July 26, 2016

If Donald Trump showed equivalent disrespect for the rule of law, he would be lambasted, but Bernie Sanders can say...

"Hillary Clinton will nominate justices to the Supreme Court who are prepared to overturn Citizens United and end the movement toward oligarchy in this country. Her Supreme Court appointments will also defend a woman’s right to choose, workers’ rights, the rights of the LGBT community, the needs of minorities and immigrants and the government’s ability to protect the environment."

And you don't hear a peep.

And I don't mean "peep" in the sense of "My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."

And if you don't understand what I'm referring to by the shorthand in the post title, let me remind you of the way every Supreme Court nominee since the Bork debacle has presented himself or herself in the confirmation hearings — notably Justice Ginsburg:
At her Supreme Court confirmation hearing in 1993, Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly explained that the judicial obligation of impartiality required that she give “no hints, no forecasts, no previews” about how she might “vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide.” As she declared in her opening statement:
A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.
Sanders is saying that Hillary Clinton will ensure that her nominees will forthrightly parade what Ginsburg called disdain for the entire judicial process.

113 comments:

damikesc said...

Has there EVER been a President so determined to overturn a Supreme Court precedent that was directly involving her personally?

The Dems have attacked Citizens United and seem to, still, ignore what the case was about.

PB said...

Few people realize that Citizen's United was primarily a free-speech/1st Amendment ruling, so those that want to overturn it in the cause of "getting money out of politics" are really against free-speech.

AND if you want to "get the money out of politics", they should be talking non-stop about Donald Trump's campaign which has spent 3% of what Hillary has spent (though he'll increase his spending significantly in the last 2 months.

David Begley said...

News flash. The Dems have a whole list of litmus tests.

I find it hilarious that one of Hillary's top priorities is to reverse Citzens United; a case involving a film about the Clintons!

tim in vermont said...

The problem with the game of pointing out double standards by the Democrats is that it is too easy. They will just say "We have twice as many standards as the Republicans and more is best!"

tim in vermont said...

I made the move you seem to be making too. I would love a Democratic Party that stood up for workers and the poor in genuine ways. That considered war a last resort, that tried their best to smooth off the rough edges of capitalism. That is not this Democrat Party. This party wants a single-party government on into the future so that corruption can go on without interference of an effective opposition, or rules from a dusty old document.

rhhardin said...

The supreme court's problem is the way it acts. Hillary is just saying we want it that way even more.

David Begley said...

One thing is for sure. Teaching constitutional law will get a whole lot easier if Hillary wins. Althouse will be able to predict the results with 100% accuracy once cert is granted.

Freder Frederson said...

Okay, so appointing justices that will overturn Citizens United is somehow unconstitutional? You teach your students this nonsense?! Prior decisions are overturned all the time. Citizens United was a 5-4 decision that suspended common sense (money magically doesn't corrupt the political system) and overruled a couple prior decisions.

It's not like the Republicans would ever appoint a justice who has no respect for precedent (except for Thomas).

And are you really comparing Bernie's statement of the kind of Justices he would like to see with Trump's frequent promises to torture (and possibly even behead) people, order the military to kill innocent women and children, change the first amendment to make it easier to sue people who are mean to him, unilaterally ignore and abrogate our most important treaties, etc.

Get serious Ann.

Brando said...

Why anyone would believe that a woman who has raised record sums from entrenched businesses would try to restrict those businesses from buying politicians like her is a mystery.

shiloh said...

IOW Hillary will nominate SC Justices who support the Constitution's equal protection under the law clause, the common good, and believe in the concept of in order to form a more perfect union.

ie basic concepts er the difference between Rep and Dem er no surprise.

If you want justices who believe in Dem values vote for Hillary. If you want justices who believe what the Reps were spewing a wk ago vote for Trump. What a concept.

>

Also, last wk delegates en masse were sayin' lock her up!. Obviously they don't understand how the criminal justice system works. Indeed, their blind hatred for Hillary would disqualify them from a jury trial.

No wonder Putin wants Reps er Trump to win as they appear to be birds of a feather.

>

Althouse is talkin' about rule of law when the Hitler youth er Rep delegates are/were screeching at the top of their lungs lock her up!

>

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. la la la

Althouse going for that illogical conservative red meat early in the day. As always, I applaud her effort!

ddh said...

Sen. Sanders brought into the open what everybody knows is true: that the Democrats want justices who will decide cases according to Democratic Party preferences of the moment. The sad thing is that they often find Supreme Court nominees who deliver the expected opinions once in the Court.

Matthew Sablan said...

It's not like any of those things are things we didn't believe she would do.

At least they're honest about it.

JAORE said...

"Althouse is talkin' about rule of law when the Hitler youth er Rep delegates are/were screeching at the top of their lungs lock her up!

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. la la la"

Oh Shiloh it is beyond delicious to know you MUST have heard the Bernie supporters chanting,"Lock her up" yesterday and still, STILL you spew this nonsense.

Curious George said...

"shiloh said...
Also, last wk delegates en masse were sayin' lock her up!. Obviously they don't understand how the criminal justice system works. Indeed, their blind hatred for Hillary would disqualify them from a jury trial.

