Sanders' comments about the Supreme Court nomination left me scratching my head

[Empowerer]

During his interview with Rachel Maddow - which was overall very good - Sanders said two problematic things about the Supreme Court nomination:

1. If he's elected President and Garland is not confirmed by then, he would ask President Obama to withdraw the nomination during the lame duck so that Sanders could nominate his own choice. This plays right into the Republican argument that the next President, not President Obama, should select Scalia's successor.

2. He has a litmus test that includes the potential nominee promising unequivocally that he or she would vote to overturn Citizens United. This suggests Sanders does not understand judicial ethics or the nominations process.

[Vattel]

1. Good, I am glad he would ask Obama to do that.

I would really like someone more progressive than Garland.

Clinton has identified the same litmus test. It is irritating to me that Obama, Clinton and even Sanders always want to inject political goals into the judicial process.

[msanthrope]

5. Garland Merrick is eminently qualified, for any President. What, precisely

is your beef with the President's choice?

[HerbChestnut]

10. My goodness

Can't the guy/gal have an opinion without having to defend him/herself. Many progressives are unhappy with this SC nominee.

[msanthrope]

14. I've not read a single review by a legal professional that is negative.

Forgive me....but can you point to a single quantitative review of this man by anyone with legal acumen that is negative?

[riderinthestorm]

20. What exactly is Garlands position on abortion or Citizens United? nt

[msanthrope]

25. You tell me what tea leaves you are reading that indicates

how Justice Merrick would vote.

[riderinthestorm]

29. So why should we (or Bernie Sanders) accept this nomination w/out scrutiny?

I believe those are the two biggies. If Garland is a mystery on those then I can't see why it's problematic to reconsider his nomination by Sanders if he wins.

[msanthrope]

33. Sanders isn't winning. But beyond that, here's something to ponder.....Merrick is an actual

jurist. A rarity.

[riderinthestorm]

40. He's a sacrificial lamb. Obama will never get him through

So why not actually stand for principles?

I know political triangulation is a meme but Bernie doesn't play.

[Vattel]

22. I have legal acumen and I am not that impressed.

[msanthrope]

23. Um. no. nt

[whistler162]

158. Well I got you beat....

I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night and I think his is a good choice.

[Karma13612]

168. Yes, but did you have the free Breakfast with those neat

do-it-yourself waffles?

just having a laugh!!

Hope your trip was pleasant.

[Vattel]

170. lol, I actually don't even know what "acumen" means

[wendylaroux]

128. will this man help or hinder the over turn of citizens united?

inquiring minds here.you know?

[dsc]

38. I have a problem with his age

other than that, nothing else but I would prefer him to be 10 years younger.

[WhiteTara]

155. He's in his 50s. nt

[dsc]

156. he is 61

[whistler162]

157. Nope 63 going on 64

November 13th, 1952

[WhiteTara]

160. Thanks, I read that as 54 nt

[Cavallo]

91. Watch todays DemocracyNow.org show. He isn't progressive enough and he's

a wild card on womens issues. There is nothing to judge him from. Plus he's pro death penalty.

http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2016/3/17

[Fast Walker 52]

132. exactly. I was just thinking of posting that.

[tazkcmo]

133. So no questioning.

Accept the pick. Don't question him. You little people be quiet.

[Empowerer]

141. Oh, please - don't put words in my mouth

I neither said nor implied that a nominee shouldn't be questioned. His record, opinions, judicial philosophy, etc. are all fair game. but a judge cannot promise to make a specific ruling in a case.

You and other bernie apologists may want to keep twisting yourselves in trying to defend your guy's comment. But telling someone you will appoint them to the highest court in the country only if they promise you they will give you the outcome you want in a case is the very essence of unethical behavior.

[Empowerer]

12. I've never heard Hillary Clinton say this

Do you have a quote/link?

[Vattel]

34. Here are some quotes:

"As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America."

"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."

“I will do everything I can to appoint Supreme Court justices who protect the right to vote and do not protect the right of billionaires to buy elections,” Mrs. Clinton said while on Day 1 of a two-day swing through Iowa.

Not as bad as Sanders' remark, but the same flavor.

[Empowerer]

52. That's night and day different

She has never publicly said that she would require a nominee to promise they would overturn Citizens United, which would be a blatant violation of the Judicial Canon of Ethics.

