Here's why Hillary doesn't require a litmus test re: Citizens United

[grasswire]

Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 03:26 AM - Edit history (1)

She apparently doesn't think she needs to ask for a pledge from SCOTUS nominee to repeal Citizens United because.......wait for it......she would rather try to get a constitutional amendment to overturn it.

So she is preferring to take on a difficult and possibly impossible vote instead of just seeking nominees who will pledge to overturn that nefarious law that protects the billionaires.

From her web site:


Hillary will:
Overturn Citizens United. Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who value the right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections. She’ll push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United in order to restore the role of everyday voters in elections.


https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/

Hat tip to DU member Squanderer for that link.

[DJ13]

1. "She’ll push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United"

Suuuure she will, just like Obama renegotiated NAFTA.

She's addicted to the campaign money as much as the Republicans.

[dchill]

28. With sprinkles!

Oh, wait. Sprinkles are for winners.

[nashville_brook]

53. why not just have Constitutional Convention?

seems that would be just as likely.

[bettyellen]

2. she will appoint Supreme Court justices who value the right to vote over the right of billionaires

....to buy elections.

[madokie]

20. You really believe that?

I sure don't

[thesquanderer]

24. Was that a response to just the headline, or to the entire post? Hard to tell. (n/t)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. A constitutional amendment, oh boy.

No problem, that will be easy.

Collectively, members of the House and Senate typically propose around 200 amendments during each two–year term of Congress. Most however, never get out of the Congressional committees in which they were proposed, and only a fraction of those that do receive enough support to win Congressional approval to actually go through the constitutional ratification process. Only 33 such proposals have been adopted by Congress since 1789 and presented to the states for ratification, and of these, only 27 have been ratified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[grasswire]

5. slick as snot, they are

This is why she repeatedly refused to say those words to MSNBC yesterday: "Yes, I have a litmus test for SCOTUS." She wouldn't say it.

Because she prefers to try for a constitutional amendment.

Pfffffffff.

[Autumn]

23. "10 of them in one shot with the Bill of Rights"

Yeah that's a slick move on her behalf.

[Jarqui]

31. Of 11,000 attempts to amend U.S. Constitution, only 27 amendments have passed

Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 12:31 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/30/xavier-becerra/11000-attempts-amend-us-constitution-only-27-amend/

Congress has considered "approximately 11,372 amendments" from 1789 through December 31, 2008, the most recent tally available, according to the Statistics and Lists section of the United States Senate website.

at 100 proposed per year, 11,372 as of 2008 means we need to add about 700
= 12,072 as of December 131, 2015 roughly.

The average success rate = 27/12072 = 0.263% or 1 chance in 380.

That's generous. It's probably less than that:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp

All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

Hillary's Way
67 Senators (2/3rds) currently Dems have 46 = need 21 more Senate seats
292 House Reps (2/3rds) currently Dems have 188 = 104 more House seats
38 of 50 States required to affirm

Bernie's way
60 Senators needed = need 14 more Senate seats
0 House seats required
0 states required


I like Bernie's odds better. We have a much better chance going Bernie's way - even though it's a tall order to get the House back.

Hillary knows that. She also knows a good number of folks hate her and don't trust her such that she'd never get anything close to Bernie's mandate much less a mandate required for a constitutional amendment. Once again, she's just pandering and suckering folks into voting for her.

[jeff47]

33. Correction on "Bernie's way"

The House is not involved in SCOTUS nominations. So 0 reps required.

[Jarqui]

36. Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

I'm not seeing that ...

How do you conclude that?

[jeff47]

37. "Bernie's way" is to appoint a SCOTUS justice that opposes CU

Turning the 5-4 CU decision into a 5-4 decision reversing it.

The House does not vote on that SCOTUS nominee.

[Jarqui]

39. Dumb of me I'll fix my post

[Qutzupalotl]

55. And they say WE believe in unicorns.

Incremental change can lead to the reforms Sanders is pushing, but this CA nonsense is a one-shot deal that is bound to go nowhere. In other words, her statement is a convenient excuse for keeping the status quo.

[Divernan]

4. What a slick promise! Worthy of Bill!

[mikehiggins]

6. A Con Con Con

Way back when there was a lot of talk about constitutional amendments, especially on the Right. By that I mean many decades ago. The argument against was that once you convened a Constitutional Convention (a con con) there would be no way to prevent the delegates from running off into cloud cuckoo land at a great cost to the US. It was concluded by many that the very idea of a Con Con was actually a confidence game intended to stamp out such talk, for our own good. Sort of like superdelegates.

