Who would pick the BEST Supreme Court Justices? Bernie Or Hill ?

[vkkv]

Come on now, be honest!

54 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Bernie Sanders would nominate the best Supreme Court Justices:
	50 (93%)
	Hillary Clinton would nominate the best Supreme Court Justices:
	4 (7%)
	Martin O' Malley would nominate the best Supreme Court Justices:
	0 (0%)
	The Republican Congress , er, kindergartners, would nominate the best Supreme Court Justices, by accident, in between votes to repeal ObamaCare:
	0 (0%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[TSIAS]

1. Bernie Sanders

However, it might be hard to get them confirmed by the Senate. Although I expect the GOP to oppose nearly any nominee sent forward by Clinton, Sanders, or O'Malley.

[vkkv]

2. Let them add it to the 'the record'

[gwheezie]

3. Either of them

I give Hillary a slight edge because I know she will not jeopardize roe but Bernie isn't going to pick a right-wing loon either.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

13. Yes, Hillary won't jeopardize Roe, ...

... but she won't jeopardize Citizens United either. Or NAFTA. Or, perhaps, TPP.

I don't expect any anti-trust justices from her.

[cui bono]

32. +1

[vkkv]

4. The early voting doesn't look good for the Hillary Forum where they

Last edited Tue Jan 5, 2016, 01:01 PM - Edit history (1)

TOSSED ME OUT of like a Lefty at a TRUMP rally.

Thanks "Cha" !!!!

[JackInGreen]

10. Someone that doesn't like debate

at least, not on any terms but her own.

[Art_from_Ark]

11. That's quite ironic

considering what that person was saying about Hillary in the 2008 primary

Especially in post #47

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6329182

[Kentonio]

20. Oh that is priceless, especially the 'Billary' comment.

[vkkv]

22. How earth DID you find THIS from 2008 ??

Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #16


47. Thank, AK...I get

incensed by these "it doesn't matter how freaking scorched earth hilary's campaign was".

People musta forgot how daddy bush was too when they put the son in for 8 nighmare years that hilary enabled, btw.

[Art_from_Ark]

28. I kind of stumbled on that a few months ago

People here were always talking about how, um, partisan the 2008 primary was around here. I didn't remember it being like that, so I decided to check the archives and found nuggets like that thread.

[Kalidurga]

5. Probably Bernie

I have no idea what either one would use as criteria. But, I am thinking Bernie would choose based on the record of who he is picking and Hillary would go by who ever she thinks would be able to get passed congress plus something about favors.

[vkkv]

7. Let's see, at this point 88 views..18 votes.. that is 70 Hillary supporters who are afraid to say

"yah, Bernie would pick the BEST Supreme Court Justices"... figures.

[vkkv]

8. Bernie - 3 to 1 at this point - Hillary Forum fans can .. you know what!

[cascadiance]

9. Definitely would pick a justice that would reverse "corporate personhood" decisions...

... and rule that PROPERLY as not proper precedent to be used for court cases like Citizen's United, since it is not in our laws, and even the original court case that is claimed to be the basis for other decisions was language in a head note back in the 1800's by a court clerk who was an ex railroad exec, not the supreme court itself.

Hillary I wouldn't be so sure would nominate someone who would reverse that.

[onenote]

17. Actually, Bernie's position on CU, appropriately, is much narrower than that

Bernie has proposed a constitutional amendment to reverse CU. Unlike many of the ill-advised proposals that have been put forward on this subject, it doesn't reverse the notion of "corporate personhood" in general. Rather, it merely states as an affirmative matter that both the right to vote and right to contribute to and expend money on behalf of campaigns rests with natural persons only.

Even that proposal is somewhat problematic insofar as it could be read to allow Congress to bar contributions from unions, organizations such as MoveOn, even party organizations.

The reality is that while I very much think CU was wrongly decided, its doubtful at this time that even if the SCOTUS reversed itself and/or Bernie's amendment somehow was ratified, Congress would pass new laws that would reinstate the limitations that CU struck down.

