Hillary: My Supreme Court appointees must support overturning the Citizens United decision

posted at 4:41 pm on May 15, 2015 by Allahpundit

Friendly reminder from Phil Kerpen: The Citizens United case was about whether a corporation had a First Amendment right to spend money from its general treasury to promote criticism of … Hillary Clinton. People on both sides forget that, I think. It’s natural in hindsight to assume that a conservative group being scrutinized by the feds for a political attack in 2007 was training its fire on Obama. Nope. The question was, does Citizens United’s right to free speech include the right to spend big bucks publicizing “Hillary: The Movie” when Hillary was a candidate for president?

That’s the case that would-be President Hillary Clinton now desperately wants overturned.

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…

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…

On Thursday, Clinton also reiterated her support for a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United, a long-shot effort that is nonetheless popular among Democratic activists.

At first blush that seems like a boutique issue to use as a litmus test for something as momentous as a SCOTUS appointment. A more obvious one, at least if the game here is mega-pandering to the left, would be to overturn the ruling in the Heller case a few years ago finding an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. Hillary won’t touch that one, though, because she needs states like Pennsylvania and Ohio in the general election and messing with guns is apt to spook centrist Dems. Another obvious litmus test is protecting Roe v. Wade no matter how many bills those radical Republicans pass attempting to criminalize killing a 36-week-old baby in the womb, but that’s risky too given popular support for late-term abortion bans. And besides, it goes without saying that any Democratic appointee will be a pro-abortion and anti-gun fanatic; it’s Republican appointees like Roberts and Kennedy and Souter and Stevens and Brennan much more so than Democratic ones who tend to “evolve” towards the other side once on the Court. Hillary’s not saying Citizens United will be her only litmus test in choosing nominee, merely an additional one. And given how rigid left-wing jurists tend to be in their orthodoxies, she’ll have no trouble getting contenders to pass it.

But we don’t need to overthink this. Yammering about Citizens United has nothing to do with Hillary’s discomfort with big money in politics. Just the opposite: It’s a way for someone who’s distrusted for her friendships on Wall Street to buy cheap grace from the left as the stench from the Clinton Foundation keeps wafting and reports swirl that she’s aiming to raise north of $2 billion for the election. No president in American history will owe as much to wealthy special interests as she will, and she’s got the “charity” slush fund to prove it. And you know what? This little litmus-test pander will probably work. Because in the end, as Jonathan Last says, you’re simply not going to beat Hillary Clinton by reminding voters how obnoxious Hillary Clinton is.

Think about that for a minute. By a margin of -25 points, people say they don’t trust Hillary Clinton, but by a margin of +4 points they say she has “high moral standards.”

There are only two possible conclusions from this: Either (1) Voters are idiots. Or (2) As a political commodity, Hillary Clinton’s appeal is based on something other than trustworthiness.

Whichever the case, the big lesson from the last few months is that it will be very difficult for a Republican to beat Hillary Clinton by getting voters to turn against her. The Clinton cake is so thoroughly baked that there’s no new evidence that’s going to make people decide that suddenly, after 20 years, the scales have fallen from their eyes and they realize she’s something other than what they think she is.

Hillary wants to rewrite the First Amendment to defang conservative groups who might make her life difficult? Well, that’s Hillary for you. Anything else you want to say before I pull the lever for her, wingnut?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

All Citizen’s United affirmed was that “people,” when exercising their right to assembly, don’t suddenly cease being “people” and therefore have to surrender all their other rights like freedom of speech.

Period.

There’s no rational reason for any freedom loving American to be upset by that. Anyone saying otherwise is a censorious political hack looking to silence their opposition.

CapnObvious on May 15, 2015 at 4:46 PM

Friendly reminder from Phil Kerpen: The Citizens United case was about whether a corporation had a First Amendment right to spend money from its general treasury to promote criticism of … Hillary Clinton.

Hillary: The Movie

novaculus on May 15, 2015 at 4:47 PM

She looks like SNL’s Pat with that shrug.

https://screen.yahoo.com/pat-birthday-party-000000920.html

BuckeyeSam on May 15, 2015 at 4:48 PM

To quote myself from Instapundit: Hillary Clinton has declared herself a good old fashioned American Progressive. Progressives do not believe in freedom of speech. See also, Woodrow Wilson.

She is also further politicizing our judicial system which was set up to be nonpolitical.

rbj on May 15, 2015 at 4:51 PM

Perfect picture AP!

She’s

Schadenfreude on May 15, 2015 at 4:51 PM

A face not even a mother could love.

Aizen on May 15, 2015 at 4:53 PM

Hillary Clinton is an enemy of freedom. She should be treated as such. One dictator wannabe in the White House is enough.

grumpyank on May 15, 2015 at 4:56 PM

The outrage ff a Republican candidate announced his SCOTUS appointees must oppose abortion Part 9,999….

The Supreme Court can’t oppose Citizens United. Supporting candidates is speech.

And if they do they should be tarred and feathered.