No wonder Putin wants Reps er Trump to win as they appear to be birds of a feather."


Uh, the Sanders delegates were chanting the same thing there Corky.

And can someone please out out this dumpster fire:

"Freder Frederson said...
Okay, so appointing justices that will overturn Citizens United is somehow unconstitutional? You teach your students this nonsense?! Prior decisions are overturned all the time. Citizens United was a 5-4 decision that suspended common sense (money magically doesn't corrupt the political system) and overruled a couple prior decisions.

It's not like the Republicans would ever appoint a justice who has no respect for precedent (except for Thomas).

And are you really comparing Bernie's statement of the kind of Justices he would like to see with Trump's frequent promises to torture (and possibly even behead) people, order the military to kill innocent women and children, change the first amendment to make it easier to sue people who are mean to him, unilaterally ignore and abrogate our most important treaties, etc."

MikeR said...

I assume Donald Trump says the same thing: I will appoint justices who will ___. That's different from saying that the judge him- or herself will show partiality before being appointed.
I mean, the second thing is a silly farce that we go through because of Bork, but anyhow it's different.

MayBee said...

The DNC emails show funds raised that were supposed to go to the states were being used by the party. A 40-state fund could take in 40x the maximimum donation, but was hold on to the majority of the money rather than disbursing it to the 40 states. Anyone who thinks the Democrats want big money out of politics is a fool.

(The story is on Politico today but I'm on my phone and can't link)

David said...

Just a reminder that our political process now requires Supreme Court nominees to give bullshit answers during the confirmation hearings.

MayBee said...

I should say state party vs national party

chickelit said...

David Begley said...I find it hilarious that one of Hillary's top priorities is to reverse Citzens United; a case involving a film about the Clintons!

Many people, including some who post here, think Citizen's United is about big nasty corporations buying influence in American politics.

Gusty Winds said...

Judges at that level are nothing more that politicians in sheep's clothing, or in a black robe and maybe a powdered wig.

The entire point of the Kloppenberg campaign in 2011 was to overturn Wisconsin's Act 10 from the bench. Nobody hid that. Songs were written.

The fact that Federal Judges are appointed to enact an agenda in nothing new. The Dems are just better at it that GOP Presidents. (David Souter, John Roberts....)

Seeking a desired verdict or judgement requires judge shopping, using racial profiling to pick juries, and of course lawyers to pretend its all blind justice in search of the truth.

It must be hard to teach law school when the entire process is a farce.

Matthew Sablan said...

"The DNC emails show funds raised that were supposed to go to the states were being used by the party."

-- I think that is probably illegal. Definitely unethical.

Gahrie said...

I just watched a video of someone talking to Ben Shapiro, and he said something that struck me as truth given my experiences here at Althouse for more than a decade, but I could not express as well.

To paraphrase, Shapiro suggested that the Right sees the Constitution as law, to be interpreted using reason, while the Left sees the Constitution as poetry, to be interpreted by feelings.

Isn't that pretty much Althouse's thesis?

traditionalguy said...

Bernie says Hillary will rig the court's decisions.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for Chief Justice. Then we will get THE LAWS we want every damn time.

Matthew Sablan said...

I think the better view is that right and left both see it as law.

But, the right sees it as the law, as it is -- and if you want to change it, you have to change it. Old laws may be bad or good, but they are still the law.

The left sees it as the law ought to be, and that the words are open to interpretation, and because of that, how things ought to be trump previous interpretations.

Ann Althouse said...

"Okay, so appointing justices that will overturn Citizens United is somehow unconstitutional? You teach your students this nonsense?! Prior decisions are overturned all the time. ..."

You are mixing up 2 things. You slipped right from one to the other. Do you see the rhetorical fallacy and just hope we'd miss it?

Crazy Jane said...

It takes a real cynic to say that Citizens United is an offense to the constitution but the Clinton Foundation, a "charity" used mainly to scare off credible Democratic presidential candidates, is not.

Sebastian said...

"let me remind you of the way every Supreme Court nominee since the Bork debacle has presented himself or herself in the confirmation hearings — notably Justice Ginsburg" Well, yeah. But RBG's dishonesty was blatantly obvious to everyone.

"Ginsburg repeatedly explained that the judicial obligation of impartiality required that she give “no hints, no forecasts, no previews” about how she might “vote" But some of us proles made pretty good forecasts nonetheless. She has been the most predictable justice of the past generation.

"A judge sworn to decide impartially . . " She just happens impartially to support the party line at all times.

"Sanders is saying that Hillary Clinton will ensure that her nominees will forthrightly parade what Ginsburg called disdain for the entire judicial process." So? They do disdain the process. As Mark Tushnet clearly explained, progs think it's time to jettison this whole lip service to constitutional tradition business. It's only a matter of time and power: when they have enough votes, they'll trash what they can.

chickelit said...

Gahrie added: To paraphrase, Shapiro suggested that the Right sees the Constitution as law, to be interpreted using reason, while the Left sees the Constitution as poetry, to be interpreted by feelings.