And I don't give much credence to the anonymous quote since it can't be verified, there is no other indication that she said such a thing and it is completely inconsistent with everything else she has said about this matter. Hillary Clinton is a very savvy lawyer and knows better than to say something so stupid.

[Vattel]

124. I didn't say that she would require a promise.

My complaint is that she has identified various litmus tests, e.g., a willingness to preserve Roe v Wade as is. She even calls them "litmus tests."

[EffieBlack]

126. There's nothing wrong with a judge pledging to preserve precedent is not unethical

It is unethical, however, to promise to overturn a case.

[Trust Buster]

2. He's a radical fringe candidate. He publicly disrespects the President of our Party.

The President has the power to really out his thumb on the scale. Sanders seems so self absorbed that he loses perspective. Not a good trait in a leader.

[TTUBatfan2008]

84. His ideas are not radical

Probably 95% of the country agrees with him on campaign finance. Around 70% agree with him on health care. The media obsession with Trump has hurt Sanders more than anything else.

Hard to start at 5% in the polls and then have the media shove Trump down everyone's throat. At least Hillary is well known, which is a good advantage to have.

Despite all of that and despite your statement that he's a fringe candidate, he has around 40% of the primary votes so far. Not bad for a fringe candidate who started at 5%.

[Surya Gayatri]

122. ^^^WORD^^^!

"Sanders seems so self absorbed that he loses perspective. Not a good trait in a leader."

[NurseJackie]

123. Yes indeed ... and more people are seeing this fact ...

... the more he talks and the more vetting he receives from the media. The lack of critical coverage is one of the main reasons he's been able to coast along for such a long time, and his supporters have convinced themselves that he's been moving forward under his own power. Now the uphill part of this journey begins and he's stalling out.

[YOHABLO]

152. Then FDR was a fringe candidate

[ecstatic]

19. lol! nt

[Roland99]

31. Sounds just like typical rwingnut claims

[kath]

54. Really!

H supporters express so many right-wing ideas that it's mind-boggling. And they tell us what a great "progressive" she is. What the fuckity-fuck?

[Roland99]

62. She *is* a Goldwater Girl

[SHRED]

53. You should get a gig on AM radio

Give Rush and Sean a run for their money.

[BeanMusical]

106. Yep.

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. The accusation that a candidate would predetermine a court case

before the case was brought, would disqualify the candidate.

This comment during the campaign would make it damn near impossible to get the Senate to approve a nominee.

[Empowerer]

13. Exactly. No nominee with any ethics or common sense would EVER say that.

[Armstead]

18. So I guess no Democrat should have a litmus test on abortion?

[dsc]

35. they shouldn't admit to having one

you can get there by a judge having a certain philosophy but you shouldn't call it a litmus test.

[Armstead]

55. They do though

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268174-clinton-i-have-a-bunch-of-litmus-tests-for-supreme-court

Presidential contender Hillary Clinton says there are a host of issues that her potential Supreme Court nominees would have to agree on before she’d be willing to appoint them to the nation's highest 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.

“I’m looking for people who understand the way the real world works,” Clinton said. “Who don’t have a knee-jerk reaction to support business, to support the idea that you know, money is speech, that gutted the Voting Rights Act.”

[BeanMusical]

108. She doesn't even pass her own tests.

[tk2kewl]

37. will overturn Citizens United is shorthand, just as

will not overturn Roe v Wade

the questions asked are simple:

do you believe a woman has a right to make her own choices regarding her reproductive heath?

do you believe money is speech?

do you believe corporations are people?

[Empowerer]

58. Big difference

Saying that you will not overturn precedent is acceptable. Those cases are decided and under the doctrine of stare decisis, judges MUST adhere to them unless it is determined that they should be overturned.

The other questions you pose are also perfectly fine to answer because they express a point of view about certain legal principles but they don't pre-judge the outcome of a particular case.

[Fast Walker 52]

131. exactly.

[Armstead]

69. "I have a bunch of litmus tests" -- H. Clinton

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511520382#post61

[Autumn]

6. I don't see either of those as a problem.

[Empowerer]

21. You don't?

You don't see a problem with Sanders saying that President Obama should bow to him if he's elected and withdraw his nominee while he's still in office so that Sanders can put his own person after he's inaugurated? How is that any different than the Republicans saying that President Obama should not be allowed to select the next Justice but should instead wait for "the American people to speak," i.e., let the next President pick the new justice?