ConstantineXI on May 15, 2015 at 4:56 PM

FWIW I think voters are idiots. Well at least the 49% that vote lib that is.

warmairfan on May 15, 2015 at 4:57 PM

Hey Allah, please update this to make sure everyone notices that the article quoted here from the Washington Post, which is about Hillary Clinton, fails to mention anywhere that the Citizens United case was about Hillary Clinton.

Just in case anyone was wondering how far in the tank for Hillary the Post is.

rockmom on May 15, 2015 at 4:58 PM

Of course ANY judge who would submit to ANY litmus test on ANY issue would then be bound by oath and ethics to recuse himself from any case involving that issue.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. So my default position is to oppose any candidate of either party who supports any sort of “litmus test” for judges. No judge who would prejudge a case belongs on the bench.

Adjoran on May 15, 2015 at 5:01 PM

By all means let’s have fascism. Lord knows, I can’t be trusted with my own life.

steveracer on May 15, 2015 at 5:01 PM

Shrillary gettin’ her shrill on.

Neitherleftorright on May 15, 2015 at 5:01 PM

Hillary: My Supreme Court appointees must support overturning the Citizens United decision

It’s funny how the the Democrats are all in with ‘settled law’ when the Republicans want to do something, but when the Democrats want to change things it’s full speed ahead.

RJL on May 15, 2015 at 5:02 PM

So she’s already President in effect?

Nice quote Dear….all MY appointees MUST support overturning
the Citizens United case.

Okaaay Madam Evita.

ToddPA on May 15, 2015 at 5:03 PM

To quote myself from Instapundit: Hillary Clinton has declared herself a good old fashioned American Progressive.
rbj on May 15, 2015 at 4:51 PM

As Schade would say she is not a progressive, she is a leftist.
And all leftists are fascists.

Neitherleftorright on May 15, 2015 at 5:04 PM

when the Democrats want to change things it’s full speed ahead.
RJL on May 15, 2015 at 5:02 PM

Hypocrisy thy name is Democrat.

Neitherleftorright on May 15, 2015 at 5:07 PM

The truth about Citizens United.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUdFaIYzNwU

Hillary and the left want to stomp out free speech.

AprilApple on May 15, 2015 at 5:07 PM

Hillary: My Supreme Court appointees must support overturning the Citizens United decision

This is another example of why Democrat nominees never “grow” into conservatives. The Democrats play to win, happily “Borking” our nominees for their political views while the Republicans still believe in the prerogative of the President and as long as the nominee is qualified they’ll vote yes in confirmation.

RJL on May 15, 2015 at 5:07 PM

Hillary: My Supreme Court appointees must better support overturning the Citizens United decision which protected a movie that criticized My Greatness…or else

Accurate.

Aizen on May 15, 2015 at 5:09 PM

If Citizens United were overturned, would that prevent the Clinton Foundation “charity” from funding Hillary’s campaign?

Steve Z on May 15, 2015 at 5:10 PM

I guess you have to become a foreigner and contribute to a candidate’s slush fund if you want some first amendment rights.

Buddahpundit on May 15, 2015 at 5:13 PM

If Citizens United were overturned, would that prevent the Clinton Foundation “charity” from funding Hillary’s campaign?
Steve Z on May 15, 2015 at 5:10 PM

Of course not.These type of rules apply only to organizations on the right.

Neitherleftorright on May 15, 2015 at 5:13 PM

Phil KerpenVerified account
[email protected]

The Citizens United decision LITERALLY found the First Amendment protects a movie critical of Hillary Clinton. She cannot stand for that.

Schadenfreude on May 15, 2015 at 5:13 PM

Vote H→
Unions Yes. Everyone else not so much.

Neitherleftorright on May 15, 2015 at 5:15 PM

The GOP would be wise to educate people on what a hypocritical anti-free-speech fraud Hillary is on this.

AprilApple on May 15, 2015 at 5:25 PM

I never understood the left’s hatred of Citizen’s United.

Lets consider a TV ad for a position… say:
“Razor scooters are evil, and should be banned.
People should ride Seqways instead”.

There’s a milquetoast fake issue… and we’re off.

Case 1: Donald Trump decides he wants to buy a TV ad with his money to run an ad stating this. Can he?
Under Citizen’s United? Yes.
If Citizens United is overturned? Yes.

Answer? YES.

Case 2: I want to run the TV ad, but I’m not a multimillionaire. Hey, I’ll join forces with 10,000 like minded people I find online. To be sure the money is used properly we’ll get a contractual agreement as a group to spend the money promoting this issue. Can I do this?
Under Citizen’s United? Yes.
If Citizens United is overturned? NO.

SO the only change is… if we overturn Citizen’s United; ONLY the mega-rich can buy TV ads; not the regular people who should be silenced as their voice shouldn’t count.

Am I wrong? I don’t see how I could be.
Nobody is for stopping Donald Trump from spending his money as he chooses.
But the liberals seems hell bent on stopping any association of people from doing the same.