[cascadiance]

18. Corporate Personhood is larger than Citizen's United...

... and affects so many other decisions and areas than just this decision.

Bernie might not be citing citizen's united in this case, though I don't think he feels that precedent shouldn't be overturned, even if in some places where he's discussed it it hasn't been mentioned. I've not seen any quotes that have him specifically saying he wouldn't overturn corporate personhood decisions. If you are asserting that, then you need an article to back that up.

Especially when the talk show host, Thom Hartmann, that has had his town hall session every Friday for almost the last decade, is one of the foremost persons through written word and his show to seek to both make people aware of the faulty corporate personhood decision and to get it overturned. Bernie wouldn't be against what Thom Hartmann has championed on his show for years. Bernie knows that this is where corporations get a lot of their power and through decisions made by SCOTUS in this regard. I definitely feel he's far more inclined to make corporate personhood positioning a litmus test for who he nominates for the court than Hillary would.

And in situations where we can control and regulate corporate behavior in areas like money contributions, then if we can limit them from doing campaign contributions, I don't mind limiting other organizations such as unions, etc. from doing equivalent donations, as I think we still win if we can control the big corporate donors and PACs first and foremost. If we control them, then we don't need the other forms of donations. As long as we have a more level playing field with the average person as able to be heard as the wealthy.

One other area that needs to be corrected is the recent move by more right wing courts to cede their authority of citizen lawsuits to be moved to arbitration panels which are rigged more to work in corporations favor, especially when the SCOTUS recently has also ruled in such a way to limit average people's ability to participate in class action lawsuits which helps this form of justice to be rigged even more.

SCOTUS selection criteria should definitely protect us from overturning women's rights given to it by Roe, until a rational congress can actually put in sensible legislation, so that we can move back to a court that isn't making law by themselves like they are with corporate personhood, and others like Hobby Lobby, etc. too.

We need to make sure that not only will nominees to the court rule in favor of what we want for social justice issues, but especially on issues that give corporations and the wealthy too much "rights" that have been purchased by their buying off Republican presidents, etc. that have picked justices like Roberts, etc. who are bought and paid for to deliver corporate friendly decisions.

[onenote]

23. Do you think the NAACP, MoveON, DU, and unions should not be protected by the First Amendment?

Was it wrong for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the NY Times in the Pentagon Papers case? The list is endless.

What was wrong with CU was not its recognition of corporate personhood for purposes of the First Amendment, it was its failure to recognize that the First Amendment is not absolute and that distinctions can be drawn between speakers, just as distinctions are drawn between natural persons when it comes to the First Amendment. Minors don't have the same rights as adults. Prisoners don't have the same rights as non-prisoners. Members of the military don't have the same rights as civilians.

[cascadiance]

24. They nor corporations are NOT "natural persons" and aren't given rights by the 14th amendment...

... that should only be accorded to natural persons. This isn't about the 1st amendment. It is what is a "person" and who has rights that are designed for NATURAL (not artificial) persons that has been construed by corrupted court officials such as the ex-railroad exec court clerk that tried to infer that the Supreme Court ruled in that "landmark case" that supposedly gave corporations rights of natural persons then.

If we want to give corporations and other NON-HUMAN entities (that in most other parts of our constitution are referred to as artificial persons) certain rights, there should be separate legislation apart from things like the Bill of Rights that give them their own set of rights. That is where organizations can be given equivalent or even more rights than corporations do as the ARTIFICIAL persons they are.

This mess started when the 14th amendment wasn't as specific as it should have been when in one paragraph it referred to "persons" without qualifying it as "natural persons" which it was designed to be about, since it was an amendment trying to give discriminated against immigrants and minority natural persons certain rights that they might not otherwise have gotten. The corporate corruptors have over time tried to use that to give us a fascist state with corporations (and those who own them) more rights than the rest of us. And those that try to rationalize that corporate personhood is justified because some "rights" can be applied to other organizations are falling in to their trap either stupidly or complicitly.

[onenote]

25. So you would have allowed the NY Times to be prosecuted

and the NAACP to be sued. (Claiborne Hardware case).