Lately, the Left is acting like the Constitution are just words to be skirted. I'm assuming there are words in the Constitution regarding separation of powers. Sanders abrogates them. He's not a lawyer but Hillary is. She should know better.

chickelit said...

BTW, great post, Althouse this should make lightbulbs light in your colleagues' heads.

traditionalguy said...

Interesting to me was the way Sean Hannity , who is Catholic, saw the scandal of the e-mail suggesting that southern Baptist peeps react differently to an Athiest than to a Jew is suggesting the Dems appeal to the Baptists anti-Semitic instincts.

Of course he gotthat exactly wrong. The Southern Baptists are all strongly pro Jews and pro,Israel. It is the Catholics that are traditionally trained professional anti-Semites, like the Jesuit trained Kaine.

Darrell said...

Networks should have to finance every anti-Hillary film and give it a prime time slot. Super Citizens United reparations.

David Begley said...

Traditionalguy

"It is the Catholics that are traditionally trained professional anti-Semites, like the Jesuit trained Kaine."

Wrong. The Jesuits at Rockhurst HS did not train Kaine to be an anti-Semite. You are 1,000% wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Otto said...

Ah our liberal commentators theme of" we are all sinners" contradicts with their basic building block of humanism. Funny how they revert to the basis of Christianity when their system of Democracy doesn't work.
" If you are not ruled by God you will be ruled by tyrants"

narciso said...

it's about power, absolute power, citizens united was about red queen using the power that maverick and your former senator feinberg (sic) to crush political speech, the remedy might have been overbroad, but the dems profited more from it,

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I'm assuming it's on purpose, but is Justice Ginsburg really the best example to give, Professor? As an example of the Court's ideas about what impartiality means/should mean to Justices, that is.
I mean, Justice Ginsburg gave a pretty good demonstration of what she thinks about appearing impartial (through her very public comments about candidate Trump) recently, right? In a way that's wholly at odds with the nominee Ginsburg quote you highlighted, no?
So maybe your ideas about judicial impartiality are just old fashioned. I basically guarantee they are if the Dems win the Presidency and a filibuster-proof Senate majority--they won't even pretend to care about impartiality then.

Why, again, should we all respect the idea of the Constitution (as anything other than a temporary law designed for immediate consequentialist aims and easily modifiable as needed by any instant political/ideological desire)?

Chuck said...

This is an excellent observation by Professor Althouse. I agree entirely; I was struck in exactly the same way as I listened to that part of Sanders' speech. (I had my computer turned off by then.)

And yes; if Trump had said something similar he'd have gotten some deserved criticism. Thing is with Trump is that he says so much stuff that is outlandish and subversive of conservatism and the rule of law, a comment about federal judicial nominations for Article III judges would be pushed down the list.

Birches said...

How come we all know how the liberal block will vote, but Kennedy and Roberts are wild cards? And the conservatives are the partisan shills?

cubanbob said...

Has anyone refuted the facts in the Citizens United film?
What amazes me is that Democrats who primarily dominate the entertainment and advertising industries would know is all that money gets you is placement in the eyes of the public but if the product stinks, it stinks and doesn't sell. Hillary stinks and only sells to parasites and grifters-Democrats.

Chuck said...

Hoodlum:

I'll try to speak for Professor Althouse. It's not an exact reply to you, but the problem is partly your question.

See, there's a difference -- a very big difference -- between a judge saying before she or he has heard a case how they would decide it, and a judge commenting in an academic way about a decision that has already been written.

It's not a perfect answer for you. Because one thing it raises is the question of stare decisis, and then which past decisions will be regarded as settled law and which ones will be ignored or overturned.

Like, uh, Roe versus Wade.

hawkeyedjb said...

Ginsburg made the noises she was told to make, pretending at impartiality, but all leftist judges are very thoroughly vetted and they never, never, never deviate from the expected result. Right wing judges make the same noises, but they are not nearly as well vetted and so become "swing votes" on the court. There is no such thing as a left wing "swing vote" on the court, nor will there ever be.

YoungHegelian said...

@TradGuy,

The Southern Baptists are all strongly pro Jews and pro,Israel.

Earth to TradGuy --- Southern white Baptists rarely vote Democrat anymore. In fact, there probably isn't a more Republican group of people on the planet than Southern white Protestants.

The guy at the DNC was talking about black Baptists, who are not strongly pro Jew & pro Israel.

Do you just throw random thoughts together so you can hook an anti-Catholic slur on to the end?

Amexpat said...

Don't see this as an issue. Trump already said what type of justices he'd appoint to appease evangelicals and conservatives.

Also, the pretense of candidates not having a litmus test on Roe for SCOTUS appointments has long since passed. Why not be up front about it?

Meeeea said...

Bloomberg just ran a new article on the "error" of Citizens United, resurrecting it w/ a bias to support Hillary's platform.

