Hillary Clinton: I will appoint SC Justices to overturn Citizen's United

[brooklynite]

(from last night's fundraising event)

She also said she was discussing the issue with her legal advisors to see if something could be done before appointments could be made, including support for a Constitutional Amendment.

[el_bryanto]

1. That's a good sign.

We don't have a link yet, I take it? But still that's a positive indicator.

Bryant

[brooklynite]

7. These were live comments.

It appears there was pool reporter, but they all picked up on her comments on the Baltimore situation.

[Scuba]

2. I expect at least that from any Democratic candidate.

[leftofcool]

8. Has Bernie said such?

[el_bryanto]

9. Really?

In January he proposed an amendment to overturn Citizens United. And he's been consistently scathing in his attacks on it.

Unless the campaign financing system is reformed, the U.S. Congress will become paid employees of the people who pay for their campaigns -- the billionaire class. Needless to say, not everyone on the Committee agreed.

From a short article at HP.

There's no surprise about Sanders being opposed to citizens united; there is a bit more surprise that Hillary Clinton, who has been masterful at raising campaign funds over the years being opposed to it. But I'm gratified that she is.

Bryant

[MattSh]

11. Both Bernie and Hillary have a track record...

Bernie's says Democratic/Independent.
Hillary's says Corporatist.

[kracer20]

16. Hillary - Me Too!!!

I love the message that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are putting out there. And there are few out there who could argue the popularity of their message with the general public. With either of them running, they will move the candidates to the left, which is awesome.

The best way that Hillary can run against them is to try and get ahead of them by using the talking points that Sanders and Warren have been hammering for years.

[MaggieD]

27. Uh huh

She's probably pro-choice because they are, too - right? Jebus.

[Scuba]

46. Actually she's been very good on women's rights all along.

It's the pro-war, pro-Wall Street, pro-H1B Visas, pro-XL Pipeline stances where she's been so awful.

[Cryptoad]

29. Agreed,,,,,

I would that as a given......

[PeaceNikki]

3. Russ Feingold for SCOTUS!!!

[Jackpine Radical]

19. So, who we gonna run for Senate in 2016, then?

(I'd love to see Russ on the SC. 1 vote in 9 is a lot more powerful than 1 vote in 100, to put it most simply.)

[PeaceNikki]

26. I am super excited at this seemingly likely news.

I have been dreaming as Russ for SCOTUS since we lost him. Though the thought of having him back in the Senate is pretty dreamy, too.

[mmonk]

4. Sure hope so. One of the worst Supreme Court decisions historically.

[Enthusiast]

6. +1

[Enthusiast]

5. I cannot disagree with this policy.

[ananda]

10. Yes!

That really needs to happen too.

[blkmusclmachine]

12. http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5430797-md.jpg

[Grins]

13. D.O.A.

That won't work, and this is pandering.

What you need is a Constitutional Amendment, and not just to overturn a decision, but to force federal funding of elections to keep ALL money out of the game.

[rury]

14. Pure pandering. Any Democratic candidate would make the same promise

The problem is she will need to get those SC appointees confirmed by the Senate.
Not so easy if the Senate is in GOP hands.
What is needed is a constitutional amendment.

[brooklynite]

23. Which she said she would consider as well...

[MaggieD]

28. So it's pandering when Bernie says it too?

Right?

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. Do you think a Constitutional Amendment would be any easier? n/t

[Orsino]

15. That's a great position. n/t

[Romulox]

17. LOL. nt

[951-Riverside]

18. I don't like this at all

In the future a republican president could appoint SC justices to overturn rulings on gay marriages, abortion rights, etc, etc. I just hope this doesn't become the norm for Presidents to openly assign justices that would overturn previous rulings.

[Jackpine Radical]

20. How does that differ from what happens now?

[951-Riverside]

21. Good point

It just seems less blatant now.

I just feel that openly doing it would send a message that its okay for everybody to openly follow the same lead.

[Jackpine Radical]

24. Actually, it is a bit less blatant.

During the confirmation process, I don't think they can be asked how they would rule on a specific case that might come before the court.

So nobody could directly ask Scalia how he would vote on repeal of Roe V Wade--but did anybody have to?

[brooklynite]

22. My wife (an attorney) was discussing this last night...

...bottom line is that both sides do it, and both sides generally go right up to the line in framing what their nominees will do.

