Clinton Echoes Sanders: A Litmus Test For The SC: Pledge To Overturn Citizens United

[cali]

I'm glad she's taking this position; the Constitutional Amendment "solution" is nonsense. This is much more realistic.

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.

<snip>

Clinton’s pledge to use opposition to Citizens United as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees echoes the stance taken by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is challenging her for the Democratic nomination.

“If elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice,” Sanders said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “And that nominee will say that we are all going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision on Citizens United because that decision is undermining American democracy. I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians.”

<snip>

Clinton has made overhauling the current campaign finance system one of the major planks of her campaign, even as she has tacitly endorsed the efforts of two big-money super PACs working to help get her elected in 2016 -- Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record. Advisers have said that they cannot reject such vehicles when they are being vigorously embraced by the Republican field.

<snip>

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/

[kenfrequed]

1. I trust Bernie to carry this out.

I am sure Hillary has good intentions, I just figure that since this issue is one that Senator Sanders has been speaking about for years now that I am more confident of him to stick to his guns on this.

[Hoyt]

2. She's spoken out against Citizens United before, even suggested a Constitution Amendment July, 2014.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-constitutional-amendment

Is everything she does or says going to be preceded by "echoing Bernie Sanders . . . . . . ." when she's really not echoing anyone?

In any event, Citizens United needs to be overturned, legislated against, or whatever it takes.

[cali]

4. sorry, she was echoing him. And the ConAm stuff is bullshit.

there's no fucking way. It's as impossible as anything in politics possibly could be. For fuck's sake, hoyt, I post something nice about your candidate and you whinge. grow up.

[BeyondGeography]

3. Not new

She has been good on this issue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026587320

[Calista241]

13. You mean aside from the billion dollars she's going to raise this election cycle?

And the millions she raised and spent in 2008? And the billion dollars in PAC money that will be spent advertising in her behalf, while not "officially" being associated with her campaign.

Other than all that, I suppose we can take her comments at face value.

[trumad]

14. Shh...

Don't upset the narrative.

[Thinkingabout]

5. She has a record of standing on the right side of the issues, she is currently giving

Her stand on the issues as she continues on the campaign trail. I like having a Constitutional Amendment better because it would prevent a future SC from making the same ruling in the future.

[davidn3600]

6. Supreme Court almost never reverses itself

They slowly chip away and weakens earlier decisions. But a complete reversal almost never happens.

Plessy vs. Ferguson is probably the only major case that SCOTUS completely reversed itself on its own (did so with Brown vs. Board of Education). However, Plessy was first ruled on in 1896. The reversal didn't come till 1954 and on the beginnings of the civil rights movement. In other words, society was entering a state of change which led to a change in interpretation of the law.

Even if you had 9 liberal justices, they won't reverse it. They may weaken it though by making it more definitive and allowing restrictions. Sort of the same thing the conservatives have been doing with Roe v Wade. Over time it begins to lose broadly-reached precedence.

Keep in mind, judges are not supposed to legislate and fix legal problems from the bench. It's their job to rule on the Constitution, not fix it. Fixing a Constitutional problem is not their role. Any decision they make has to be on the laws of the specific case that is in front of them at that particular time. They can't just wave a hand and throw out Citizens United the way Congress can just vote up or down on a law. It doesn't work that way.

[Cosmic Kitten]

7. The CU Litmus must have tested well with the focus groups

[Cerridwen]

8. citizens united is a group who wanted to run an anti-Hillary "documentary," hit piece

prior to the 2008 election in violation of FEC campaign laws and you think Hillary has just now decided she's against the cu ruling?

When Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was first argued before the Supreme Court, on March 24, 2009, it seemed like a case of modest importance. The issue before the Justices was a narrow one. The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law prohibited corporations from running television commercials for or against Presidential candidates for thirty days before primaries. During that period, Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, had wanted to run a documentary, as a cable video on demand, called “Hillary: The Movie,” which was critical of Hillary Clinton. The F.E.C. had prohibited the broadcast under McCain-Feingold, and Citizens United had challenged the decision. There did not seem to be a lot riding on the outcome. After all, how many nonprofits wanted to run documentaries about Presidential candidates, using relatively obscure technologies, just before elections?

<snip>

Bossie decided to transform Citizens United into a movie studio, which would produce conservative documentaries. In the period leading up to the 2008 election, the Presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton was an irresistible subject, given Bossie’s long history of opposing her and her husband. “Hillary: The Movie” was typical of the Citizens United oeuvre. It included news footage, spooky music, and a series of interviews with dedicated and articulate partisans. (“She’s driven by the power, she’s driven to get the power, that is the driving force in her life,” Bay Buchanan, the activist and the sister of Pat Buchanan, said. “She’s deceitful, she’ll make up any story, lie about anything, as long as it serves her purposes of the moment, and the American people are going to catch on to it,” Dick Morris, the estranged former Clinton Administration adviser, said. “ ‘Liar’ is a good one,” Ann Coulter said.)

Bossie wanted “Hillary: The Movie” to come out in late 2007, to tie it to the Presidential election in the way that Moore had pegged “Fahrenheit 9/11” to the previous race. A cable company offered, at a cost of $1.2 million to Citizens United, to make “Hillary” available for free to viewers, on video on demand. Bossie also engineered a small run of the movie in theatres, but his real priorities were television advertisements and video on demand. Over the years, Bossie had become familiar with federal election law, so he decided he needed a lawyer, and hired James Bopp, Jr. (emphasis added)

From an article at the New Yorker:

Annals of Law May 21, 2012 Issue

Money Unlimited: How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision.
By Jeffrey Toobin

I suggest many people on DU take the time to remind themselves of what citizens united is and what it is they were trying and succeeded in doing.

I would also suggest that people make themselves familiar with cu's background fighting against Democrats, (specifically the Clintons) and women's rights, (specifically abortion rights) history and the various operatives within that organization. It's quite enlightening to see how abortion rights have been used to attack Democrats, progressives, liberals, and women.

[OilemFirchen]

15. Thanks for saving me (and others) the time.

"Clinton Echoes Sanders" is a howler.

[KittyWampus]

9. LOL! Hillary Clinton "Echoes" Sanders: Protect Women's Right To Choose".

LOLZ

I should start a whole thread for this.

Cause the OP title is so asinine.

[seabeyond]

10. bullshit cali. so dishonest. she has said this in the past. dishonest to say, anything that agrees

with sanders is "echoing" him or any other shit.

they agree almost totally with each other, on everything.

totally dishonest title. but then, i am learning this is a norm for you

i see integrity is not gonna be part of this campaign for some one du.

[justiceischeap]

11. The Constitutional Amendment thing comes from

a Facebook Q&A in 2014. Someone asked her if she would support one to overturn CU and she said yes.

She's gone on to say numerous times that she feels CU should be overturned even if it takes a Constitutional Amendment.

When I saw this post earlier this morning, I actually researched her stance on this further.

[MineralMan]

12. She's not "echoing" Sanders on this.

Not at all. As for the Constitutional Amendment approach, I endorse that as a solution. Other strategies don't have the permanence of an Amendment. It's a very difficult thing to do, of course, but should be part of a push toward getting rid of the Citizens United ruling. Appointment of justices is, of course, another strategy, but a less conclusive one.

This is not an "echo" of Senator Sanders, though. It is her belief, and has been stated in the past as well. I support Hillary in this, and will not try to make it some sort of "strategy" for her campaign. That would be dishonest, given her past statements. It is Hillary's position on the matter, and should be recognized as such.