At any rate, IIRC, the Clintons have brought up the idea in the past as justification of incremental steps to legitimise LGBT rights. If people pushed too hard, the argument went, the forces of evil would try to push through a Constitutional Amendment to delegitimise the very existence of gays.

Now the claim is that Citizens United could be changed through that route, just like the ERA could.

That claim is the con part of the con con con.

[grasswire]

7. yep

well said.

Incrementalism means the status quo can maintain longer, and perhaps the reform will NEVER happen. And that's good, if you are an elite.

[Dragonfli]

8. Thank you for clarifying that to all the Hill supporters that don't appear to even know

her positions and who also apparently don't even bother reading her website to find out.

I don't fault them really, reading is hard and it is much easier to just read the short talking point lists they receive to spread disinformation...err, i mean "get the good word out on her excellent policies in a coordinated and efficient way."

[grasswire]

9. weasel words

Ya have to parse everything the Clintons say.

And when they don't answer a question directly, look deeply to figure out why.

Just like "the meaning of is, is."

[Geronimoe]

10. She'll push for a constitutional amendment

on her last day in office.

[Gothmog]

11. Hillary Clinton has been pushing for a litmus test on Citizens United since May of 2015

The premise of the OP is false in that Clinton has been advocating for a litmus test on SCOTUS nominee since May. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/

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.

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.

The premise in the OP is simply wrong on the facts.

I am worried that nominating a weak general election candidate like Sanders is a good way to lose any chance of changing Citizens United. The only practical way to get rid of Citizens United is to select the strongest possible candidate. Control of the SCOTUS has been one of my key issues for a long time and I am not comfortable nominating a weak general election candidate when control of the SCOTUS is at risk

[RiverLover]

12. Weak? 3 national polls show Bernie would beat Trump in the GE.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

[Gothmog]

15. Match up polling is worthless

Here is a good thread talking about these polls http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010

The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.

Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.

No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.

[thesquanderer]

30. These polls showing Sanders beating Republicans more easily than HRC does...

Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 01:01 PM - Edit history (1)

...are only one indicator (and admittedly, not one to completely rely on at this early stage). But there are other indicators as well, like their differences in favorability/unfavorability esp. among independent and Republican voters; his history of generating strong support from independent and Republican voters in his past runs for office; his anti-establishement appeal in a year when that is clearly in vogue among voters of all types; how well his individual positions poll (i.e. single payer, tuition-free public college, $15 minimum wage); the fact that many of the positions where he differs from Hillary are also positions favored by many otherwise more conservative voters (against things like NAFTA/TPP, being less interventionist on foreign policy, being stronger for civil liberties i.e. against the PATRIOT act), and finally, the huge number of people who, whether they agree with him or not, believe he is honest/trustworthy and sincere in his beliefs, which has been shown in the past to be something that can win people's votes even if they don't agree with all the policies.

So it's a lot more than just matchup polls.

Meanwhile, your argument here that Sanders can NOT win appears to be primarily one of money. But that's what people said about his going up against Hillary, too.

[Gothmog]

42. There are very valid reasons why these match up polls are worthless

These polls are worthless and Nate Silver and others have attacked the use of these match up polls. The media likes these polls to try to promote a horse race but such polls are worthless due (a) the high margin of error (you have in effect double the margin of error) and (b) the candidate in question has not been vested.

If a poll has a margin of error of 4%(many of these polls have far higher margins of error) then to account for such margin of error, one must assume that the Sanders results against a GOP candidate could be 4% lower and Clinton's results are actually 4% higher. One cannot compare results in two separate polls without adjusting for the margin of error in each poll.