Reclaimdemocracy.org has been at it for awhile. If anyone here is a historian (and an atty would be a plus) can you please go to the link they have at this part of their homepage and see how honest their explanation is?:
"Given the strong restrictions our country’s founders imposed on corporate activities, they clearly didn’t intend for corporations to enjoy constitutional protections." (Just in case, thanks advance!) I'm off to the surgeon to check a new lump, hoping it is nothing!

Unknown said...

Why the amnesia regarding what Trump said he would do in appointing Judges that would overturn same sex marriage? Please don't say you were unaware of this.

http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-nationwide-marriage-equality

"Trump’s Notable Quotes on LGBTQ Equality

"Trump Said He Would “Strongly Consider” Appointing Judges To Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Decision. Asked on Fox News Sunday “WALLACE: But -- but just to button this up very quickly, sir, are you saying that if you become president, you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage?” TRUMP: “I would strongly consider that, yes.” [Fox News Sunday, 1/31/2016; VIDEO]"


Chuck said...

I am gratified to see so many of the Althouse readership make the principled stand for the correctness and First Amendment freedom underlying Citizens United.

Does everyone realize that almost alone in Republican politics, Donald Trump has sided, however obliquely, with the Citizens United critics? (No need to remind me that Jeb Bush verbalized some criticism as well; there's no forgiving Jeb for that stupidity.)

Meade said...

"Trump Said He Would..."

Saying is one thing. Quite another that Hillary Clinton and her husband actually signed DOMA and DADT.

Unknown said...

More amnesia?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-pro-life-supreme-court

"Donald Trump on Tuesday night said that if he is elected president, he will appoint a pro-life justice to the Supreme Court.

During his Fox News show, Bill O'Reilly read a viewer's question to Trump about how the presumptive Republican presidential nominee would "protect the sanctity of life" as president.

"I will protect it, and the biggest way you can protect it is through the Supreme Court, and putting people on the court," Trump replied. "Actually, the biggest way you can protect it I guess is by electing me president.""

Chuck said...

Unknown -- Yes, you are right about Trump and his clumsiness on judicial nominations. I criticized him for that.

Meade said...

Also, Unknown,
Has Donald Trump stated that, if faced with evidence of his spouse sexually harassing employees, he will strongly consider going into coverup mode? Hillary, of course, doesn't need to talk the coverup talk. She's walked the coverup walk!

Unknown said...

Never forget that Hillary Clinton is in favor of overturning Citizen's United, a case where the Government tried to jail critics of Hillary Clinton, for criticizing Hillary Clinton.

I wish the leftists here would answer the question of whether the US Government should be punishing people for criticizing Hillary Clinton. Because the Supreme Court was horrified at that idea. And the left has gone full throttle in support of it.

Yes or no: Should people go to jail if they criticize Hillary Clinton? If you say yes, then please immigrate to North Korea, where you belong. If you say no, then you cannot oppose the Citizen's United decision.

--Vance

Unknown said...

Trump would be on board regarding appointing SC Justices to overturn Citizens United.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-04/trump-the-developer-loves-low-interest-rates-trump-the-candidate-sees-a-bubble-

"Trump also criticized Citizens United, the controversial 2010 Supreme Court decision that paved the way for unlimited independent spending to influence elections. He said super-PACs, which are legally prohibited from coordinating with campaigns they support, are a "total phony deal," noting that Jeb Bush's super-PAC is run by "somebody that's very close to him." He said the law "forces people into being somewhat dishonest."

"I guess from my standpoint personally I'd almost rather not see it," he said of candidates seeking to raise large amounts of money from the Koch brothers. "I see all of the money that's being raised by these folks, and they're raising hundreds of millions of dollars, and ultimately billions of dollars.""

damikesc said...

Again, she wants to make it ILLEGAL to criticize candidates within 2 months of an election unless you're the "news". THIS is Dem freedom.

LYNNDH said...

Again, have to vote for Trump if only for the SC.

YoungHegelian said...

@Unknown,

Trump would be on board regarding appointing SC Justices to overturn Citizens United.

That article says no such thing! Trump may not like some aspects of CU, but there isn't a word about overturning it in that article.

I know it's tough to maintain critical objectivity with a large object up your rectum, but do try for the rest of us.

narciso said...

I disagree with the remedy, which still the dems profited from, priorities usa, which was chock full of money from joss whedon, morgan freeman, and bill maher, it's triple think with these people, they deny the tools that enable them,

YoungHegelian said...

@narcisco,

they deny the tools that enable them,

And if those people had their way, they still would be "enabled".

It's only "right wing money" they want to shut down. Left wing money will always be only a force for good.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...See, there's a difference -- a very big difference -- between a judge saying before she or he has heard a case how they would decide it, and a judge commenting in an academic way about a decision that has already been written.

What? I'm talking about Justice Ginsburg's very public comments about candidate Trump, Chuck. She commented on the possibility of a Trump Presidency, and by extension on how she would view the Trump Presidency were cases a Trump Administration was arguing to come before her Court. That's betraying the ideal of judicial impartiality, Chuck. In her speech during her nomination Ginsburg talked up the idea of judicial impartiality (its importance, etc). As a current Justice, Ginsburg gave several interviews where she very clearly demonstrated a lack of impartiality.

