both.
If Hillary is our next president, there will be a far left wing majority on the Supreme Court legislating from the bench for the next 30 years.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Is it possible to be more evil than Obama? Yes.
In any case, Republicans should resist the urge to engage in demagoguery on this question. The fact is, if Mrs. Clinton thinks the Citizens United ruling is egregiously wrong, then she has every right, and even a duty, as president to nominate justices who would correct it............. On this other hand, this also means that there is nothing wrong with a Republican president applying a litmus test and nominating only justices who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
She and her husband made sure they used a pro-abortion litmus test in the appointments of Justices Breyer and Ginsburg.
Who believes that a Dem candidate will actually fulfill a campaign promise?
Say this hypothetical SC candidate admits to Congress that no, he/she wasn't asked how she would rule on Citizens United.
Ahah, gotcha! say the Repubs.
Yawn, says the sheeple.
First, let me explain my thoughts on your tagline.
After watching Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain, and Romney rope-a-dope against Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama, I do hope that Cruz will be as willing to point out Walker’s weaknesses has I have been.
It would give me confidence he would be prepared to go up against the worst the Democrats had to offer, which was not the case over the last 23 years.
I know that some people think I have been very unfair to Walker, but I provided a link to his own comments to take him to task.
His supporters refused to acknowledge what he said in plain English, characterizing me as not only extremely unfair to Walker, but also having to be a stealth Bush supporter.
While you may not have done so, I am a person that has been characterized as you are characterizing people with your tagline.
And, Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are getting old too. As liberals, they would be replaced by younger liberals, so would not tip the balance of the court if a Pres. Hillary picks their replacements.
Just saying, the next pres. may replace Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, and Ginsburg. Whoever that president is, will have a big impact on the future direction of the Supreme Court.
And the lower federal courts too.
I’ve heard that just due to regular turnover, about 1/3 of all federal judges now serving were appointed by Obama.
if Hillary is elected president, then that will be four to eight more years of liberal judges flushing out conservatives from courts, from the lower courts all the way to the Supreme Court. This coming election is very important to the future make up of our courts.
I believe that it’s fair to take her to task for her advocacy, if her advocacy is for something that is wrong.
If you are saying that it would be wrong to take her to task on litmus tests, I would agree. We should use litmus tests too.
If she is emphasizing that abortion should be readily available, then I would say she’s open to strident criticism.
I didn’t enter this thread to read the subject matter or comment on it, so I’m not claiming to know what her emphasis was.
So if Clinton and Sanders really want to stop conservative-owned corporations from supporting RINO candidates for office then this is what they must do. Instead of working outside the framework of the Constitution by bullying the Supreme Court to either limit or put a complete stop to corporate campaign contributions, Clinton and Sanders must do as follows.
They must work with state and federal lawmakers to propose to the states whatever kind of amendment to the Constitution that it takes to limit 1st Amendment protections and put a stop to such campaign contributions. And if the states choose to approve the amendment then corrupt Congress will have the constitutional authority that it requires to make laws to restrict such contributions, and Clinton and Sanders will be heroes.
I don't think the author understands what demagoguing is.
demagogue
[dem-uh-gog, -gawg]Examples
Word Origin noun
1. a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.2. (in ancient times) a leader of the people. verb (used with object), demagogued, demagoguing.
3. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc. verb (used without object), demagogued, demagoguing.
4. to speak or act like a demagogue.
Thanks for the advice, lefty, but criticism in and of itself is not demagoguery.
The Senate seems more than willing to confirm the most blatantly unqualified and/or racist and/or anti-American candidates
That’s true. Republican Senators vote to approve, while Democrats go for the throat of nominees they don’t like. Numerous Bush appointees withdrew or were never confirmed.
Look what they did to Bork and Thomas.
If you’re concerned about the Supreme Court, make sure the GOP nominates Cruz or Walker.
The RNC seems to have already decided Bush is the designated loser
The SC is no longer independent and hasn’t been for years.
There’s a bigger problem than Hillary or any left winger becoming president. There has to be a conservative senate to stop her AND who will stand up to the liberal minority.
...told a group of her fundraisers that she will have a litmus test for her nominees to the Supreme Court (if she should win the presidency): they will have to agree with her that the 2010 Citizens United ruling must be overturned.
All Hillary would have to do would be to appoint a black female and enough Republicans will be afraid to vote no that the nominee will be confirmed.
Newspaper shills for liberal elites. ABC, NBC and CNN have liars posing as journalists...
Every two bit democrat liar gets knee pad coverage for free from the ‘press’. Conservatives are suppose to pretend it’s not happening - that the liars who run ‘the news’ aren’t biased liberal elite jerks...
But we know they are....
George Stephanopoulos doesn’t pretend to be a journalist for OUR benefit. No, he’s a Clinton boy.... Candy Crowley doesn’t step into a Presidential debate to defend a conservative. No, that’s never gonna happen. That kind of bias and favoritism is reserved for white liberal elite jerks. Only.
Oh - and eff ABC ‘news’...
Newspapers shill for liberal elites. ABC, NBC and CNN have liars posing as journalists...
Every two bit democrat liar gets knee pad coverage for free from the ‘press’. Conservatives are suppose to pretend it’s not happening - that the liars who run ‘the news’ aren’t biased liberal elite jerks...
But we know they are....
George Stephanopoulos doesn’t pretend to be a journalist for OUR benefit. No, he’s a Clinton boy.... Candy Crowley doesn’t step into a Presidential debate to defend a conservative. No, that’s never gonna happen. That kind of bias and favoritism is reserved for white liberal elite jerks. Only.
Oh - and eff ABC ‘news’...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.