And it is a blatant violation of the Judicial Canons of Ethics for a judge to announce in advance how they plan to rule in a case that is not before them. Any nominee who assures Sanders that he/she will overturn Citizens United has committed a gross ethical violation and is unfit to serve on the Court.

[Autumn]

42. He didn't say Obama should bow to him and if Garland is not confirmed

when Bernie is elected then yes Garland should withdraw. I doubt Bernie will ask a judge to announce in advance how they will rule on CU but rather would do as others have done, and pick one based on their record and how close that record is in line with Liberal values. I can't imagine any Democratic president picking a rabid anti abortion judge can you? Of course not, that's a litmus test right there.

[Empowerer]

78. You must not have heard the interview

He expressly said - and has said in the past - that he would require a nominee to promise that he would overturn Citizens United. It's interesting that this is his litmus test - and he suggests that's his only one - nothing about voting rights or abortion rights, etc.

There's a difference between expressing views about principles and saying how one would rule in a case. Sanders went beyond talking about the principles underlying CU. He said he would insist on a commitment to rule a certain way. That is a violation of the Canons of Ethics that should disqualify anyone from serving on the court.

And his claim that the President should withdraw Garland's nomination should he be elected is ridiculous. The President does not need to subordinate his choice for the court to Bernie's anymore than he should if a Republican is elected. He is president until January 20, 2017 and has a right to have his nominee in play until he leaves office or the nomination lapses because of the end of the Senate term, whichever comes first.

[Autumn]

82. I imagine that would happen in a private talk, like when he asks him to be a nominee.

Look, of course Bernie will pick a person who supports voting rights, abortion rights, and all the rest of the package Democratic presidents have always looked for in a SC nominee.

[Empowerer]

88. There''s a difference between taking about whether they support certain rights and asking them to

promise to rule a certain way in cases. The former is appropriate, the latter is unethical.

And by publicly proclaiming that he would require a nominee to make such a promise as a condition of being nominated, Sanders has virtually doomed any nominee that he would select since a Republican Senator, knowing that Sanders has announced such a litmus test, could easily ask the nominee, under oath, whether he had made such an assurance to the President. If he/she says yes, their nomination would likely be shut down almost on the spot since there would be little support for a Supreme Court nominee who so blatantly violated the Code of Ethics. If he/she says no, then Sanders would have to choose between accusing his nominee of committing perjury or admitting that he lied repeatedly throughout the campaign about his litmus test.

[Autumn]

89. Sure.

[femmedem]

129. That is not an accurate depiction of what Sanders said.

Sanders said he would ask--I repeat, ask, not demand--that Obama withdraw the nomination if Sanders becomes President elect.

Big, big difference between asking and saying the President should bow to him.

Sanders also said that in the meantime, he strongly supports the President's right to nominate whomever he chooses, and that while Garland wouldn't be Sanders' choice, he would support Garland's nomination and work to see it go through.

[peacebird]

130. Exactly!

[Karma13612]

169. Don't see a problem. Not at all. The SC nominee would basically be

under Bernie's watch.

Why should he have to accept a nominee that the previous president had selected? Especially since this SC nominee has been selected because he is in theory palatable to the Right-Wing Congress. Again, Obama is trying to compromise. I think he's been a great President, but he has compromised a lot, and this is no different.

As you approach the end of one presidency and the beginning of another, once the election has happened, I don't see any problem with the incumbent and the newly elected having meetings and conferring so that the newly elected isn't stuck with things that could have been handled differently had the two met and strategized.

Considering the warped logic that our current Congress is using to obstruct everything, I am not too worried about optics in Bernie's decision to not accept this nominee.

We need a progressive.

As far as the violation of Judicial ethics, I will need to defer to you as I am not a legal scholar.

[KingFlorez]

7. Self-centered and ignorant of the process

That's all that needs to be said.

[Cheese Sandwich]

16. How is it self serving or ignorant of the process? Seemed like the opposite to me.

A self serving person would just kiss up to power 24 hours a day and always tow the party line 100%.

There's nothing there to suggest "ignorant of the process". I guess maybe you just like throwing around insults for no reason.

[KingFlorez]

28. It is most definitely both

For him to make a statement like he did about Obama withdrawing the nomination to defer to him definitely plays into GOP hands and it was a statement made out of total self-centered vanity. At this point as a member of the Senate he should stick to making statements that call for the Senate to do it's job and hold hear. He should not be getting ahead himself.

