Bernie Sanders Takes Dead Aim On Citizens United Ruling

[Purveyor]

Source: Politico

Any nominee he’d ever make to the Supreme Court would need to be opposed to it.

By Eliza Collins

5/10/15 12:33 PM EDT

Sen. Bernie Sanders hates the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling and if he becomes president he'll make sure his Supreme Court nominees vote to overturn it, he said Sunday.

“If elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice and that nominee will say that they are going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision,” the Vermont independent said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Though he understands why Hillary Clinton will be using a Super PAC to raise funds – she has said she doesn’t like it but she has to compete – he will not use one, he said. The senator, who is now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has long warned about the insidious influence of big money in politics.

Since his presidential announcement less than two weeks ago, Sanders said nearly 90,000 people have donated to his campaign, averaging $43 each.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/bernie-sanders-takes-dead-aim-on-citizens-united-ruling-117792.html

[BrotherIvan]

1. I saw that and was like, damn, that man has guts

Hopefully guts is enough. Wow.

[brooklynite]

10. Guts to repeat something Hillary Clinton said last week?

Of course, when HILLARY says it, that's pandering...

[BrotherIvan]

11. Could you please post a link

where Clinton explicitly said she has a litmus test for Supreme Court judges who must commit to overturning Citizens United? Thanks.

[PosterChild]

12. Hillary has been straight forward . ..

... in her opposition to citizens united.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/14/hillary_clinton_says_she_d_want_to_overturn_citizens_united_her_super_pac.html

[BrotherIvan]

15. That's not what I asked for

brooklynite claimed that Bernie was repeating what Hillary said. He did not.

She's saying she wants a Constitutional amendment for CU, which as president she would have no control over. All the while, she will be availing herself of CU more than any Democrat in US history (or world history for that matter). She and Bill are fundraising for her PAC already. Do you think voters think she is sincere?

[PosterChild]

16. You don't always get what you want...

... but sometimes you get what you need

[BrotherIvan]

18. I'll wait until brooklynite can back up his claim, thanks

[PosterChild]

21. Then again, you might want to be...

... a bit more independent and do a little investigating on your own....

http://blog.pfaw.org/content/clinton-recognizes-key-role-supreme-court-nominations-protecting-our-democracy

You might also want to be a bit more open minded about the candidates and a bit less literalistic and nit picking. We all know that both bernie and hillary oppose the citizens united ruleing and would like to correct the situation.

You should focus one something that more definitively differentiates the two. This really doesn't.

[brooklynite]

35. How about this?

Hillary Clinton’s litmus test for Supreme Court nominees: a pledge to overturn Citizens United

Hillary Clinton told a group of her top fundraisers Thursday that if she is elected president, her nominees to the Supreme Court will have to share her belief that the court's 2010 Citizens United decision must be overturned, according to people who heard her remarks.

Clinton's emphatic opposition to the ruling, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums on independent political activity, garnered the strongest applause of the afternoon from the more than 200 party financiers gathered in Brooklyn for a closed-door briefing from the Democratic candidate and her senior aides, according to some of those present.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/

Just like she told me...

[brooklynite]

17. She said this at an event I was at last week; I've previously mentioned this...

[BrotherIvan]

19. Can you please post a link

Not where she says she is against Citizens United and perhaps a Constitutional convention. But what SHE would do if elected president. Your statement says that Bernie was just repeating what she said last week. He is saying he would only appoint Supreme Court nominees who were against Citizen's United which is a very strong statement. Could you please post a link to a similar/same one by Clinton?

And not only that, to say she is against Citizens United and then avail herself richly of the ruling is a very dangerous position. I'm a little shocked, but not surprised. I find it a huge campaign blunder. She didn't have to talk about it at all.

[PosterChild]

22. Seems like we have a first hand report ...

... from someone who was actually present and heard what she said. That's pretty good. We know Hillary is against the citizens united ruleing, so this isn't and shouldn't be surprising. What's the problem?

[Purveyor]

20. {{{chuckle}}} indeed. eom

[brooklynite]

29. I see...so you think she lied to me...and to 100 deep pockets funders

...when she'll be coming back to us for major funding later in the campaign?

Is there a reason you can think of she'd WANT to retain CU? (other than, of course, some tired cliche like "she's in the pocket of Wall Street", which if you think of it, isn't where most of the CU money is coming from).

[kenfrequed]

41. Eh...

Bernie has been speaking out against Citizens United since the decision was handed down. I don't really think he is chasing Hillary on this issue. Implications otherwise seem a bit unlikely.

[Larry Engels]

2. His remark about Hillary is interesting.

Gotta walk a razor's edge there, but he doesn't attack her, which is good. He can leave that job to others. There will be plenty of volunteers.

[daleanime]

8. Just have to remember the difference.....

between critique and criticize.

[missingthebigdog]

3. This response rubbed me the wrong way

While I absolutely agree that we need liberal/progressive Supreme Court Justices, I disagree with the idea that the solution to the decision in Citizen's United is to try to find a justice who will overturn it. This is not the role of the judiciary.

Citizen's United needs to be addressed by Congress. Legislators make law. The judiciary interprets law. We need better lawmakers.