[NewJeffCT]

53. the court is already pretty conservative

If Hillary is in office for 8 years, I doubt the SCotUS would move to the right during her tenure, and the federal judiciary would also be more Democratic than any time since the 1970s. By the time Republics gained control again, I would think gay marriage would not even be an issue anymore.

[Cosmic Kitten]

25. REPUBLICAN CONGRESS replys to Hillary...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

An unnamed Senate aid reported,
"there is no way in hell that
republicans will even allow a vote
on any Clinton SCOTUS nominees."

The unnamed source went on to say,
"theirs even less chance of any
Constitutional amendments. LOL"

Republicans are LOLing that Hillary
seems to have ignored the fact
Republicans control Congress.
<sarcasmthingy>

[MaggieD]

31. YEP - that's Nader's legacy now

Used to be seat belts. Now it's Bush's USSC.

[stevenleser]

32. Now you've done it. Those who want to deny the effects of Naders candidacy will show up to

inundate you with their revisionism any moment now.

[Cosmic Kitten]

38. Nice. An OP about Empty rhetoric ...

turn into a Nader bash session

Smell that? You smell that?
Desperation, Son.
Nothing else in the world smells like that.
I love the smell of desperation in the morning!

[stevenleser]

41. I couldn't have wished for a better response making my prediction come true.

Well done!

[Cosmic Kitten]

43. Maybe you should go buy a lottery ticket?!?

You're on a roll

[MaggieD]

39. I'm aware. LOL!

[Cosmic Kitten]

34. More nefarious talking points?

[frylock]

49. GOLDSTEIN!!!

[Cryptoad]

33. See that women outlive men

they could very likely find themselves in the minority on SCOTUS,,,,,,,,,,

[Cosmic Kitten]

42. The only minorities on SCOTUS will be Left of Center justices

Without CONGRESS,
the Senate specifically
the President won't get
to seat their justices.

It will be a republican lite
justice or nothing.

But with Hillary, we should
expect a "bipartisan" agreement...

[asiliveandbreathe]

44. Last I looked

In 2016, Republicans will face an unfortunate problem that Democrats faced in 2014: needing to defend over 20 of their own seats with little chance of picking up any - Vitter running for governor LA (what a prize) - Mccain is 80(but then, it's AZ afterall)

Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire)
Roy Blunt (Missouri)
John Boozman (Arkansas)
Richard Burr (North Carolina)
Dan Coats (Indiana) retiring in 2016
Mike Crapo (Idaho)
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
John Hoeven (North Dakota)
Johnny Isakson (Georgia)
Ron Johnson (Wisconsin)
Mark Kirk (Illinois)
James Lankford (Oklahoma)
Mike Lee (Utah)
John McCain (Arizona)
Jerry Moran (Kansas)
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Rand Paul (Kentucky)
Rob Portman (Ohio)
Marco Rubio (Florida)
Tim Scott (South Carolina)
Richard Shelby (Alabama)
John Thune (South Dakota)
Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania)
David Vitter (Louisiana)

Dems - 10 seats to defend....Michael Bennet (Colorado)
Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut)
Barbara Boxer (California) retiring in 2016
Patrick Leahy (Vermont)
Barbara Mikulski (Maryland) retiring in 2016
Patty Murray (Washington)
Harry Reid (Nevada) retiring in 2016
Brian Schatz (Hawaii)
Charles Schumer (New York)
Ron Wyden (Oregon)

[Cosmic Kitten]

54. I appreciate your optimism!

But if you noticed..
over the past 20 years
the Democratic party has been
LOSING in down ballot races.

Remind me how many states
are governed by Democrats?
14? is that right? 14 out of 50?

There is quite an uphill battle
to regain Congress.

We have suffered devastating losses at all levels of government since 2008 including:
- 69 House Seats
- 13 Senate Seats
- 910 State Legislative Seats
- 30 State Legislative Chambers
- 11 Governorships
http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/democratic_victory_task_force_preliminary_findings.pdf

Soooo, who will win the public vote in 2016?

[asiliveandbreathe]

56. gerrymandered districts - land voting - not public voting....

I think we can both agree it will be an uphill battle...voter restrictions...even my beloved Massachusetts voted rep gov - again...

Dems need to pay attention - at stake - SCOTUS....WAR - Citizens United....Education...so many vote for the 0.01%, like they are the 0.01% - apathy and ignorance...

[Cosmic Kitten]

58. The PARTY LEADERSHIP, DNC, DSCC et al created this mess

There is no reason to believe
they can or want to fix it.