These polls also assume that the candidate has been vetted and is a viable candidate (i.e., has adequate funding to run in the general election). According to the Sanders people he has not been given any media coverage and therefore he has not been vetted. The reason for that is that the media does not think that Sanders will be the nominee and vetting Sanders would hurt the narrative that there is a horse race. Sander has some vetting issues that will hurt him if he is the nominee and Sanders is also very vulnerable to negative ads. Hypothetical match up polls also assume that the candidate can run a viable and well financed campaign. That is not the case for Sanders who is very vulnerable to negative ads on the costs of his programs and his socialism

Nate Silver and others are very clear that these polls are worthless but you are welcome to rely on these polls if that is the only way that you can attempt to show that Sanders is electable

[thesquanderer]

45. re: " if that is the only way that you can attempt to show that Sanders is electable "

I conceded in my very first sentence that you can't rely merely on these polls, and so I listed a whole lot of other reasons he would be more electable, without having to rely on those polls. So for you to then write "you are welcome to rely on these polls if that is the only way that you can attempt to show that Sanders is electable" when my whole post was about NOT having to rely on those polls is just, well, weird.

As for your other argument, "Sander has some vetting issues that will hurt him if he is the nominee and Sanders is also very vulnerable to negative ads," I dealt with that in post #41.

[Gothmog]

16. Bernie Sanders says he polls better against GOP candidates than Hillary Clinton

While I still think that these polls are worthless, I am amused to see that Sanders was found to be misrepresenting these polls and that in fact his claim is not true http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/26/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-he-polls-better-against-gop-ca/

In the runup to the Iowa caucus, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has repeatedly said he has a better chance of beating the eventual Republican nominee in the Nov. 8 general election than fellow Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

"Almost all of the polls that -- and polls are polls, they go up, they go down -- but almost all of the polls that have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton," he told voters during a Jan. 19 town hall meeting in Underwood, Iowa.

We took a look at the various national surveys, as compiled by RealClearPolitics and PollingReport.com to see how that assertion stacks up against the data.....

Our ruling

Sanders said, "Almost all of the polls that have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton."

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal national poll released before Sanders' statement supports his claim for Trump, but it has no data against Cruz or Rubio. Earlier polls say he doesn't outperform Clinton at all against Cruz, Rubio or Bush, and the narrow races combined with the margins of error make his contention even more dubious.

Beating Clinton in only two of eight hypothetical matchups is far from "almost all."

The statement is not accurate, so we rate it False.

[Gothmog]

17. Democrats would be insane to nominate Bernie Sanders

Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.

The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .

Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”

Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.

[thesquanderer]

41. The Republican candidate will be out for blood regardless of whether it's HRC or BS on the Dem side.

That said, Sanders provides them with less ammunition.

Sure, they will go after him for socialism. They went after Obama with that, too. Yes, in this case, he qualifies it rather than denies it. But when he explains what his "socialist" policies actually ARE, people tend to agree with them. When he explains that it means he wants to strengthen FDR's social security, people tend to agree with him (while his opponent is likely to be talking about privitization). Sure, there will be some people won't be able to get beyond the label. But you know what? Most of those people aren't going to be voting for Bernie OR Hillary.

Same with taxes. Bernie is not proposing significant increases in total out-of-pocket costs for the vast majority of voters. Some people will just buy the demonization, particularly the Clive Bundy types who simply don't want government to do anything. But most of those people aren't going to be voting for the Dem candidate regardless of who it is.

The argument I keep seeing here, which you have alluded to as well, is that Hillary has already had everything thrown at her and survived, while Bernie hasn't had that experience. Updated from a recent post on this topic:

Hillary has never before had to run under her newest clouds (she always seems to have new ones). Bernie isn't making anything at all out of the email server in her house, the drip-drip-drip of the actual released emails (and who knows what's to come there, in terms of new ammunition the Republicans would be able to throw at her), the contributors to the Clinton Foundation and how many of them were from countries who got the arms deals they wanted... It's easy for us to see these things as non-issues, but the Republicans--and public at large once the Republicans frame them in a general campaign--may not. Bernie isn't touching them, but you can bet the Republicans will.

Meanwhile, the Hillary side is so desperate to find things to throw at Bernie that they just plain make things up. He was sexist by saying that people on different sides of an issue yell at each other. He had the nerve to not raise money for other Democrats, until he had the nerve to raise money for other Democrats. He may or may not have been the person in a picture ("we're not claiming he's not the fighter for civil rights he claims to be, but...&quot . He's going to take away your ACA coverage, your Medicare, etc. And now, he's a single-issue candidate. Look how hard Hillary has to struggle to come up with something against Bernie, and then look at how easy it will be for the Republicans to come up with new things against Hillary. (Besides all the old ones.)