If you want to disagree you'd have a better case arguing that the TYPE of impartiality in question varied--that in one case she was talking about legal matters and in the other case she was talking only about a single political decision/matter. You'd have a tough time there, of course, precisely because candidate Clinton and her supporters have taken pains to tie her closely with judicial opinions/legal matters (like the desire to overturn Citizens United--a subject of this whole discussion), but at least there you could try to make a distinction. You can't really argue that her recent comments are in keeping with the spirit of her comments as a nominee to the Court--they're self-evidently at odds.

Larry J said...

It's very easy to predict how the leftists on the supreme court will vote on any given issue. They can mouth all of the platitudes during the confirmation hearings that they want, but when it comes time to vote on an issue before the court, they will vote their leftist views the overwhelming majority of the time.

Hillary is opposed to Citizens United. It's important to remember what that case was about. Some independent people made a documentary movie about Hillary in 2008 that she didn't like. It was very unflattering. IIRC, they were prohibited from showing the movie by the government. The supreme court ruled that restraint was illegal. Hillary wants to permanently silence her critics. If she's allowed to fill the current and future court vacancies, she'll have a free hand at tipping the court hard to the left. Her nominees would probably be young enough to serve for decades to come.

Unknown said...

YH,
OK, I'll re-word it into a question. In light of Trumps dislike for super pacs( back then, but not now, he changed his mind, surprise!) would he have been in favor of appointing a SC Judge to overturn it? He already said he would appoint SC Judges to overturn same sex marriage and appoint "pro life" Justices to the SC.

Bruce Hayden said...

Of course Crooked Hillary wants there to be no paid criticism of candidates during the last two months before an election except for the "news". And the "news" is allowed to criticize politicians, because they are mostly Dem operatives with bylines. We saw that with how she controls press access, how many of them are willing to totally script their questions when interviewing her, etc. and this week about what much of the MSM is reporting, and, more importantly, not reporting Philly. Allowing what she wants there would essentially put Dem politicians and their minions in govt in charge of what is said against them during those last two months. But, of course, that is why the politicians passed the laws that they did, and why their minions tried to shut Citizens United down for having the temerity of showing an anti-Hillary film.

Think how brazen Crooked Hillary Rotten Clinton has become. She has openly stated that if she is elected, anyone she nominates for the Supreme Court will have to agree to overturn precedent specifically allowing criticism of her. Citizens United said that the group couldn't be prevented from criticizing her. And she openly wants to overturn that ban on preventing that criticism. Arguably a triple negative, which reduces to openly pushing for legal censorship of any criticism of her. Like I said, brazen.

Paul Snively said...

For any Democrat to say "end the movement toward oligarchy in this country" with a straight face after the DNC hack revealed the DNC really did choose Clinton and deliberately sabotage Sanders, after the FBI investigation into Clinton's e-mails, and after what we've learned about the Clinton Foundation, is... characteristically brazen.

Not to go all Godwin's Law, but one thing the Democrats definitely did learn from the Nazis: the principle of the Big Lie. Make it big enough and repeat it enough, and sure enough, enough people will believe it that you can get away with it.

Paul Snively said...

tim in vermont: I would love a Democratic Party that stood up for workers and the poor in genuine ways. That considered war a last resort, that tried their best to smooth off the rough edges of capitalism. That is not this Democrat Party.

That Democratic Party was assassinated on November 22nd, 1963, by a Communist assassin.

Bruce Hayden said...

Someone above worried about both CJ Roberts and J Kennedy. I don't worry as much about the Chief Justice. I think that there is a good likelihood that the conservatives had already lost Kennedy, were facing a 5-4 decision, and Roberts switched sides to get control of writing the decision (which he can do as Chief Justice). They ended up as narrower decisions than maybe they could have been, and I think we can thank him for that b

YoungHegelian said...

@Unknown,

In light of Trumps dislike for super pacs( back then, but not now, he changed his mind, surprise!) would he have been in favor of appointing a SC Judge to overturn it?

I don't know because Trump hasn't said anything about it one way or the other. And, like you say, what he says today may not apply tomorrow.

But that doesn't change the fact that your article didn't say what you said it did.

Stop shilling. Think. Engage, not hector, the rest of us.

Freder Frederson said...

Should people go to jail if they criticize Hillary Clinton? If you say yes, then please immigrate to North Korea, where you belong. If you say no, then you cannot oppose the Citizen's United decision.

Nobody was going to jail because of the Citizens United video.

Chuck said...

Hoodlum - Right; well I thought I had in part sort of agreed with you. But in any case, I think it is apples to oranges, whether Ruth Bader Ginsburg says how she is going to rule on a particular case before it is ever filed, versus her general dislike of a person in political life. The two things could hypothetically dovetail, if for instance she were called upon to rule in some personal matter concerning Trump. I suppose.

I think it was mistake by Ginsburg to have said what she said; and she's apologized for it. I don't like much of anything about Ginsburg, but mostly her actual decisions on the Court.