Nice. I'd rather rely on the Constitution to protect speech, even speech by non natural persons, than rely on Congress.

[cascadiance]

26. Sorry, but the Bill of Rights was designed for NATURAL persons, not artificial persons...

That is the way the wrote legal language in the constitution. Making fundamental differences there, so that we could legislate as the people the rights these entities have and not just "give" our own rights to them because we have them. If they had the rights and laws of natural persons applied to them, then many of them should be put in prison (or punished equivalently) for engaging in slavery when they buy other "persons" in companies. We're not allowed to buy other natural persons as slaves. Why should corporations get those rights that we are specifically prohibited from having if they are going to get all of the others that their lawyers CHOOSE them to have based on the 14th amendment BULLSHIT so that they can maximize power over the rest of us and reward those who own these companies and who are in charge more fascist rights than they should have.

There are rights to a free press that is stated in the original constitution. And I don't see the NY Times NEEDING "corporate personhood" rights to publish stories. There are other laws that should be pursued, or legislated if needed, to specifically give these artificial persons rights that are needed if needed in these cases. We shouldn't be throwing away everything else just for the excuse to do these cases. If there is no distinction between artificial and natural persons in terms of rights, then why even have those terms.

[onenote]

30. The "press" could be an individual. You can't have it both ways

And your answer is a long convoluted way of saying yes, you would have allowed the NAACP to be bankrupted in the Claiborne Hardware case. (Even you can't claim the NAACP is the "press&quot .

Like I said. Nice.

[cascadiance]

33. The press itself is mentioned specifically in the constitution. Corporations are not!

I'm saying that there are LEGISLATIVE ways to fix the problems you are citing with the NAACP. I've not studied that case, but the whole point behind the way our founders wrote the constitution to delineate the difference between artificial and natural persons was to ensure that the former we as natural persons have the power to regulate and write legislation managing that. The latter is that we as natural persons (aka HUMAN BEINGS!!!) have inherent rights guaranteed to us that can't have those rights taken away from us. If we give the latter to organizations and corporations, then we are throwing away our rights relative to these groups. You are right! We can't have it both ways! Organizations cANNOT logically or legally be considered the equivalent of human beings. To say they are is falling in to line with the CORPORATIST CRAP that has been spoon fed to both Republicans and corporate Democrats (aka DLC and Third Way sycophants) to serve the growing fascist oligarchy. Sorry, but there are some of us that just won't suck up that warped reasoning.

If there were problems in addressing this case, and I'll look at it later when I have more time, then fix it legislatively the way it should be! And I don't want to hear that we have to resort to warping the constitution because a majority Republican congress getting in the way. The reason why we have that more corporate driven Republican congress is that we had corporate personhood fuel the Citizen's United decision along with right wing justices on the Supreme Court that you seem to want to agree with that used that judicial activist law enacted by an F'ing corrupt court clerk's head note, to put that crap in place. Another reason why we need a constitutional amendment to fix this corporate personhood problem and the language of the 14th amendment to be true to what its original authors had intended, and not warped the way corporate lobbyists have done over the years.

And mind you, I've warned folks here that there are other pieces that need to be also taken in to consideration when drafting this amendment too, and that is the potential effect of the modern day interpretation of the 5th amendment and our rights of privacy, which isn't up to date with the needs of the digital age now. If companies like google and facebook throw up their hands and say that since they no longer "own" the privacy of OUR data on their servers, then the can't stop the government from mining every piece of info on their machines. In my book, we should be using copyright law that has been used to serve the interests of corporate america as precedent to say that we ourselves can own the privacy of the data on google's and facebook's servers virtuatlly in the same fashion that copyright owners own the rights to songs that people download on to their home computers. Overturning corporate personhood isn't going to be a simple process, but it is a process that is absolutely necessary if we're going to preserve the rights of everyone in this democracy that our founders had intended us to have. You may want to work around the beliefs and work of our founders, but I don't.