And as for being ignorant of the process, you can't have a judge promise to vote a certain way on a case before they are confirmed, that is a breach of judicial ethics.

[MaggieD]

44. +1

[Cheese Sandwich]

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

Presidential contender Hillary Clinton says there are a host of issues that her potential Supreme Court nominees would have to agree on before she’d be willing to appoint them to the nation's highest court.
...

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.
...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268174-clinton-i-have-a-bunch-of-litmus-tests-for-supreme-court


As far as self-serving, whatever. He answered honestly. If you don't like it then don't vote for him. It would be a lot more self serving to just go along to get along.

[KingFlorez]

60. Oh, I will most certainly not vote for him

Presidents do have litmus tests for judges, but judges cannot promise to vote a certain way on a case. Presidents impose their litmus test through the process of reviewing the philosophy of judges and previous rulings, then making a short list. If a President was to nominate a judge that promised to vote to strike down a previous ruling, that would be a big problem. Imposing a litmus test has to be done carefully and promises cannot be involved.

[BeanMusical]

112. "I will most certainly not vote for him"

Even if he was the nominee?

[KingFlorez]

116. I'm not voting for him in the primary

Nice try, though.

[BeanMusical]

119. Why, thank you for answering my question, I feel so honored.

[thesquanderer]

147. No one can promise something specific about some unknown future case unless they're psychic.

But it is certainly legitimate to ask how someone would have voted in a prior case (in CU, Roe v Wade, whatever), and thereby extract whether this person has the view you are looking for. And that's a litmus test.

I spoke about this in a bit more detail in post 146.

[Empowerer]

65. Stating their view of certain principles is fine. But they cannot say they would rule a certain way

in specific cases.

A judge saying that they believe that money does not equal speech is fine. A judge saying that they would overturn a case involving money and speech is not.

[Empowerer]

114. Nothing wrong with a "litmus test."

But when the litmus test violates the Code of Ethics, it's a problem . . .

[Cheese Sandwich]

115. Hillary did the same thing

Hillary Clinton’s litmus test for Supreme Court nominees: a pledge to overturn Citizens United

[Empowerer]

117. No, she didn't do the same thing, notwithstanding the misleading headline

I've debunked this several times right in this thread. First, this came from an anonymous source. But even if the source is accurate, they did not say that she would demand a pledge from a nominee that they would overturn Citizens United. They quoted her as saying that she would get "assurances" that they would do so - it's a fine point but an important one. Presidents teams do an enormous amount of vetting, including combing through the nominee's record, writings, opinions, etc. They do so in order to try to predict how the nominee would perform on the court. Saying that they want assurances that they would be likely to rule a certain way is very different than saying they would exact a promise from the nominee that they will rule a certain way.

Hillary has never said that she would require a nominee to promise that they would overrule Citizens United - or to vote a particular way in any case. Making such a promise would be a direct violation of the Code of Ethics and no nominee with any integrity would do it.

[Cheese Sandwich]

118. Can you link me to the "Code of Ethics"?

[Cheese Sandwich]

150. What's the "Code of Ethics" you keep referring to?

[Empowerer]

161. Here you go

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

Moreover, the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, adopted in many jurisdictions, prohibits judges from making "pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with judicial impartiality in connection with cases, controversies, or issues likely to come before the court."

[Cheese Sandwich]

163. That Code of Ethics does not apply to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is exempt from that code of ethics.

[Empowerer]

166. No, it doesn't. But it does apply to judges on the lower courts

from which most nominees are selected. No ethical sitting judge is going to violate the Code in order to get nominated.

But if you think Sanders' comment is fine, more power to you. I disagree. And since he has not even won the nomination yet, much less the general election, his claim about how he'd handle a nomination that doesn't exist is pure speculation and it's not worth any more of my time trying to educate people who clearly aren't interested in facts but only want to defend the infallible Bernie regardless how illogical and baseless their argument is.

[EffieBlack]

167. Time to drop the mic and walk away like a boss

You made your point. No need to waste any more effort on these people.

[Armstead]

68. Clinton disagrees with you regarding litmus tests

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511520382#post61

[KingFlorez]

72. I already addressed that another post on this thread

A litmus test and a judge promising to vote a certain way are two different things. Judicial ethics apply no matter who is President.

