Posted on 02/05/2016 10:11:13 AM PST by wagglebee
DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.
“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.
"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.
There have been over 58,000,000 abortions since the 1973 court ruling legalizing abortion in all 50 states, according to National Right to Life.
That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.
“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."
Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.
All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.
Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.
On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”
Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.
At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.
But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.
Gosh, I’m shocked.
And a portion of those babies would have grown up to be Democrat voters....wouldn’t even Hillary see that as important as importing them?
The Nazis had to round up the people they objected to and ship off to camps. The Libs con them into believing that they have the right to kill their children and happily take themselves in to achieve the same result.
The guy talks like a third grader.
Obama is a very smooth talker. So is Cruz. So there you go.
But wait a minute - If Republicans have litmus tests for their SCOTUS picks - OH NO, UH-UH, THAT’S A NO-NO.
I have a litmus test for all liberal nominees. Put them all in a room with only a hose hooked to a running truck exhaust for ventilation. Those who turn blue have passed the litmus test.
Me being critical of so-called “progressives” is not me laying out an argument for Trump.
The man is quite intelligent, so I think he’s adopted an idiom, a false mode of expression, that he believes will relate to people and the sometimes overt crudeness of his mannerisms reflects an attitude about those he is trying to approach.
It is, I believe, a cynical form of conviviality.
I can, sadly, see it. Not necessarily how Trump does, though. Many on the right have been reluctant to embrace the good arguments for constitutional governance because those undermine the foul, fetid waters of FDR’s legacy. The left has been dominated by various forms of mindlessness ever since it came to adopt a revolution-like notion of progress from things rather than to something, or landmark-less wondering on the mudflats of moral madness and ethical duplicity.
Not to mention the 58 MILLION taxpayers!
My Answer is also the Constitution but I would add...
...as written and originally understood and intended.
Therefore, any nominee of SCOTUS Justice should be investigated and queried based on their adherence and commitment to 1) read the Constitution as is and 2) if there’s a genuine dispute about the meaning of what is written, a good faith effort to find, not what the Justice himself thinks is moral and good, but the original understanding and intent of the ratifiers.
Such dedication and diligence demands a rare thing these days, especially in government: a selfless faithfulness in applying the facts of the case to the law (the Constitution) as is and intended, leaving it to others (the legislature) to change the law (Constitutional amendments). The constitutional duty of a judge or Justice is NEVER to change the law but apply it as is and as intended.
Also, such dedication and diligence, as well as understanding the Constitution among the general population, could turn SCOTUS back into the judicial branch the Constitution intended it to be: NOT to make national law, but a judicial body to decide certain “cases and controversies” whose decisions IF CONSTITUTIONAL are limited and binding ONLY on the parties of that particular case and a precedent for subsequent cases with similar facts and questions of law.
As with the rest of the federal government, the power of SCOTUS has expanded into a kind of oligarchy, way beyond what the ratifiers contemplated.
It’s rude to imply that Hillary is a worshiper of Molech. What did Molech ever do to you to rate that kind of insult?
I hereby suggest that anytime the Clinton Foundation is referenced in text, it should properly be referred to as The Clinton Human Fund
Her litmus test is more power for her and her friends.
Unfortunately, The Don is very similar in this regard.
You may have been taught this in Ninth Grade Civics, but it's a myth.
Yes. Repeal of the judicial presumption of statutory jurisdiction.
Well I agree.
My answer is on post #32 and includes your POV.
Note that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the so-called right to have an abortion, the ”constitutional” right to have an abortion wrongly politically ”amended” to the Constitution from the bench by pro-abortion activist justices.
People like Hillary who push constitutionally unprotected abortion rights to win votes from low-information citizens have to make sure to preserve an activist justice majority in order to likewise preserve the so-called ”constitutional” right to have an abortion.
So the ongoing threat of repealing things like abortion and Obamacare, since these policies were wrongly established outside the framework of the Constitution, has actually given corrupt DC politicians an ongoing campaign promise to win votes from low-information citizens.
Important comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.