[wordpix]

4. "CU needs to be addressed by Congress" - not this Repuke Congress

They LOVE CU and the ability to raise unlimited funds from billionaires. Bernie is right about this one.

[missingthebigdog]

5. Thus my assertion that we need better lawmakers.

Now that Citizens United is the law of the land, how do you envision the Supreme Court addressing it again? They can't just decide to revisit it.....

To overturn Citizens United, we need to elect lawmakers that will vote to do so.

[wordpix]

6. Sanders referred to "my nominee"

"a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice and that nominee will say that they are going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision"

He must be assuming he'll select one to replace a repuke nominee - otherwise the court will still be 5 conservatives- 4 liberals.

[missingthebigdog]

7. That still doesn't explain how the Supreme Court

gets to readdress Citizens United. Replacing a conservative justice doesn't change the fact that the case has already been decided.

What mechanism gets it back in front of the Court so that this nominee can overturn it?

[harun]

25. Another similar case just gets appealed up to it and they rule the other way.

See Brown vs. Board of Education, it overruled Plessy v. Ferguson.

[Evergreen Emerald]

13. I thought the same thing

It has always been improper to have a litmus test for a supreme court justice. They are supposed to be learned but not political. He is counting on an electorate that is not too savvy.

[tabasco]

37. Baloney.

Justices are supposed to know the difference between right and wrong.

CU is clearly wrong and Bernie's stance is 100% correct.

[Evergreen Emerald]

42. That is not what everyone was saying when the litmus test

was to get rid of Row v. Wade. The Supreme Court Justices must have legal knowledge, intelligence, and courage to stand up to political sway.

[davidpdx]

24. I tend to agree with you

First of all, I like Sanders and of course a Democrat is going to put more liberal judges on the bench to counter the five corporate sellouts we have there now.

This specifically needs to go through a constitutional amendment that addresses the issues. I don't think legislation per se will be enough, but I agree having sane people in Congress would help a great deal.

[tabasco]

36. Ummmm...Congress can pass an unconstitutional law (i.e., in opposition to CU)

But it will get shot down in two seconds in federal district court.

The ONLY ways to repeal Citizens United are:

1. For the Supreme Court to do it of its own accord or,
2. A constitutional convention.

The BEST way is for the Court to do it, so Bernie is 100% correct. Your statement that it is not the role of the judiciary to overturn a Supreme Court decision is uninformed.

[kenfrequed]

40. No

The balance and seperation of powers is almost designed for dealing with this kind of conflict of interest. I am sorry you don't agree with that but Citizens United was brought forth to trump finance laws and it did so in a broad and ridiculous way by furthering the grant of personhood to corporations that will be hard to legislate around.

We will need another Supreme court case brought forth to undo this and therefore will be serviced best by having justices that oppose the decision of Citizens united. You might not like the taste of a litmus test but this country has been using them for a long time now.

(I was going to try to work out a joke about the change in color of litmus paper on your tongue but I couldn't make it happen.)

[Fred Sanders]

9. Meanwhile in Clown Car land "Carson Unable to Explain a Coherent Tax Plan"....media take note of

the difference between an adult and a child-man.

Sanders may not be President but his voice will make a difference in what is on the agenda for discussion and the end of false equivalencies not being noted - and that will make a huge difference.

[redruddyred]

14. asked a vermonter today what he thought abt bernie

"I like him, I'm voting for him.
not because he's so great, but because everyone else sucks."
he was buying a boston globe, so I assume he was informed.

[L0oniX]

23. Raise your hand if you believe Hillary would appoint a SCJ that would vote to undo Citizen United.

[harun]

26. Lol

[Vincardog]

27. I believe her appointment would vote to EXPAND it.

[Thinkingabout]

32. Hillary is right in a constitutional change which would either be legal or at least a permanent fix

To a very bad problem. Having judges to rule again would not be a fix because this could be reversed again. I feel sure Hillary would appoint liberal judges but we also need a sixty member majority in the Senate for confirmation. This would allow her to appoint judges which are more liberal.

[brooklynite]

30. Lazy anti-Hillary Bias here...

...seems to be an easy jump from "she's in with the Banks" to "of course she's want to keep CU". Except for the fact that:

1) CU money DOESN'T go to Hillary. It's independent expenditure.

2) There will ALWAYS be more CU money on the Republican side, which means it'll targeting her.

3) The problem with CU isn't that it comes from Wall Street. All those endlessly reposted tables of campaign funding sources for her Senate campaigns were of INDIVIDUALS (affiliated with Wall Street) making federally limited campaign contributions; same as I do. The problem is Billionaires like the Kochs and the Adelsons who have strong ideologies and limited Wall Street connections.

But please, don't let me get in the way of your preferred biases.

[Purveyor]

33. Trust me...you won't. (get in the way of your preferred biases.)

[Big_Mike]

34. I don't like litmus tests.

But it is a small thing.

GO BERNIE!

[Red1]

38. Good for him!

He'll have as much luck getting that done, as obama had getting single pay through the syste..er, congress.

[kenfrequed]

39. uhm...

I hate to say this but President Obama never pursued single payer. Not at all.

And in congress rather predictable blue dogs, like Max Baucus in the finance committee, knocked it off the table before it could be considered.

Please at least represent the goals, aspirations, and political intents of the people involved.