[Gwhittey]

105. He said If during lame duck session

You might want to read up a bit on lame duck sessions and why it is not a good time for Congress to handle major issues. It kinda undermines the illusion of We the People voting. Out going Senators are no longer executing will of the People but are now trying to get in one last thing in even after people have voted them out. This is why it is called lame duck. I know principles and ethics do not matter to some people, but lame duck sessions is not way to handle it.

[BeyondGeography]

8. Whatever happened to the Senate should do its job?

[Armstead]

9. Most have some litmus test....for many it's abortion

Bernie's comment about holding off on the judicial nom was just Bernie being honest to a fault, rather than giving a politically correct answer...That quality is a double edged sword sometimes

[Waiting For Everyman]

11. Sanders has been a Senator for quite a while.

I think he understands the process of "advise and consent".

How long have you been a Senator?

[Empowerer]

26. Neither one of these has anything to do with Senate's advise and consent role

It's about the duties and powers of the President.

I'm not a Senator, but I've been a lawyer longer than Sanders has been a Senator. I know what I'm talking about.

[Waiting For Everyman]

45. Then the quibbling makes sense.

Advise and consent was used loosely for the category of SC nomination process in general, is that ok with you? Doesn't matter, because I don't care if it isn't.

[Armstead]

64. Take it up with Clinton while you're at it

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268174-clinton-i-have-a-bunch-of-litmus-tests-for-supreme-court

Presidential contender Hillary Clinton says there are a host of issues that her potential Supreme Court nominees would have to agree on before she’d be willing to appoint them to the nation's highest 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.

“I’m looking for people who understand the way the real world works,” Clinton said. “Who don’t have a knee-jerk reaction to support business, to support the idea that you know, money is speech, that gutted the Voting Rights Act.”

[Raster]

15. No head scratching here...

1. If he is elected President and if by the time he is inaugurated, the Senate has not confirmed President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, President Sanders could ask the Senate to again consider Obama's nomination, and if they refuse to consider or refuse to confirm, President Sanders should, correctly, IMHO, ask President Obama to withdraw his nominee.

2. Who knows what goes on in the vetting process between the POTUS and his SCOTUS Justice candidates? I'm sure every POTUS has their "line in the sand."

[Empowerer]

43. No.

If the Senate has not confirmed President Obama's nominee, the nomination lapses when the Senate ends its 2014-2016 session, which would occur before the inauguration. There will be a short period of time during the new Senate session when Obama is still President. He can either re-nominate Garland, nominate someone else or not nominate anyone.

Sanders said that he would ask the President to withdraw the nomination during the lame duck, which occurs between the election and the end of the Senate session, apparently because he thinks that the Senate could confirm Garland during that time and he would want to name his own person once he becomes President. Which means that he agrees with the Republicans and doesn't want President Obama to be able to select his own nominee but thinks that the next President - SANDERS - should decide who the next justice will be.

Certainly no one knows what actually occurs in private conversations between the president and a nominee. But it is patently unethical for a nominee to tell the President or anyone else how he or she intends to decide a case. So if Sanders is going around saying that he'll only nominate someone if they violate the Judicial Canons of Ethics, his ethics are not only questionable, he's an idiot.

[geek tragedy]

17. So now he's supporting McConnell's argument. nt

[giftedgirl77]

30. BS is very flighty he goes in whichever direction is convenient

for him at the time.

[Ned_Devine]

36. Now THAT'S funny!

Holy shit! And I'm sure you had a straight face when you wrote that. Just priceless!

[cynatnite]

24. He said something quite different in his statement...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/hillary-clinton-supreme-court-nomination-220870


"Judge Garland is a strong nominee with decades of experience on the bench. My Republican colleagues have called Judge Garland a ‘consensus nominee’ and said that there is ‘no question’ he could be confirmed," Sanders said in a statement, calling on Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to hold confirmation hearings "immediately" and for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to bring the nomination the floor if the committee approves.

[femmedem]

140. And he said in his interview with Rachel that he would fight to see him confirmed.

The OP mischaracterizes his statements. He said that he supports President Obama's right to nominate Garland and that, although he would prefer a more progressive nominee, he would not only vote for Garland's confirmation but work to get others to vote for his confirmation as well. He also blasted Republican obstructionism.

He did say that, if elected, he would ASK President Obama to withdraw the nomination, but he did not say that he would demand anything, or that the President would have any obligation whatsoever to respond to his request.