[onenote]

34. the reason we have a first amendment is that we cannot trust the legislature to protect speech

First, there was no law in place that would have protected the NAACP in the Claiborne Hardware case. And no law passed after the fact (which would never have happened anyway) would have helped -- it would have been too late. Moreover, the federal government can't be relied on to figure out how to protect all sorts of speakers in advance, particularly with 50 states potentially passing legislation that would restrict speech.

Second,what is and is not "the press" is a slippery concept: once upon a time, it was easy: print. But then we started to have electronic communications -- radio, TV. Are movies (and movie studios) the "press"? Is DU the "press"?

You may not realize it, but once upon a time (1952 -- not really that long ago), New York state had a law under which a censor could forbid the commercial showing of any motion picture film the censor deemed to be "sacrilegious". Joseph Burstyn, Inc., described in the court's opinion as a corporation engaged in the business of distributing motion pictures, brought suit challenging a decision by the censor revoking its license to exhibit a particular movie. The court, without ever dwelling on the fact that the plaintiff was a corporate entity, found that the NY law constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. That's why we don't rely on legislatures to protect speech.

Finally, I turn to Justice William O. Douglas, possibly the foremost defender of the first amendment in the history of the Supreme Court, for his words (joined by Justice Black), in a case involving a law that barred unions and other corporate entities from making political expenditures -- a law Douglas and Black contended was unconstitutional:

We deal here with a problem that is fundamental to the electoral process and to the operation of our democratic society. It is whether a union can express its views on the issues of an election and on the merits of the candidates, unrestrained and unfettered by the Congress. The principle at stake is not peculiar to unions. It is applicable as well to associations of manufacturers, retail and wholesale trade groups, consumers' leagues, farmers' unions, religious groups, and every other association representing a segment of American life and taking an active part in our political campaigns and discussions. It is as important an issue as has come before the Court, for it reaches the very vitals of our system of government. Under our Constitution, it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say. The legislators are their spokesmen. The people determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore important -- vitally important -- that all channels of communication be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community.

[anigbrowl]

35. The flaw in your argument

This mess started when the 14th amendment wasn't as specific as it should have been when in one paragraph it referred to "persons" without qualifying it as "natural persons" which it was designed to be about

People often say that laws or parts of the constitution were intended to mean something else, but this argument always fails when it ends up in the Supreme Court. Why? Because the obvious objection is that the people drafting the law could have written differently, but they chose not to. Courts interpret the law as it was passed, not as you or I think think it should have been passed. They certainly knew about the existence of corporations as 'legal persons' back at the time of the 14th amendment (because that legal concept dates back to Roman times) so if they had meant 'natural persons' then they could have just written that in. But they didn't.

No, you can say that they didn't know any better and were fooled by evil corporatists, but this is clearly not true. The court case you mention is from 1844, Louisville, C. & CR Co. v. Letson, 43 US 497. Here's the decision: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5165668748343674380&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

The 14th amendment was passed in 1868. Now, you can say that the court decision was wrong and that the court was corrupted (everyone says that about outcomes they don't like) but with 24 years that passed between that verdict and the 14th amendment, there is no way that the people amending the Constitution were not aware of the issue or did not understand the distinction between corporations and natural persons in Common Law.

I appreciate that you think this is terrible policy, and in fact your idea of a separate and unambiguous bill of rights for corporations strikes me as a very good one. But to claim that all the existing legal precedent is wrong and should be thrown out because you think the 14th amendment is accidentally missing a word is a self-defeating argument.

[cascadiance]

36. The flaw in your argument...

... is that the 14th amendment wasn't consciously written to give artificial persons rights of natural persons when it nebulously had a paragraph in it that only stated "person" instead of qualifying it with "natural" as the intent was clear of the authors of this amendment was to give slaves rights and correct holes in previous constitutional language that had not given POC who are by definition part of the group of "natural persons" in this country, no matter how much some racist bigots might not want them to be defined as such.

