Bernie's promise to overturn Citizens United

[athena]

When I first heard this during one of the debates, I couldn't believe it. He was making a promise he surely knew he couldn't keep. Hillary must have thought it would be too aggressive and disrespectful to point this out explicitly. In her response, she simply said this is why it's so important to choose a Democrat in the General Election. It seemed to go over everybody's head, though, since Bernie continues to repeat the promise, and his supporters can't seem to get enough of it.

Here is an article I found today that explains exactly why this promise is so unrealistic:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-bernie-sanders-supreme-court-citizens-united-20160415-story.html

A Supreme Court nominee who promised to vote a certain way would almost certainly be unconfirmable and probably would be rated unqualified by the American Bar Assn. In the unlikely event that such a nominee were confirmed, he or she would (rightly) be pressed not to participate in any case that might put Citizens United in jeopardy.

The article is not long. Every Hillary supporter should read it.

[IamMab]

1. And it's a very different argument from nominees who would uphold precedent, like Roe v Wade. nt

[athena]

6. Exactly.

Respecting precedent is different from overturning a decision. Moreover, Hillary never went as far as Bernie did. From the article:

To be fair, Hillary Clinton flirted with the idea of a litmus test -- actually two litmus tests -- in the debate. She said:

“You know, there is no doubt that the only people that I would ever appoint to the Supreme Court are people who believe that Roe vs. Wade is settled law and Citizens United needs to be overturned.” But Clinton didn’t say she would require a public promise from a nominee that he or she would vote to reaffirm Roe vs. Wade or overrule Citizens United.

[Her Sister]

10. Keep loving how she is so smart!

[Koinos]

2. Uninformed candidate and uninformed supporters.

[Thinkingabout]

7. Yes, you don't just wave your hands and get this done.

[NurseJackie]

12. Do they think they're voting for KING BERNIE?

Note to Jury: The above statements represent my opinion. No DU rules or terms of service have been violated. It is not against the rules to have an opinion that differs from the Alerter. --- REMINDER: Jury Duty is not intended to be a weapon to silence opponents. It's a community standards tool to enforce the terms of service. Use your best and honest judgement when deciding if this post violates the actual DU rules.

[Koinos]

14. I think they have something higher than king in mind.

I liked "Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium." But it was fantasy, and things don't happen magically. The real world is about hard work, incremental change, working within existing systems, and following rules -- including the laws of nature and society. Knowing how things work and how to get things done is a matter of experience and wisdom. Ends require means, things don't just happen because we want them to, and progress is never immediate.

[NurseJackie]

15. HA! I missed that the first time around. (Well done, you!)

Very clever!

[athena]

16. That's exactly right.

It looks like many of Bernie's supporters just discovered politics last month. They don't even seem to know that there is something called the separation of powers.

[Cha]

18. A whole swath of them.. pathetically uniformed.. thanks to bernie.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Sanders continues to demonstrate that he is not qualified to be President.

[SunSeeker]

4. Sanders again shows he cares more about grandstanding than getting things done. nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

8. This ^^^^^^^^^^^

[yallerdawg]

5. Good article.

Unless you have an ironclad party majority in the Senate, presidents don't get to pick their dream justice anymore.

We are on the verge of needing a Democratic Senate majority to get another justice - ever.

[DemonGoddess]

9. Good article!

[Her Sister]

11. Thanks for this article! Press doing it's work!! YAY!

Sorry, but there’s a big difference between choosing a nominee you suspect might share your views about Roe vs. Wade or Citizens United and demanding a promise that the nominee would vote to reverse a ruling. The latter approach is not just politically stupid; it undermines the independence of the judiciary.

Someone as experienced in politics as Sanders should know the difference.

I guess he doesn't!?

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-bernie-sanders-supreme-court-citizens-united-20160415-story.html

[Surya Gayatri]

13. K & R most enthusiastically.

[stopbush]

17. Like Trump, Sanders offers up red meat to his ignorant supporters

while disqualifying himself from any consideration to be the D nominee.

He really needs to go back to the bubble of his back bench in the Senate. Better yet, I think Burlington needs their socialist mayor back.

[Cha]

19. No sane judge would pass Bernie Sanders' Supreme Court litmus test

Whoa.

This statement is shocking less because Sanders would be asking a nominee to behave unethically than for what it shows about Sanders’ understanding of politics.

A Supreme Court nominee who promised to vote a certain way would almost certainly be unconfirmable and probably would be rated unqualified by the American Bar Assn. In the unlikely event that such a nominee were confirmed, he or she would (rightly) be pressed not to participate in any case that might put Citizens United in jeopardy.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-bernie-sanders-supreme-court-citizens-united-20160415-story.html

Mahalo Athena.. good it's in the LA Times where California will be coming up!