I don't know quite how to wrap up this argument. I agree with Althouse in this post (as I said previously). Ginsburg was correct, essentially, in her confirmation hearing to have declaimed any ability to discuss a hypothetical case before the Court. And it flies in the face of propriety, for a presidential candidate to make assurances about how a hypothetical judicial nominee would rule. No matter if the candidate is Trump or Sanders or Clinton.

Unknown said...

Unknown isn't paid or programmed to think and engage.

Well, not *that* unknown.

--Arch

Unknown said...

YH,
"Hector"? Is that similar to presenting to you rightie's an opposing opinion? Can you think beyond your epistemical confines? I'm engaging with you, I could ignore you altogether.

Birkel said...

Freder Frederson:

"Nobody was going to jail because of the Citizens United video" ...

after Citizens United was decided. However there were criminal penalties in place had the decision gone the other way.

IOW, you are a liar.

James Pawlak said...

President Thomas Jefferson: "On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to to the probable one in which it was passed."

Seventh Circuit Court Of Appeals Judge Richard Posner: “(The) Constitution is outdated, judges should stop studying it”.

Would Judge Posner be Hillary's first choice for SCOTUS?

Birkel said...

UnknownInga:

You were unable to make a positive comment about Hillary Clinton. Perhaps you should consider the word positive.

traditionalguy said...

Ok, Begley and Young Hegelian...I somehow missed the start of the Brave New World where only all Black congregations of Southern Baptists vote for Democrats and where Catholic Priests no longer preach openly against Jewish influence, and where The Episcopalian, Presbyterian and United Methodist Pension Boards have voted to quit the BDS crap forbiding investments in companies that dare sell to Israel, whom they slanderously accuse of stealing from and murdering innocent Palestinians.

I guess I just don't get out that much anymore. But it is great to hear the good news.

YoungHegelian said...

@Unknown,

Hector"? Is that similar to presenting to you rightie's an opposing opinion?

Do you see me lambasting & mocking our other resident lefties? If not, why is that?

Am I the only person here calling you out as a shill instead of an honest interlocutor? No, I'm not. Why are you so blind to your rudeness to the rest of us here?

Can you think beyond your epistemical confines?

It's either "epistemic" or "epistemological". "epistemical" isn't a word.

I'm engaging with you, I could ignore you altogether.

By what, posting more newspaper clippings? You could ignore us all, & just go away. But then, your bosses would not be pleased...

Sigivald said...

When you can't get the Constitution changed to get what you want - and what you want isn't in it or is actively opposed to it - well, you have to stack the Court.

I just wish they'd be honest about it and push Amendments.

I really wish they'd get over Citizens United, though I thoroughly enjoy the spectacle of Progressives telling me labor unions and activist 501s should be muzzled near elections, "because free speech".

Unknown said...

I'm here to present an alternative viewpoint, one which these comments sections are sorely in need of. It's a service I gladly provide.

Qwinn said...

Unknown:

What you mainly provide is confirmation to the conservative posters here that leftist arguments are indeed every bit as deceptive, disingenuous and illogical as we believed them to be.

Not that it was really all that needed, we have several others (shiloh, PBJ, garage, ARM, etc.) who are always willing to provide.

Gahrie said...

Nobody was going to jail because of the Citizens United video.

Tell that to Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

damikesc said...

Nobody was going to jail because of the Citizens United video.

Thanks to a SCOTUS decision she wants to overturn. You cannot claim to have ANY respect for speech if you advocate overturning it. It's like claiming you oppose segregation while demanding Brown vs Bd of Education be overturned.

David Begley said...

Traditionalguy

Let me tell you about the Jesuits at Creighton and the Jewish faith. Many, many Creighton alums are Jewish. Creighton admitted many Jews when other schools had quotas against Jews. The Creighton law library is named after alum Phillip Klutznick. Klutznick was Secretary of Commerce under Carter.

In all my years studying under the Jesuits I never heard a single bad word about Jews. And I remind you that Jesus was a Jew.

readering said...

From the 2016 Republican Platform:

We understand that only by electing a Republican president in 2016 will
America have the opportunity for up to five new
constitutionally-minded Supreme Court justices
appointed to fill vacancies on the Court. Only such
appointments will enable courts to begin to reverse
the long line of activist decisions — including
Roe, Obergefell, and the Obamacare cases — that
have usurped Congress’s and states’ lawmaking
authority, undermined constitutional protections,
expanded the power of the judiciary at the expense
of the people and their elected representatives,
and stripped the people of their power to govern
themselves.

How is this different from Sanders?

readering said...

More from the platform:

We condemn the
Supreme Court’s ruling in
United States v. Windsor, which
wrongly removed the ability of
Congress to define marriage
policy in federal law. We also
condemn the Supreme Court’s
lawless ruling in Obergefell v.
Hodges, which in the words of
the late Justice Antonin Scalia,
was a “judicial Putsch” — full
of “silly extravagances” — that
reduced “the disciplined legal
reasoning of John Marshall and
Joseph Storey to the mystical
aphorisms of a fortune cookie.”
In Obergefell, five unelected
lawyers robbed 320 million
Americans of their legitimate
constitutional authority to define marriage as the
union of one man and one woman. The Court
twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment
beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent.
We, therefore, support the appointment of justices
and judges who respect the constitutional limits on
their power and respect the authority of the states
to decide such fundamental social questions.

shiloh said...