It was likely the case that the authors of this amendment hadn't been rigorous enough to ensure that the amendment was written properly within the context of the original constitution and other amendments that defined carefully in places where it was important where laws applied to natural persons and where they applied to artificial persons. Of course the corporatists of earlier time wanted to exploit that and through their court clerk used a head note (not even the court case decision itself!) to set precedent to establish "corporate personhood" rights. Had the original authors seen the history from that amendment onward, you could be damn sure that they would have put the term "natural" in front of the used and abused ambiguous "person" reference in that amendment.

I think I respect Thom Hartmann who's written a book and many other works on this issue and influenced many other scholars to his viewpoint than your opinion and this random note that doesn't seem to be making the case supporting the notion of corporate personhood as an inherent right being necessary for certain entities to get justice. Read more here...

http://money.howstuffworks.com/corporation-person1.htm

As I've noted before, just because corporations and groups like the NAACP aren't natural persons, doesn't mean they can't get rights that people also have, but that they need to get them legislatively, and can have them removed legislative. They shouldn't be inherent birthright rights, as they aren't born the way we as people are with certain rights endowed to us by things like the Bill of Rights that can't be taken away legislatively.

If you ascribe corporations and other groups with inherent rights that can't be changed or removed legislatively, we are setting ourselves up for a corporate or other ugly kind of takeover in terms of taking us as a democracy of natural persons' being the ultimate decision makers in our country. Our founders would most definitely frown on such actions, even if some of the artificial organizations may be a lot more honorable and have good intent more than others.

Do you want an artificial person running for political office. I think it has been tried a few times as a form of protest, but that might someday happen if we continue to worship "corporate personhood" as "good law", when it is just a crappy head note written by a former railroad exec as if it was one of our laws by those that would rather have our system run by those who want us to be ruled by crap like that instead of a true representative democracy.

[anigbrowl]

37. Get real.

Apparently my point about how and why Courts construe things as they do sailed over your head, as did my observations that corporate personhood can be dated back to the Roman empire. I know you wish they did things differently, but they don't.

Had the original authors seen the history from that amendment onward, you could be damn sure that they would have put the term "natural" in front of the used and abused ambiguous "person" reference in that amendment.

No, that's what you think they should have done. And while you are fully entitled to this opinion, and I agree with you about the problems that have resulted, you don't have the time machine and the crystal ball that would enable you to make decisive statements about what the authors of the amendment were really thinking and why they didn't put their real ideas down in paper form, even though they were the political and legal elite of their day. Again, I agree with your policy idea that corporate rights would be much better handled legislatively, but then your focus should be on pushing a constitutional amendment for that, not demanding that courts interpret the Constitution as if it had been written differently.

That's interesting that Thom Hartmann has written a book about it, but he is neither a historian nor a lawyer. When it comes to matters of constitutional interpretation, I prefer to rely on my legal casebooks. And they tell me over and over again that wishing missing words into the Constitution doesn't win cases. I'd like to see Citizens United overturned too but this 14th amendment missing word argument will not be the vehicle.

[cascadiance]

40. Then I guess you must just love the Hobby Lobby decision if you love corporate personhood rights!

And love that they can have a religion, where they can inflict religious beliefs on their employee's health benefits if "they don't believe" in things that health insurance have in them. Republicans like that companies can have Shariah law on their employees I guess in that instance.

Whether or not it was the intent of some authors and not others or not I leave YOU to find an article that can document that this happened. But given that that wasn't widely said about the 14th amendment, whose primary purpose if not the only purpose in most people's minds and that purpose being the only PUBLIC purpose in passing that amendment was to protect PEOPLE's rights.

WHY do you think we have to give the corporatist court clerk gift's to corporation of corporate personhood rights, which was never initially given by the constitution or an amendment, not by even an initial court decision not based on a fake precedent from that head note? Why do you think we can't have legislation addressing the NAACP's needs rather than a constitutional right that overlaps with that of power hungry corporations who want to move us towards a fascist system?