The 3rd-Way, and centrists
benefit handsomely from
this current "arrangement"

The Left is marginalized,
and the Teapublicans are
fighting about gay marriage
and abortion....
meanwhile Wall st and the MIC
is plundering the poor

But hey, if Democrats FINALLY
decide to address voter purges,
black box voting, and inadequate
polling stations, great

Better late than never

[Cryptoad]

30. Justice Obama?

[NewJeffCT]

48. Barack or Michelle?

I made a joke on here several years back that President Obama should nominate Michelle for the Scotus in his final year (if possible) just to give the RWers a stroke or a heart attack when they hear the news.

[Sunlei]

35. President Obama for SCJ. wish Mrs.Clinton would do something now, this year on one of her issues.

we shouldn't have to wait another 3 or 4 years.

[JayhawkSD]

36. So appointing partisan, activist judges is okay...

...as long as we agree with the particular brand of activism.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Incorrect solution.

Won't fix CU. Not in a meaningful way. But it's a good litmus test that will inform her choices for SC nominees.

Her comment about working to support a constitutional amendment is the actual mechanism that we need, so that's awesome.

[NewJeffCT]

51. If a state passes new campaign finance restrictions

or (if we're lucky) Congress does similar, a new SCotUS could rule in favor of the new law.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. But without a CA, any new challenge could result in another reversal.

It would be a good temporary patch, I suppose.

[mehrrh]

40. Clinton's promise

Vowing to appoint SC justices who would overturn Citizens United should be reason enough to vote for Clinton.

[Cosmic Kitten]

59. Single issue voting is always a big winner!

[Bonobo]

45. Run left for the Primaries, center for the General. Yawn. nt

[NewJeffCT]

50. Democrats typically don't do that

like Republicans running to the right in the primaries. If it were true, Dennis Kucinich would have been a much more viable candidate back in 2004 and 2008.

[frylock]

60. Kucinich would have been much more viable if the media hadn't focused their attention..

on his policy positions regarding UFOs.

[NewJeffCT]

63. While I agree with a lot of his positions

Kucinich was never a viable candidate, with or without UFOs. In 2004, Howard Dean had the anti-war vote, John Edwards had those concerned about economic issues and John Kerry and Dick Gephardt had the establishment votes. Heck, until he withdrew from the race, Joe Lieberman was doing better than Kucinich.

[Bonobo]

65. Nonsense. It is standard practice for Dems as well. nt

[NewJeffCT]

52. all it takes is one judge

out of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy to be replaced.

[malthaussen]

55. Talk is cheap, whisky costs money.

Mind you, it's nice she said it and all, but I place little stock in a candidate's promises. This is hardly exclusive to Hillary, most people who are running for office say things they have no real intention of doing.

-- Mal

[seabeyond]

57. there you go people, evidence she is aware of corruption with money in politics. going for the most

immediate and effective action she can. overturn thru justice.

now. i will say. that i, too, have been saying often and repeatedly, it is in the supreme court, dummy. (isnt that a political saying? not real good with sayings?) it is in the supreme court. immediate change is in the supreme court.

when populist tell me it is in hiring a prez that immediately goes after corp and wallstreet, we are talking TRICKLE fucking DOWN. that will take time. it is needed and it will take time.

when we are talking hiring a dem, and going after the supreme court to make IMMEDIATE change in this country, that is prudent, smart, right, effective and now!!!

the repugs organize state law and control of our federal rights. we need to strengthen our fed law. that is a MUST!!!! the state laws, thru the state supreme, are coming our way.

people keep arguing with me that i have to do the other, instead of focusing on the now. i cannot recognize a rational mind that will tell me to go away from the immediate results of the supreme court, to work for the trickle down.

can someone help me with that?

not only will the supreme court protect our girls, protecting our gays, they will ALSO address the corp issue. and maybe even shooting our young, unarmed, black men in the back. i dunno. i have not heard anything going thru court that would address this issue.

[MineralMan]

62. Good call. I had no doubt that she would appoint such justices.

She's ramping up her campaign with more details about policies she would implement. She'll be saying more and more as time goes on. Personally, I'm waiting to hear what all of the candidates say. In November, 2016, I will be voting for and campaigning for the official Democratic nominee, as I always do.

[Gothmog]

64. If the GOP wins in 2016, we will lose the SCOTUS for a generation

We will be stuck with Citizens United and will see Roe v. Wade overturned