"From the 2016 Republican Platform:

We understand that only by electing a Republican president in 2016 will
America have the opportunity for up to five new
constitutionally-minded Supreme Court justices
appointed to fill vacancies on the Court. Only such
appointments will enable courts to begin to reverse
the long line of activist decisions — including
Roe, Obergefell, and the Obamacare cases — that
have usurped Congress’s and states’ lawmaking
authority, undermined constitutional protections,
expanded the power of the judiciary at the expense
of the people and their elected representatives,
and stripped the people of their power to govern
themselves.

More from the platform:

We condemn the
Supreme Court’s ruling in
United States v. Windsor, which
wrongly removed the ability of
Congress to define marriage
policy in federal law. We also
condemn the Supreme Court’s
lawless ruling in Obergefell v.
Hodges, which in the words of
the late Justice Antonin Scalia,
was a “judicial Putsch” — full
of “silly extravagances” — that
reduced “the disciplined legal
reasoning of John Marshall and
Joseph Storey to the mystical
aphorisms of a fortune cookie.”
In Obergefell, five unelected
lawyers robbed 320 million
Americans of their legitimate
constitutional authority to define marriage as the
union of one man and one woman. The Court
twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment
beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent.
We, therefore, support the appointment of justices
and judges who respect the constitutional limits on
their power and respect the authority of the states
to decide such fundamental social questions."

Oops!

Basil said...

"How is this different from Sanders?"

One calls for the return of judging to the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution and actual meanings of words used in language and the other calls for the Supreme Court to be able to make up the constitution as it goes along, without any checks and balances and without any respect for the votes of the people who are, under our Constitution supposed to be able to vote on their laws.

It is the difference between rule of law and tyranny.

Of course, I don't expect a mindless lefty to understand these distinctions, or to respect the rule of law and the defender of liberty and justice for all.

shiloh said...

"One calls for the return of judging to the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution and actual meanings of words used in language and the other calls for the Supreme Court to be able to make up the constitution as it goes along, without any checks and balances and without any respect for the votes of the people who are, under our Constitution supposed to be able to vote on their laws."

Distinction w/out a difference as it all comes down to interpretation. So when Roberts voted in favor of ACA he was acting like a mindless lefty, eh.

>

As was argued previously at Althouse everyone has there own personal biases/prejudices and that applies to SC decisions. Nothing is etched in stone and that includes the Constitution or the founding fathers wouldn't have allowed for amendments, eh.

shiloh said...

Indeed, many Althouse cons long for the days when women didn't have the right to vote and many minorities were denied their constitutional right to vote.

Conservative creed/motto: 240 years of tradition unhampered by progress!

Hey, that's why they're cons ie a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics/religion.

IOW dinosaurs ...

Unknown said...

So when do you yield back the balance of your time? Rhetorical.

Blessings! Bless you so much!

Unknown said...

"Indeed, many Althouse cons long for the days when women didn't have the right to vote and many minorities were denied their constitutional right to vote."

Conservatives longing for the good old days.

shiloh said...

Althouse, many of your 90/10 majority con lemmings said they were gonna totally ignore me.

They're liars just like Trump their lyin' hero!

A certain symmetry ...

Unknown said...

David Begley, you are mud wrestling with a traditionalpig. He likes it. I don't know what his problem is but he sure has got one. It's not just Jesuits or Catholics, he seems to take aim at anybody. It's hard to tell who he's insulting sometimes. I don't know the denominations well enough.

That said, he certainly did jump on the Trump bandwagon early (as soon as Walker dropped out) and I guess is feeling his oats. He's the kind of guy you don't want to confuse with the facts.

Unknown said...

As I've said before, Private Pyle, Hillary _is_ the true conservative. Things are just the way she likes them (rotten!) and if she has her way they will never change. If you think things are just peachy, I can see why you would vote for her. (I can't see why you would have the vote, but perhaps they don't take it away from mental patients.)

William Chadwick said...

And tonight . . . the canonization of Saint Trayvon!

Joe said...

The problem with the "overturn Citizens United" theory is that it depends on an identical case coming to the supreme court. That's very unlikely to happen, so it would have to be some other first amendment case. But all cases are not equal, so you would need justices who will side with the government over free speech regardless of the merits of the case.

This should worry everyone. After all, a justice who doesn't respect the Constitution and who is willing to throw out the first amendment will also be inclined to throw out the fourth, and the list goes on.

The irony is that people are wringing their hands over imagined problems with Trump when Clinton has explicitly stated her contempt for the US Constitution and her plan to tear it down.

Joe said...

Conservatives longing for the good old days.

Many of us do long for the days without the 16th and 17th amendments and would like to have those removed through the constitutional process, not by fiat.

Martin said...

It's about 20 years past time for the GOP, when accused of applying a "litmus test" to judicial appointments, to give the hypocritical Democrats and media a big middle finger.