[jfern]

27. Obviously if a Democrat is elected and Garland hasn't been confirmed

we should nominate someone more liberal. Duh.

[Empowerer]

46. That's not what he said

He said that if Sanders is elected, President Obama should withdraw the nomination, even when there's still an opportunity for him to be confirmed, so that the seat remains vacant and Sanders can appoint someone else when he takes office. That's very different than just saying that if Garland isn't confirmed by the time he takes office, then he would nominate someone more liberal.

[jfern]

51. I think Obama would have the sense to withdraw him on his own accord

Garland was only nominated to try to increase the odds someone gets approved this year. Not much point in not having an actual liberal if they're probably going to get approved.

[Empowerer]

67. Why would he withdraw the nomination?

It will lapse anyway at the end of the Senate's term if not acted upon.

[jfern]

93. Because someone better could be nominated next year

He's only nominating someone more moderate now because we don't want to wait a year and might not have the Presidency next year. If it's November and we won, it's time to get someone better.

[Empowerer]

99. If the President feels that way, he doesn't need Bernie to ask him to withdraw the nomination.

And if he really feels that way, he can withdraw the nomination and nominate someone else of HIS choosing. Or he can let the nomination lapse and let the new President pick someone. But he doesn't need to have Sanders tell him to withdraw his own nomination - this comment was condescending and also tone deaf since, as I said, it feeds right into the Republican narrative that the President should not pick his own person but must defer to the next president. Sanders put his foot in his mouth on this one, notwithstanding all of the efforts to defend him and even suggest that he's playing some kind of three-dimensional Senate strategy chess.

[jfern]

100. It was good politics from Bernie

It tells Republicans that they can accept the moderate Obama has nominated now, or a liberal that Bernie or Hillary nominates next year.

The one other thing Obama could do is nominate a liberal after the Democrat wins the election, but I don't know if he'd bother.

[Empowerer]

102. And you think the Republicans hadn't figured that out until Bernie said it tonight?

It took Bernie saying he would ask Obama to withdraw the nomination so he could nominate his own selection for the Republicans to understand that if they don't confirm Garland before the election and Bernie or Hillary wins, they'll appoint a more liberal justice?

Well, then, it's a good thing he schooled them, isn't it?

[jfern]

103. I didn't claim he was the first to make this argument

So, whatever.

[redstateblues]

32. An established 24 year member of Congress

Should have a better understanding of how things work

[imagine2015]

49. He understands how to use the so-called "nuclear" option with Dems win the Senate in 2016.

If necessary and he would use it.

[CalvinballPro]

39. Bernie can't even fake respect for Obama any more. Even knowing how it hurts him with black voters

[Jenny_92808]

95. That's not true

Your post is going to go poof in just a minute, when I refresh.

[democrattotheend]

165. I am pretty sure his comment actually helps Obama

He has to know that Republicans would be more scared of who he might nominate than they are of Garland. So by hinting that he would nominate someone more liberal, it gives Republicans more incentive to confirm Garland, which is what Obama wants (I think). Obviously, the comment would have more impact if he were not a long shot for the nomination, which is why it would have been better if Obama had nominated someone earlier.

[MaggieD]

41. Sanders doesn't understand a lot of things

He's in no way qualified to be president.

[imagine2015]

47. Sanders would nominate a liberal rather than a conservative acceptable to Republicans.

[Major Hogwash]

50. It hurts.

And they know it.

The truth, that is.

[Empowerer]

79. That's fine. If and when he becomes president and there's a vacancy on the Court, he's free to do so

But in the meantime, Barack Obama is President and he does not have to defer to Sanders.

[CentralMass]

56. Good for Bernie. I trust his judgement.

[bkkyosemite]

57. He knows there is a big chance that they will not move on Obama's choice. Simple

and he does understand. Bernie is very smart. I guess you haven't noticed.

[Empowerer]

71. If they don't move on the nomination, there's no need for it to be withdrawn

It will lapse automatically at the end of the Senate session.

The only reason for the President to withdraw the nomination is if there's a chance that the nominee will be confirmed. Otherwise, the nomination will go away on its own and Sanders could appoint whomever he wants.

Saying he would ask the President to withdraw the nomination was stupid - it either means that he has no clue how the nomination process works or that he agrees with the Republicans that President Obama should not have a say in who the next justice is, but that decision should be left to the next President - in this case, Sanders. Or maybe it's both.

