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.
More than Obama.
Regards my tagline;
I don’t keep track of the mean spirited Cruz posters who congregate on the Walker threads, so I have no idea if you are one or not. I simply call them ‘The Cruz Contingent’.
The mere fact that you commented on the tagline as you did would indicates that you are probably NOT one of those who I pointed at.
If you were, your response would be more along the lines of what I got a long time ago. I am paraphrasing, but I’m not far off from the actual words used. It went something like this, ‘We don’t have time to convince you about Cruz, get the hell out of our way’.
Compare nearly any Cruz thread with nearly any Walker thread. You’ll see a very large number of Cruz ‘re-educators’ on the Walker threads, something that doesn’t happen in reverse.
By ‘re-educators’ I’m talking about mean spirited attacks, rather than discussions and questions about political positions. The attacks are worded in such a way that they appear to be designed ‘educate’ the reader not to question the posters knowledge.
To the question I ask in my tagline; from what I’ve seen of Cruz, he isn’t as mean spirited. He appears to be just the opposite.
Which is why I ask the question.
Thank you for your reasoned response.
I’m not always a big fan of some of the comments others make on Walker threads.
I may agree with them, but the wording and tactics wouldn’t be my choice.
That doesn’t mean I don’t think there’s fertile ground there. I just want some real reasons provided. If they are, I have much less of a problem with them.
I put a lot of thought into that line, born out of frustration.
It’s darn near impossible for me to find a thread about my guy Walker without seeing it turned into a shit-slinging contest by the Cruz Contingent.
If Walker is open to criticism on merit, I’m not against it if it is topical on the thread.
For instance I don’t go posting his immigration problem on non-immigration threads.
When the thread heralds his great stance on immigration, I jump in.
I know this is a real pain. It’s the season for it I guess. I don’t want to see this later in the year. Hopefully we won’t have twenty guys heading into the primaries.
You’re in denial. That isn’t what happens.
Even the most cursor glance at the threads can tell you that it turns into a Cruz-Contingent sponsored shit storm.
Have a good evening.
I wasn’t saying what you described doesn’t take place.
I’m not sure why you objected to my response.
Your words sounded like denial to me.
Sorry, I jumped to a wrong conclusion.
I explained in another post that I don’t always agree with other folk’s methods.
Here I more or less explained what guideline I try to go by.
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.