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

[brooklynite]

Source: Washington Post

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.

"She got major applause when she said would not name anybody to the Supreme Court unless she has assurances that they would overturn" the decision, said one attendee, who, like others, requested anonymity to describe the private session.

If the make-up of the court does not change by 2017, four of the justices will be 78 years of age or older by the time the next president is inaugurated.

Read more: 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/

---

I mentioned that Hillary said the same thing at an event I attended two weeks ago; several people questioned my veracity, because "of course" Clinton would never support such a thing.....

[Autumn]

1. Of course she will any democrat will.

I think it's wonderful to hear this from people who heard her remarks.

[SharonAnn]

2. And yet, in principle, I expect judges to rule on the constitutionality of it.

I don't think that taking a "pledge" ahead of time is appropriate for judges.

[Fred Sanders]

4. Citizens United is an abomination. Clinton is correct to make sure any appointed judge is not.

No wonder, in the face of months of withering fire by a Citizen's United benefiting Free Press Clinton correctly detests, she still retains an astonishing 82% approval among Democrats.

[cstanleytech]

25. A worse abomination is expecting someone to take a pledge on how they will rule or vote.

Last edited Fri May 15, 2015, 10:42 PM - Edit history (1)

A current example in fact for a pledge that causes alot of problems can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Tax_Reform

[skepticscott]

46. An abomination...based on what?

What constitutional principle did it violate or ignore?

[Doctor_J]

10. I am pretty much with you on this, but Fat Tony and Slappy and Sammy The Clown and The Chief have

so thoroughly wrecked the country that drastic measures are needed.

When I read that cases that reach the "high" court are being lobbied (lobbied, for chrissakes), it makes me want to .

[elehhhhna]

31. I agree.

[treestar]

58. I agree. Though it could be legitimate to announce a head of time

There are dissenting opinions. A person could agree ahead of time with one of those. Just shows how in the end the law is interpretable and thus not so bright-line as people see it.

[onehandle]

3. Breaking! More photographic evidence of Hillary's allegiance to Citizens United!...

Ignore the room full of cheerful volunteers. I bet those printed letters were paid for with 'campaign contributions.'

Probably from the Koch Brothers. I think I see one hiding in the back.

[img][/img]

[AngryAmish]

22. Why no african americans in that picture?

[Thinkingabout]

26. You must be looking at a different picture than I see.

[treestar]

57. lol she's right in front!!

[stonecutter357]

33. look

On the front row

[onehandle]

60. Front row and near the back on the left.

Also at least 3 or 4 other variations of skin colors as well.

That photo is probably more diverse than DU.

And it was taken in Kansas!

indeed.

[skepticscott]

47. Citizens United had nothing to do with campaign contributions

Zero. Zip. Nada.

[Fred Sanders]

53. What are you talking about, Willis! I have read the entire decision, and it's history. It is all about'

campaign contributions...are you sure you are talking about the same case??

Maybe you want to sleep on it.....after you read the decision.

[skepticscott]

54. Then tell us, please

What did CU change with regard to how much money individuals and groups could give to political candidates? Give us the direct quotes from the decision that specify that change.

[Fred Sanders]

55. Demands for answers are typically met by me by saying - my job on the Internet is to educate, not inform.

You want information, do your own research. Just do not draw the wrong conclusions.

[skepticscott]

56. Yes, I know...providing actual evidence to back up your claims

is SO last century, isn't it?

Simply spewing out claims that have no factual support is neither educating nor informing people. It's simply propagandizing, to promote your agenda.

And despite your snark, I HAVE done my research. I've read and understood Citizens United, and based on my research, I call your claim out as total bullshit. It's your claim, dude. It's on you to back it up, not me. Why the fuck would I waste my time looking for evidence that I maintain doesn't exist in the first place? If you had actually comprehended what you read, it should be easy for you to provide what I asked for. Until you do, it's just a pile of nonsense. I know this tactic well, and I don't tolerate it.

If you want to be taken seriously, put up, or retract your claim. I suspect you'll do neither, but will prefer more dodging and dancing around a direct and simple question.

[Geronimoe]

5. Pure political theater for the ignorant

You can not rule on something as a judge prior to the arguments being made to the court.

[brooklynite]

7. So - Bernie Sanders is engaging in "political theater"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1089817

I thought he was supposed to be better than that...

[swilton]

21. Bernie has a legitimate track record that supports his rhetoric

The two things that comes to mind when I hear Hillary's rhetoric is that it is incongruous with her behavior and she must be getting desperate.

[Geronimoe]

29. Bernie can be trusted

He has always walked if talk. Can't say the same for Wall Street darlings. Obama is the perfect example of this.

[Orsino]

38. And if no seats open on the side of reason, any new nominees will still be unable to overturn.

Seems a pretty safe promise to make. The modern Supreme Court seems to be able to overturn precedent only when it suits the aristocracy.

The Court overturning itself looks no more likely than does a Constitutional Amendment.