No one is going to get 100% of the vote. The same people who won't vote for Bernie because "Socialism!" or "Taxes!" won't be voting for Hillary because "Benghazi!" or "Email!" or "Clinton Foundation!", whatever. There's always a certain segment of voters you won't get, whether for genuine reasons or for bullsh*t reasons. But there just isn't as much to throw at Bernie, especially things that may actually appear to have some amount of legitimacy to people outside the far right, who you'll never get anyway.

[Gothmog]

18. Here are some warnings from Nate Silver's 538 website about match polls

Look at warning number 4

[Gothmog]

19. Are Sanders' General election Numbers Fools Gold

These polls are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted by the media http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-three-weeks-go-three-margin-error-races-n493946

Not surprisingly, Sanders' campaign is touting those general-election numbers. "There was fresh evidence on Sunday that confirms Bernie Sanders would be the most electable Democratic Party nominee for president because he performs much better than Hillary Clinton," the campaign blasted out to reporters yesterday. But here is a legitimate question to ask: Outside of maybe New Hampshire (where Sanders enjoys a geographic advantage), are Sanders' general-election numbers fool's gold? When is the last time you've seen national Republicans issue even a press release on Sanders? Given the back-and-forth over Bill Clinton's past -- and given Sanders calling Bill Clinton's behavior "disgraceful" -- when is the last time anyone has brought up the candidate's 1972 essay about a woman fantasizing about "being raped by three men simultaneously"? Bottom line: It's always instructive to take general-election polling with a grain of salt, especially 300 days before the general election. And that's particularly true for a candidate who hasn't actually gone through the same wringer the other candidates have.

These match up polls are not meaningful at this stage

[morningfog]

13. Yet violates the campaign finance laws already in place.

Why would you trust her on this?

She coordinates with a SuperPAC.

[madokie]

21. Weak my aching ass

you wanta talk about weak then lets talk about hill otherwise this meme of yours is bovine excrement

[thesquanderer]

25. That was then, this was now.

You can see exactly what she said yesterday at:

https://grabien.com/file.php?id=78203&searchorder=date

Ironically, the headline says she is calling for a litmus test... but as so often seems to be the case with Hillary, you can read into her comments whatever answer you are looking for. In this case, she says that a potential nominee's views on CU would "factor in" to her decision, but despite being specifically asked twice, ultimately declines to characterize it as a litmus test.

Meanwhile, your evidence to the contrary is from a "private session" with no verifiable video or transcript, only someone's recollection of, well, perhaps hearing what they want to hear, which as I said, is very easy when Hillary speaks. I'd really want to know the exact words before attributing this position to her.

But you know, even if she DID say that it would be a litmus test... like I said, that was then, this was now. On so many positions, you can find Hillary on the side you want her to be (or not), if you just go back far enough.

[Gothmog]

43. So the Washington Post article was all made up?

[thesquanderer]

44. Not made up, but it does not include a single direct quote from Clinton.

Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 02:24 PM - Edit history (1)

And in fact, when they reached out to her to get clarification about her exact position, they wrote, "A campaign spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment." Another opportunity missed. She does not seem to want to officially go on record with having a litmus test on this issue. Which is her right, of course.

And like I said, maybe someone will come up with some other quote from the past, it's possible. She is a fount of inconsistent quotes, after all.

But in this latest interview, when repeatedly asked straight out about whether it would be a litmus test, she certainly seemed to go out of her way to avoid simply saying "yes."

[Gothmog]

47. Clinton: ‘I have a bunch of litmus tests’ for Supreme Court nominees

Your claims are false. Here are some direct quotes from Hillary Clintonhttp://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268174-clinton-i-have-a-bunch-of-litmus-tests-for-supreme-court

Speaking at a Democratic presidential forum on Wednesday night, a person in the crowd asked Clinton whether she would impose a “litmus test” upon potential Supreme Court justices other than on the issue of being pro-abortion.

“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests, because the next president could get as many as three appointments,” the former first lady responded. “It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”

Clinton said her potential appointments would have to support the Voting Rights Act, parts of which were invalidated by the current group of justices.

She also said potential nominees would have to believe that money does not equal speech, which led to the landmark Citizens United decision that paved the way for super-PACs.

[thesquanderer]

48. My claim was false?

My only claim was that there was no direct quote in the WP article you pointed to. That claim isn't false.