I guess only the “1%” deserve rights, as they’re simply better than us and we should honor and respect them.
Did I misunderstand the “occupy” protests this badly?

gekkobear on May 15, 2015 at 5:41 PM

Her appointees must also have personally had at least one abortion and wish they’d had more.

RBMN on May 15, 2015 at 6:10 PM

Man, this woman is not photogenic.

I love it.

bluegill on May 15, 2015 at 6:12 PM

gekkobear on May 15, 2015 at 5:41 PM

Seems you understand Citizens United perfectly well

I never understood the left’s hatred of Citizen’s United.

I’ll give you three guesses why limousine liberals might instruct all their sheep to oppose it. You’re obviously bright, so the first two guesses don’t count :)

CapnObvious on May 15, 2015 at 6:20 PM

Why the screen-cap of Jabba the Hutt?

fogw on May 15, 2015 at 6:27 PM

Fully disclosed donations from American corporations = bad.

Shady undisclosed “charitable” influence peddling donations from foreign governments = good.

I guess it all depends which way the money’s flowing eh?

Oxymoron on May 15, 2015 at 6:58 PM

Love that pic. What one of Maggie the Cat’s little “no-neck monsters” would look like all grown up and grown old.

Here’s the illustrated version.

de rigueur on May 15, 2015 at 7:06 PM

I shall call him…mini me

fitzfong on May 15, 2015 at 7:13 PM

H*lls/Bells,..HilRod Lootery:
—————————–

The Associated Press @AP · 18m 18 minutes ago

BREAKING: AP Source: Hillary and Bill Clinton report earning more than $25M from speeches since Jan 2014.
=======================================

2016 US elections
4m
Hillary and Bill Clinton earned more than $25 million in speaking fees since Jan. 2014, disclosure forms show – @washingtonpost
Read more on washingtonpost.com
================================

Clintons earn more than $25 million in speaking fees since January 2014
******
******

By Matea Gold, Rosalind S. Helderman and Anne Gearan May 15 at 7:00 PM
********

Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Bill Clinton earned in excess of $25 million for delivering more than 100 speeches since the beginning of 2014, a huge infusion to their net worth as she was readying for a presidential bid.

The Clintons revealed their recent income as paid speakers and other aspects of their personal finances in disclosure forms filed Friday. The details in the documents were confirmed by a senior Clinton campaign official.

Hillary Clinton also earned $5 million in royalties for her book, “Hard Choices,” which was released in June.
(More….)
===========

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-earn-more-than-25-million-in-speaking-fees-since-january-2014/2015/05/15/52605fbe-fb4d-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html?postshare=7621431730880476

canopfor on May 15, 2015 at 7:24 PM

She is just so attractive in the pic that I can’t imagine anyone not wanting her to run their lives from cradle to grave…..

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

NJ Red on May 15, 2015 at 7:26 PM

About time her campaign implodes.

cat_owner on May 15, 2015 at 7:49 PM

There is even more to this than meets the eye…

The Clintons have a vendetta against the Citizens United group itself (not just the lawsuit, but the group which brought the lawsuit).

I’ll need to break this into 2 comments… first a trio of relevant HotAir flashbacks:

Report: ABC agrees to edit “Path to 9/11″ after phone call from Clinton
posted at 2:42 pm on September 7, 2006 by Allahpundit

Thugs for life: Dems threaten ABC’s broadcast license over “Path to 9/11″
posted at 8:42 pm on September 7, 2006 by Allahpundit

Audio: Are the Clintons suppressing Path to 9-11′s DVD release?
posted at 2:15 pm on September 5, 2007 by Bryan

ITguy on May 15, 2015 at 11:41 PM

Comment 2 of 2:

Shareholder to Disney: Sell me the rights to “Path to 9/11″ so I can put it on DVD
posted at 4:30 pm on March 22, 2008 by Allahpundit

After the Clintons successfully bullied ABC into editing “The Path to 9/11”, then sending it down the memory hole after a single TV showing, and preventing its release to DVD, the Citizens United group made a movie about this Stalinist squelching…

BLOCKING “the Path to 9/11″
4 minute trailer
1 hour 34 minute full film

Both of these are well worth the time to watch, especially with Hillary running for President again.

As an old HotAir commenter said:

Those who can’t handle the truth,
try to silence those who speak it.

ITguy on May 15, 2015 at 11:44 PM

If corporations want to influence public policy, they have to do it the right way by contributing to the Clinton foundation; otherwise they can pound salt.–Hillary Clinton

KW64 on May 16, 2015 at 8:31 AM

“But not until I’m President.”

unclesmrgol on May 16, 2015 at 3:20 PM

This one is for the left. Most voters don’t know what she’s talking about.

But at least she is clear on one thing: she expects complete obedience from the judicial branch. This is just one issue of many, where the SCOTUS must get in line. Add to this, Obama’s legacy, the subversion of the Congress, it puts her in her ideal position of being able to dictate all matters to the American people.

virgo on May 17, 2015 at 12:26 PM