[jillan]

59. Maybe it's just lice? There is nothing controversial in what Bernie said.

Bernie wants another RBG on the bench.

Bernie wants Citizens United overturned.

Not really that complicated, is it?

Litmus test - you mean like abortion? 2nd Amendment? There are always litmus tests.

[Armstead]

61. Clinton says she has lots of litmus tests

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268174-clinton-i-have-a-bunch-of-litmus-tests-for-supreme-court

Presidential contender Hillary Clinton says there are a host of issues that her potential Supreme Court nominees would have to agree on before she’d be willing to appoint them to the nation's highest 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.

“I’m looking for people who understand the way the real world works,” Clinton said. “Who don’t have a knee-jerk reaction to support business, to support the idea that you know, money is speech, that gutted the Voting Rights Act.”

[ebayfool]

70. Notice how the outraged ones keep ignoring this?

It's been posted several times and not so much as an acknowledgment.

[surrealAmerican]

63. This is a tactical move.

Basically, he's issuing a threat to the Republicans here: either approve Obama's choice, or he will choose someone more liberal.

[Empowerer]

73. That's not what he said at all

He said that if the Republicans haven't confirmed Garland by the election, Obama should withdraw the nomination so that they can't confirm him during the lame duck session, leaving the seat open for Sanders to fill when he takes office.

This wasn't tactical - it was just a stupid thing to say.

[surrealAmerican]

77. He tying to get them to hold those hearings now ...

... instead of waiting for the election. If they get the idea that waiting will hurt them, they might just move ahead. As it stands now, they apparently do not have enough of an incentive to do that.

I don't know if it will work, but it's worth a try.

[Empowerer]

81. I don't think for a minute that's what he's trying to do.

Calling for President Obama to withdraw the nomination if Sanders is elected won't do a damn thing to encourage Republicans to hold hearings now. Sanders seems to have a inflated sense of how much fear he supposedly stokes in Republicans.

The bottom line is this - even if the Republicans are shaking in their boots at the thought that Sanders will be nominated and elected and appoint really, really liberal justice, they could easily wait until the election and then hold a hearing and confirm Garland in the lame duck. Saying now that he would ask President Obama to withdraw the nomination means nothing.

[surrealAmerican]

86. I disagree, but I see you will not be convinced.

... and like I said, I don't know if this will work. It's hard to predict just how these Republicans see this playing out should a Democrat win the presidency, but Sanders knows these people and I don't. Maybe he sees something we can't see.

[tazkcmo]

136. Of course you don't agree.

"Saying now that he would ask President Obama to withdraw the nomination means nothing." Then what's the problem? Oh, I see. It's Sen Sanders and not Sec Clinton. Got it.

[brooklynite]

66. Re 2: Clinton has said the same thing

[Empowerer]

74. No, she hasn't

She's talked about the principles she would expect a nominee to hold, but she has NOT said that she expects the nominee to promise how he/she would rule in a case.

[brooklynite]

76. Hillary Clinton sets Citizens United as Supreme Court litmus test

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-hillary-clinton-citizens-united-supreme-court-20150518-story.html

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that if elected president, she would make opposition to a Supreme Court ruling that cleared the way for unlimited political donations a litmus test for nominees to the high court.

"I will do everything I can do to appoint Supreme Court justices who will protect the right to vote and not the right of billionaires to buy elections," Clinton told about 50 supporters at a house party in Iowa.

I was at one of her first events and I asked her a question based specifically on this statement.

[Empowerer]

83. That's not saying that she would require assurance that the nominee would overturn Citizens United

Saying she expects a justice to "protect the right to vote and not the right of billionaires to buy elections" is NOT the same as saying that they justice should promise how he/she will rule in a particular case. There's a big difference between what Hillary said and what Sanders has been saying.

[merrily]

80. It doesn't play into anything and Hillary said the same thing about appointing Justices who

would overturn Citizens. I guess when Hillary says it, it's an applause line, but when Bernie says it, it's unethical.

Playing into the Republican thing would be asking Obama to wait on nominating anyone. That is not what Sanders is doing. He's saying only that, if the Republicans thwart Obama until November, he would ask Obama to withdraw his nomination, rather than let the Republicans at that point snap at the older man, white bread moderate lest Sanders nominate someone else. I don't see anything wrong with that. Why let the Republicans have it both ways?

Sanders can't breathe the right way for some on this board.

