Thursday, January 21, 2016

Hillary Wants to Stack SCOTUS


I find the following statement by Hillary fascinating and scary. CNN Cure for Citizen's United
"As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I'll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it."
Now I understand that Presidents try to select Justices that lean their way. However to actually say you want to appoint individuals who would rule because they agree with you that something is "bad for America" instead of if it "is Constitutional" is amazing.  Thoughts?

17 comments:

jerrye92002 said...

Once again we see a Democrat making political points because the Major Media has already established the underlying narrative that "Citizens United is bad." And the collective ignorance of voters that the Court is supposed to rule on Constitutionality, not how they "feel" about something. Ever see a demonstration at the SC? Talk about stupid.

Sean said...

How does this differ from Republican pledges to only nominate judges that will overturn Roe v. Wade?

(Incidentally, Hillary Clinton -- and others -- have previously expressed Constitutional reasons why Citizens United was wrongly decided. But, hey, feel free to grab one sentence out of context.)

John said...

I must not be listening close enough.

I have not heard or read where the GOP candidates promise to put Justices in who will overturn the gay marriage ruling or Roe v Wade because they believe they are bad for America.

I am sure they do occasionally, however usually they say they will place justices on the court who will interpret the constitution more "purely".

Actually I grabbed a paragraph that seemed pretty complete / self standing. And I linked back to the whole piece.

Anonymous said...

What's worse? Stacking the Supreme Court? Or saying you will stack the Supreme Court? My thought is that at least Hillary is honest about saying what she will plan to do.

--Hiram

John said...

It is good she found something to be honest about. :-)

jerrye92002 said...

I think it is worse to say so. That betrays an ideological bias that is not supposed to be a factor in Supreme Court appointments. Just doing it makes people think you are doing it properly, even if you're not.

I see Hillary is honestly saying "it was Hillarycare before it was Obamacare," and thinking that gains her something.

Anonymous said...

I think it is worse to say so.

People lie at the senate hearings not because it's moral, but because that makes it easier to get confirmed.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

And all that does is allow the Presidential candidate to stack the court as promised while letting the nominee lie to the opposition party that it is not actually happening. If the nominees were truly the outstanding jurists they are supposed to be rather than ideologues, the court would not get "stacked" and confirmation would be a breeze. Don't laugh; it used to happen that way. Heck, remember there were even rumors of Hillary being appointed? Talk about a political pick!

Sean said...

Yes, John, the Republican Presidential candidates have been holding a real symposium on the merits of one view of Constitutional law versus another. I'm sure Harvard Law is updating their textbooks with all the profound legal analysis coming from the GOP candidates.

Anonymous said...

If the nominees were truly the outstanding jurists they are supposed to be rather than ideologues, the court would not get "stacked" and confirmation would be a breeze.

We don't nominate outstanding jurists. Justices are carefully vetted to make sure they will deliver the rulings the president nominating them wants. If you look at the justices, none of them were ever great lawyers or judges, but they all had carefully crafted resumes.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

I disagree. Robert Bork was an outstanding jurist, so was Wm. Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas. But by the time of their confirmation, political considerations hampered their confirmation.

Anonymous said...

Robert Bork was an outstanding jurist, so

Bork was among the last of the nominees who was relatively honest in confirmation hearings and it cost him his place on the court. Since then, lawyers whose ambition it is to become a Supreme Court justice have managed their careers and their resumes to avoid taking positions on issues controversial in the nominating process.

Bork was unacceptable and indeed established the outer limits of what is acceptable by his opposition to the court's ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut which held state laws against contraception to be unconstitutional. Support for Griswold has been a benchmark standard for conservatives ever since, however inconsistent the ruling in that case might be with their ideology.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Hiram, a very lucid and specific comment. Thank you. I disagree only slightly with your interpretation of history, however. You said Bork was the "last of the nominees ... who was honest..." I think he was the first to be treated to a full-blown political inquisition by Democrats determined to "stack the court" with ideologues rather than jurists. Now Hillary is saying she will complete the coup of the third branch.

jerrye92002 said...

Hillary makes a great case for why she must never be allowed within ten miles of the WH.

Anonymous said...

"I think he was the first to be treated to a full-blown political inquisition by Democrats determined to "stack the court" with ideologues rather than jurists. Now Hillary is saying she will complete the coup of the third branch."

Bork wasn't the first nominee to have a difficult hearing process. During the Nixon years Haynesworth and Carswell were both rejected, and before that Abe Fortas had his struggles in the Johnson administration. But the Bork nomination was a turning point, and in some ways even I see that as regrettable. Bork was someone who had led a normal life. He was a man of strong opinions with a willingness to express them. My own view, then and now, was that those views made him unacceptable as a Supreme Court justice, but he was certainly someone worthy of respect. These days, we have these guys who carefully conceal their view, who seem to manage their careers so that they have nothing to explain away at confirmation hearings. Their resumes are outstanding, but they haven't ever done anything worthwhile in their lives. Let's just say, for those guys, have no respect at all.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Excellent points. I would point out however that Haynesworth and Carswell were rejected on essentially bipartisan votes, whereas Bork was rejected by near-party-line Democrats plus a few Republicans. In other words, that was the point at which Supreme Court confirmations became political rather than judicious. It may explain why we do not have the U.S. Senate simply sit in judgment on these critical cases.

It is sort of a strange system, is it not? We expect our judges to be rigidly non-partisan, yet they cannot be confirmed as a judge without jumping through all the proper partisan hoops.

Anonymous said...

We live in more partisan times. But Bork wasn't rejected because of the party he belonged to, he was rejected because of his position on Griswold. Democrats did confirm other Nixon appointees during that era.

The constitution gives the senate the power to advise and consent on judicial nominations. It does not specify on what basis those powers are to be exercised, whether they should be based on politics or on something else. At the risk of sounding tautological, how the senate is to act is for the senate to decide.

I don't expect our justices to be non partisan, because I know they are selected through a highly partisan process about which the participants are disingenuous to the point of dishonesty.

"We expect our judges to be rigidly non-partisan, yet they cannot be confirmed as a judge without jumping through all the proper partisan hoops."

The founders were naive, but they were also trying to do something that had never been done before, create a political and governmental system from scratch. That had never happened with the British Parliamentary system with which they were most familiar. That system developed, and evolved over time. It didn't then, and doesn't today have a written constitution which can be referred to. Among other things, our founders didn't seem to understand that the result of any political process will inevitably be political, another tautology, I am afraid. The role of the Supreme Court in our government has always been political, we just didn't always understand it that way.

If you want a look at the judicial and legal process close up, I highly recommend the Netflix streaming series, "Making a Murderer".

--Hiram