And actually, even this other article you are posting from is slightly ambiguous. There is still no direct quote saying that, as a litmus test, her nominee would specifically have to oppose the Citizens' United decision. Again, it's something where we must interpret certain things she said and accept paraphrases of others, in order to get to that conclusion.

In case this isn't clear:

1. Look at your emboldened line, "She also said potential nominees would have to believe that money does not equal speech, which led to the landmark Citizens United decision that paved the way for super-PACs." That's a paraphrase, it's not a direct quote of her words, and paraphrases are often not precisely correct.

But okay, let's even assume that she did indeed say exactly that. We *still* potentially have an issue, because:

2. asking "Do you believe that money does not equal speech" is not exactly the same question as "would you overturn Citizen's United if given the opportunity?" Notice, for example, that the dissent on Citizens United did NOT say "this decision is wrong because money does not equal speech." They said it was wrong for other reasons.

So again, I still have not seen where Hillary specifically and unambiguously puts forth, in her own words, that she considers being opposed to the CU decision in particular to be a litmus test for any possible SC nomination.

Be that as it may, like I said, I certainly allow for the possibility that such a quote could exist, even though no one has presented one yet. So if you want to keep hunting, feel free. It's probably out there somewhere... as I said, search long enough, and you can find her on almost any side of any issue.

Regardless of whether or not any past quote turns up to the contrary, the point remains that, in this most recent exchange (from Feb 15), she is asked twice whether that would be a litmus test, and she dances all around the answer without ever simply saying "yes." If that's indeed what she thinks, why is she insisting that people "intuit" her answer, instead of simply coming out and giving a straight answer?

[Gothmog]

57. Yes, your claim is false

Read the Clinton website https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/

Hillary will:

Overturn Citizens United. Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who value the right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections. She’ll push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United in order to restore the role of everyday voters in elections.

End secret, unaccountable money in politics. Hillary will push for legislation to require outside groups to publicly disclose significant political spending. And until Congress acts, she'll sign an executive order requiring federal government contractors to do the same.
Hillary will also promote an SEC rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose political spending to shareholders.

Amplify the voices of everyday Americans. Hillary will establish a small-donor matching system for presidential and congressional elections to incentivize small donors to participate in elections, and encourage candidates to spend more time engaging a representative cross-section of voters.

Your assertions are not true at all.

[thesquanderer]

61. My claim "that there was no direct quote in the WP article you pointed to" is not false.

There simply is no such quote in that article.

And I am familiar with the text from the web site. It is in the OP. I'm actually the one who pointed it out to the poster in the first place. It is more of the kind of verbiage I am talking about. It dances around the issue. It does not specifically say that objection to the CU ruling will be a litmus test for a nominee.

I'm not even saying that such a litmus test is necessarily a "must have" in a candidate... I'm only saying, IF that's what you're looking for, it's not quite there with Hillary... and most notably, when she's asked about it outright, she still won't answer with a simple "yes" which is really the crux of the issue.

But okay, let's look at the web site. Hillary will overturn CU? Well, that's obviously hyperbole, as that is beyond the ability of any president. She will appoint SC justices who value the right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections? Okay, but specifically, must they assure you that they would specifically have, as a goal, the overturning of CU? Vague. What she does say clearly is that she will push for a Constitutional amendment, which is almost impossible to get. And btw, if she were to appoint a judge who, as a litmus test, would work to overturn CU, then why does she need to push for a Constitutional amendment to overturn CU?

But okay, let's even say that your reading of that is correct, she'll have a litmus test for CU. Why would she never simply say "yes" when twice asked on Monday if she would have such a litmus test? The whole question really comes down to that.

[Gothmog]

62. Your claim is false

Read the Clinton website

[Gothmog]

59. Go read her website

[earthside]

27. Whatever.

As John Mitchell, Nixon's Attorney General said, "Watch what we do, not what we say."

Hillary and Bill Clinton love Citizens United which is clearly apparent to everyone by the way Hillary is conducting the fundraising for her second presidential nomination effort.

In fact, that is a lot of what she is doing this week -- raising money from millionaires and billionaires.

You can believe Hillary on Citizens United just like you can believe her on being against the TTP (you can't); or being against Keystone pipeline (you can't); or being against war (you can't); etc.

[grasswire]

50. If that is so, Hillary's own web site would say so.

It doesn't.