When the Democratic appointees to SCOTUS start breaking ranks even a bit on hot-button political issues like Obamacare, affirmative action, gay marriage, and the like, and joining some 5-4 or 6-3 majorities where that voter made a difference=---maybe then I will take that litmus test thing seriously. But I'm not holding my breath.

Somehow, it's always and only the GOP appointments who ever show flexibility--all the way back to Earl Warren, and lots of others. The most recent Democratic appointee who ever showed politically independent thought was Byron White, appointed by JFK in like 1962.

btb, part of Trump's attraction is you could see him do just that--give 'em the finger they deserve.

Bruce Hayden said...

In regards to the emails: Note to DNC: Stop Blaming Putin, YOU Wrote the Emails

Bruce Hayden said...

Let's try that again: Note to DNC: Stop Blaming Putin, YOU Wrote the Emails

Guildofcannonballs said...

"Ginsburg was correct, essentially, in her confirmation hearing to have declaimed any ability to discuss a hypothetical case before the Court."
Definition of declaim
intransitive verb
1
: to speak rhetorically; specifically : to recite something as an exercise in elocution
2
: to speak pompously or bombastically : harangue
transitive verb
: to deliver rhetorically ; specifically : to recite in elocution

Stand up Chuck, let 'em see you use your words better than Trump.

God love ya.

Gahrie said...

Many of us do long for the days without the 16th and 17th amendments and would like to have those removed through the constitutional process, not by fiat.

Don't forget the 19th......all four of the Progressive Amendments were disasters.

Birkel said...

shiloh is rendering.

Nice to know.

Birkel said...

readering is shiloh.

Will both accounts yield their time?

Birkel said...

Now that we know rendering is shiloh, can we say this is a 91-9 conservative blog?

After all, two of the Leftists are one person.

readering said...

shiloh, you have my permission to take credit for my posts so long as you remove The Gumball Rally from your list of favorite movies (I'm withholding judgment on Your Three Minutes Are Up pending viewing of same).

Birkel said...

Well, since you started quoting the same document at the same time under two names, you are either the same person or received similar marching orders.

Which one, readering/shiloh?

You should yield the balance of your time.

Unknown said...

The problem is that Shiloh yields his time to readering and v.v. Bless both of them!

shiloh said...

"shiloh, you have my permission to take credit for my posts so long as you remove The Gumball Rally from your list of favorite movies (I'm withholding judgment on Your Three Minutes Are Up pending viewing of same."

Ha!

Birkel being dumber than a box of rocks notwithstanding, Your Three Minutes Are Up was an obscure 1973 movie that I would have never seen except I joined the USN and IIRC it was shown on one of my early cruises, 1978/1979. The navy had a habit of showing low budget flicks.

Coincidentally, a friend of mine when "we" were stationed at my first training command, Millington, TN, had seen Gumball Rally ~ 1976 and it was showing at the base theater, so we went and saw it. Silly plot, but somewhat entertaining.

The only thing I remember about "Your 3 Minutes are Up" was Ron Liebman playing a sarcastic huckster.

And now you know the rest of the story ...

>

Apologies to rocks!

Birkel said...

So shiloh doubles down on "the talking points were delivered to us both at the same time" and asks that we ignore Occam.

My money is on Occam.

gadfly said...

So setting up an illegal "University," charging exorbitant tuition and program fees, and teaching students how to get the funds from government programs is respectful of the law? And when the State of New York doesn't recognize the educational status of Trump University and students sue, Trump uses his position as a presidential candidate to attack a "Mexican" judge in California for continuing with the court case.

Editorials appeared in all the major newspapers concerning Trump's lawbreaking but this opinion from the Buffalo News tells the story.

Birkel said...

The Clintons have a similar university issue, gadfly.

Lance said...

@Martin

In 2008, Justice Stevens wrote the 6-3 majority opinion in Crawford that upheld Indiana's voter ID law. So that's one example of a liberal justice voting against his own team. Conspicuous for its uniqueness.

Of course he now says he may have made a mistake.

hombre said...

"Editorials appeared in all the major newspapers concerning Trump's lawbreaking but this opinion from the Buffalo News tells the story." 7/26/16, 8:33 PM

Neither candidate is admirable, but Hillary the Grifter is a public figure who, along with Bill, has spent her career breaching the public trust.

Unfortunately, Democrats apparently believe their politicians have a licence to do that and are unable to understand the difference between public and private grifting.

hombre said...

Expect a proliferation of amoral Democrat trolls here and elsewhere spewing red herrings to distract from the shortcomings of HillBilly and other Democrat lowlife.

Joe said...

Gadfly, isn't that an indictment of our so-called University system? New York was imply protected its participation in the education cartel. However silly Trump University was, aren't most public AND private universities just as silly and wasteful? Don't they actually over promise as much as for-profit universities?

Rusty said...

loh said...
Indeed, many Althouse cons long for the days when women didn't have the right to vote and many minorities were denied their constitutional right to vote.

That's quite the B&W cartoon you have there, running in your head.
Such as it is.