The supreme court originally DID rule that the constitution didn't support corporate personhood rights when it ruled in that initial case that SUPPOSEDLY set precedent for that right. Do you feel a court clerk's head note that has language in it that doesn't reflect what was in a court decision should be interpreted as legal precedent for subsequent cases? If not, then it would seem a subsequent court if it were to rule properly would say that they couldn't make that decision unless they based it on the 14th amendment itself. Then of course, many would point out the flaw where the same paragraph is meant to support the inherent rights of former slaves and not to support some NEW "rights" for corporations.

I can't believe we're having this discussion on Democratic Underground. I always thought it was only Republicans that liked corporate personhood and had presidents that nominated justices that ruled on cases based on that "precedent". Apparently I was wrong. Another reason why Bernie needs to win to reestablish the constitutional rights of NATURAL persons in this land and not have them confused with and trampled on by corporations and their owners/controllers.

[anigbrowl]

41. Oh please

I don't let my feelings about cases get mixed up with analyzing the legal arguments, I don't like the outcome in hobby lobby, and I'm not going to back and read it just so you can try to score a point by changing the subject to something you can get indignant about. I already expressed agreement for your policy idea - twice - so quit trying to shame me because I don't agree with your weird legal theory. We could seriously use some constitutional reform, but I see there's no help coming from your direction. Enjoy.

[Recursion]

44. corporate personhood is centuries old and not going away

Getting rid of it would be horrible, because then corporations couldn't be sued anymore.

Sanders's actual position, fortunately, is much better than the position you are describing.

[cascadiance]

45. NO, there is NO reason we can't have LEGISLATED LAW to permit them being sued...

You corporatists really love using that excuse to reward this entity with "rights" that our founders had only intended HUMAN BEINGS to have! Why! Well, it appears you'd rather have corporations have more power than our democracy! Not a Democratic Party position in my opinion!

There is no reason that with the proper legislation passed by reasonable people in congress not owned by oligarchs, we can't have an ability to have ARTIFICIAL persons be sued, without ascribing those artificial persons with natural persons' rights.

[Recursion]

46. Sorry, you must have replied to the wrong post

I'm not a "corporatist", so you obviously meant that for someone else. (That's the word I stopped reading at, so I have no idea what you point was, since it was intended for someone else.) Have a great day!

[onenote]

12. The reality is that there wouldn't be much difference in who they would pick

They'd both be motivated in large part by the need to work with the Senate to find someone who has a shot at getting confirmed, which means overcoming either a repub majority in the Senate or a repub filibuster if the Democrats recapture the Senate.

[firebrand80]

14. This, plus

Sometimes it's a decade before you really know what a Justice is going to be, e.g. GOP outrage at Roberts on Obamacare mandate.

[Enrique]

38. I agree

it seems there are judges in the pipeline that whatever Dem won would nominate

[Nonhlanhla]

15. Both. n/t

[el_bryanto]

16. I think both would do an equivalently good job

The difficulty is that picking and nominating is just part of the job; you also have to get them through the hearings. And because of that, some of the best candidates probably aren't likely to be nominated. Given those constraints I'm comfortable that both Candidates will end up nominating generally good people.

Bryant

[99Forever]

19. Not even close.

Hillary would likely appoint her corporate shill cronies.

[vkkv]

21. Hillary Forum can't be happy about THESE results!

I think even 'Bo' ( woof!) would beat any of the GOP's nominees - and he wouldn't be a Clinton or a Bushie.

[AuntPatsy]

27. The democratic president....

[TeddyR]

29. I think either would select fine nominees

But if either selected a "liberal" nominee that individual would not get confirmed by the senate. Read an article today (can't recall where) that it is likely that the Republicans would refuse to confirm ANY individual nominated by a Democrat and would instead be happy with an empty seat.

[Ken Burch]

31. ACTUAL kindergarteners would nominate better SC justices than the GOP Congress.

And confirm them before nap time.

[DFW]

39. Their picks would probably be identical or close to it

Honestly!

[Recursion]

43. Pretty much.

I don't see much difference among any of their hypothetical administrations as far as that goes.

[Recursion]

42. Meh. There's a fixed set they're drawing from

It's pretty much a wash.