[Gothmog]

56. Did you even look? It took five seconds to find this

From the Clinton website https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/

Hillary will:

Overturn Citizens United.
End secret, unaccountable money in politics.
Establish a small-donor matching system to amplify the voices of everyday Americans.

“We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans. Our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee.”

Before you make such an amusing claim, you might want to actually look at the Clinton website.

[grasswire]

60. Did you even look?

I'm copying directly from her web site:


Hillary will:
Overturn Citizens United. Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who value the right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections. She’ll push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United in order to restore the role of everyday voters in elections.

[Gothmog]

63. Read the material on the website

It says that she will appoint SCOTUS justices who will oppose Citizens United and the constitutional amendment is a back up plan. Sanders is also pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban Citizens United. http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/21/bernie-sanders-files-constitutional-amendment-overturn-citizens-united.html

Sen. Sanders had to propose a new amendment because legislation that isn’t acted on by the previous Congress expires at the end of the session. Since Congress didn’t act on the amendment the last time Sanders filed it, he is bringing it back in the new Congress.

The key section of the amendment is Section 2. The second section would halt the Supreme Court’s money is free speech interpretation of the Constitution. The first section of the amendment deals directly with the idea that corporations are people, but the second section overturns the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court decision that money is speech. The second section of the amendment would throw out the entire basis for the Supreme Court’s rulings in campaign finance cases.

You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[Katashi_itto]

14. What a pathetic dodge.

[Autumn]

22. Somewhere over 11,000 attempts to amend U.S. Constitution , 27 amendments have been passed.

Yeah that will fucking work and she knows it.

[frylock]

49. Shw will wield the mighty power of @Hillary to get it done!

[thesquanderer]

26. She's in good company. Jeb! favors the same approach.

"Jeb Bush Calls For Amendment to Fix Citizens United"

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/jeb-bush-calls-amendment-fix-citizens-united-n514251

[grasswire]

51. ah, the Bush-Clinton family of grifters agree.

Not surprising.

[randome]

29. There should NEVER be a litmus test for a SC nominee.

It's a ridiculous notion that a President would attempt to push his/her agenda onto the nation's top court.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[thesquanderer]

32. If the president should not have an agenda, what should the selection be based on?

If it's merely a matter of "qualifications" then, indeed, Scalia was an excellent choice.

[randome]

35. Based on well-reasoned past decisions and on the philosophy behind Constitutional issues.

If Scalia had made the decisions he's made as a SC justice BEFORE he became a SC justice, I think his overly strict interpretations would have been a deal-breaker. Anyone who doesn't see the Constitution as a living document is not fit for the job, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[thesquanderer]

38. "Do you see the Constitution as a living document?" is a litmus test.

And the answer to that question goes a long way to letting you know how they are likely to vote on a range of issues. So it is still the president implementing an agenda.

I agree with what I think is part of your point, that a president cannot or should not ask a potential nominee how s/he would vote on something in the abstract... it always has to come down to the case. However, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask if they agree or disagree with past decisions that have been argued, where they can look at the specifics of the case as well. So I think it is fine to ask someone, "How would you have voted in Roe v Wade? Citizens United? Shelby County v. Holder?" or any other case of particular interest, and use those answers as a litmus test.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Apparently, doing two things at once is beyond her capabilites.

[TTUBatfan2008]

40. I agree with her we need a Constitutional Amendment...

...but the odds of that happening are pretty much zero. Our chances are better by simply getting enough liberals on the Supreme Court to overturn it.

[MisterP]

46. so she'll nominate pro-CU judges? because we're not just worried about CU for that

[mgmaggiemg]

52. hello

nominees can't "pledge" to go one way or another on any particular issue....they are supposed to listen impartially....to each side that comes before the court...so no one is going to seek a "pledge" from a nominee. it's illegal...however they can nominate a liberal scotus which they will do and that will take care of it....Granny D gets her wish

[aidbo]

54. Sanders supporter here.

And while I wouldn't mind the supreme court overturning CU, I think a constitutional amendment would be stronger.

Luckily there is a mechanism for calling a constitutional convention that is already in place that bypasses congress by getting a super majority of state governments to call for one.

Check out http://wolf-pac.com for info. They already have 4 states (including California) and hopefully soon to include Oregon. You can use the link in my sig to donate to them.

[Gothmog]

58. Hillary's Fight Against Citizens United