[jalan48]

6. How is an overturn of Citizens United polling among voters?

[Autumn]

9. Obviously well, according to her wealthy supporters who actually heard her say this and are kind

enough to pass her remarks on down to the rest of us about her stand on this issue if she is elected president.

[Doctor_J]

11. Ouch

that's pretty low. Also very fucking accurate

[samsingh]

8. excellent

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

12. I can't remember the last time the Supremes reversed a Supreme decision

... but I can google it ...

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), reversed by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010)
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), reversed by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_U.S._Supreme_Court_decisions

It does happen, but not often.

Repubs keep trying to get Roe v Wade reversed, so far no without success.

[MaggieD]

42. Thanks, Ralph

[Iliyah]

13. K & R

[stonecutter357]

14. K&R!

[Backwoodsrider]

15. wouldnt that just be like asking if the nominees support Roe vs Wade?

Last edited Fri May 15, 2015, 09:00 PM - Edit history (1)

I have not looked closely at the arguments the SC judges on the right used to support their decision on citizens united nor have I heard a lot about it being an unlawful decision by the legal people but that's doesn't mean they didn't say anything about the law being unconstitutional. I think whoever wins, or even Obama should just put up quality nominees that will weigh the evidence and then make their decision. And no I don't agree with citizens united, we already have a problem with the wealthy having too much power and this law gives them even more of a pull on our politicians.

[Hekate]

16. Excellent. The more the "conversation" among Democratic candidates goes on, the better it will be.

I've been saying I want a robust primary all along, because it's healthy for us all.

[Iliyah]

17. An intelligent thoughtful meaningful conversation about issues that matter to

99%ers. I'm game. Right now we have two Democratic Party candidates that are well qualified in doing so. GOP Party candidates, all of them, will do what they do best. Lie, cheat, lie, lie, lie and blame.

[libodem]

18. .

[Gothmog]

19. This is a good litmus test

[Nye Bevan]

20. Presumably she would also check that any nominee would vote to uphold Roe v Wade,

and would vote in favor of marriage equality? As long as you are seeking assurances for one thing might as well draw up a whole wish list and check all of the boxes.

[Vattel]

23. Asking for such assurances is inappropriate.

[SmittynMo]

24. Gee, I wonder where this idea came from?

Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!

[Scuba]

27. Yep, she's five days late, five dollars short. Her rhetoric is hollow.

[A Simple Game]

59. If we force her to say it often enough she may even talk herself into thinking it

would be the right thing to do.

[PosterChild]

28. Glad you were able to post this..

...wheb it comes to hrc, we have a lot of skeptical folks herem even when backed up by first hand reports such as yours.

[elehhhhna]

32. trickle down communication

Thanks for telling us, anonymous rich people!!!

[PosterChild]

35. Hillary told Brooklynite and he told us...

... I guess you consider a long time DUer who is actively engaged in Democrat politics to be some sort of dubious "anonymous rich person"?

Hillary has been a consistent, public supporter for overturning citizens united. This issue does not differentiate her from Bernie. You might want to put more emphasis on those that do.

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

[juxtaposed]

30. i think bernie said it first?

[brooklynite]

36. No - Hillary first it about three weeks ago (without news coverage); Bernie said it last week.

I was in the audience.

[BootinUp]

34. As I recall something like 65% of our fellow citizens agree.

the only question is how long it will take to overturn it.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

37. like!!

[MisterP]

39. see, given her history, interests, and ideology, everyone outside the charmed circle

can only see this as cynical posturing that isn't worth the paper it's written on, because it's 99% contradicted by her history, interests, connections, and ideologies

we know that pols often make popular promises they have no intention of keeping, mostly because they know we'll never hold them to account

[brooklynite]

45. I see-and her votes against the Bush tax cuts?

Just pandering?

[SunSeeker]

40. K & R

[hrmjustin]

41. Good news but of course some here find something to complain about.

[AtomicKitten]

43. .... says Candidate Clinton atop her giant pile of corporate cash.

pfft

[Big_Mike]

44. Another reason to be against her. Bernie said the same dumb thing.

I don't like the Citizen's United ruling.

My brother-in-law hates Roe v. Wade.

So somehow, it is acceptable to have a litmus test for one and not the other??????

[skepticscott]

48. And let's be honest

Citizens United wasn't anything near as earth-shaking a decision as lots of outraged liberals would have you believe. Our system of campaign finance was already a mess before CU and it's still a mess. Abortion was illegal before Roe v. Wade and legal afterward.

[raindaddy]

49. My own personal litmus test...

is to only vote for candidates who vehemently opposed the TPP.

[lovemydog]

50. This is a big deal.

Thanks brooklynite.

We need another democratic President in the White House!

[cantbeserious]

51. Bernie Has Supported Public Campaign Financing For Years

eom

[INdemo]

52. Nice way to "side step" the real issues Hillary

such as the TPP. How can Hillary really talk about Citizens United being overturned when she is taking full advantage of the benefits?

[NorthCarolina]

61. Great, now where is she on TPP? Bernie is a NO on TPP, and Hillary is

?