[Empowerer]

85. NO SHE HAS NOT SAID THE SAME THING

As I have said repeatedly, there is a huge difference between saying that you will appoint justices who will adhere to certain principles and saying you will appoint justices only if they promise to reach a certain conclusion in a particular case.

[merrily]

87. Sorry, but she said she would appoint only Justices who would overturn Citizens. Stop shouting.

She interspersed that with promises of a Constitutional amendment which, IMO, were total bs. That's not going to happen.

[Empowerer]

90. No, she did not say that

You can keep claiming she did, but you're just wrong. I'll stop shouting if you'll stop repeating the same bogus claim over and over again.

[merrily]

92. good grief.

[merrily]

94. Took me all of five seconds to google it.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/15/hillary-clinton-appoint-scotus-justices-overturn-citizens-united.html

[Empowerer]

96. You should have spent more time looking since this story doesn't prove your claim, but supports mine

Notwithstanding the misleading headline, there's nothing in the piece that supports your claim that Hillary said she would require a potential nominee to promise they would vote to overturn Citizens United.

The story instead says this, in pertinent part:

At a meeting with financial supporters on Thursday, Hillary Clinton vowed to put forth Supreme Court nominees that were committed to overturning the 2010 Citizens United ruling. Hillary Clinton’s decision to make opposing the Citizens United ruling a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees follows a similar pledge made by her Democratic primary opponent Bernie Sanders.

On Sunday, during an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation”, Sanders stated:

"If elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice. And that nominee will say that we are all going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision on Citizens United because that decision is undermining American democracy. I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians."

Clinton echoed those sentiments on Thursday, according to anonymous attendees at a Clinton-held event in Brooklyn. One of the attendees stated:

"She said she is going to do everything she can. She was very firm about this – that this Supreme Court {Citizens United} decision is just a disaster."

As I said, Clinton has NOT said that she would select only justices who promised to overturn Citizens United.

Nice try, though.

[merrily]

97. Uh huh. Hillary said "If elected President, I will have a litmus test."

I will have a litmus test."

This is what your OP said.


2. He has a litmus test that includes the potential nominee promising unequivocally that he or she would vote to overturn Citizens United. This suggests Sanders does not understand judicial ethics or the nominations process.

[Empowerer]

98. Ummm - read your own source again. That's a quote from SANDERS . . .

As I said, you should have spent more than 5 seconds on this...

[merrily]

101. Fact is, I heard her say it myself in 2015, but here is WAPO

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-

[Empowerer]

110. Again, the Washington Post piece cites an anonymous source

who said Hillary said she would only nominate someone after she "had assurances" that they would overturn Citizens United - which is different than saying she would make the nominee promise to overturn the case. Part of the vetting process is a deep dive into the nominee's record, writings and cases to try to divine how they would approach future cases - this is the primary way that a President tries to assure themselves how a nominee would approach certain cases, but that is not the same as making the nominee promise a specific outcome in certain cases.

The bottom line - again - is that Hillary has never been directly quoted saying that she would require a nominee to promise that they would overturn Citizens United and even this one anonymous source does not claim that she said that.

As I noted in another post, insisting on such a promise is not only unethical, it is stupid. Bernie Sanders has said this so often that any nominee of his would be asked under oath if they had promised a specific outcome. If they said yes, they would not be confirmed. If they said no, Bernie would then have to either accuse his nominee of lying under oath or admitting that he himself lied when he repeatedly promised voters that he would demand such a promise from his nominee.

[merrily]

104. And Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2015/09/22/revive-the-sedition-act-to-salve-hillarys-hurt-feelings/#1ef0dce05aaf

[Empowerer]

113. This doesn't even earn a "nice try" ...

You link to a Forbes hit piece, fawning over the "merits" of Citizens United and attacking Democrats for opposing it.

"Leftist politicians from Barack Obama down have created a mythology that Citizens United was a disastrous decision because it allows big, rich, right-wing corporations to buy our elections. Hillary Clinton declares that if elected president, she would make it a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees that they be willing to overrule it. Moreover, leaving no stone unturned, she favors a constitutional amendment that would allow the federal government to do what the Court said it could not do in Citizens United – control free speech in political campaigns."

It claims that "Hillary Clinton declares" that she would impose a litmus test - with no quote, no cite, no reference.

You're just scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

[elias7]

121. I think you lost the point

Let it go

[EffieBlack]

127. Dear one, I think you are wasting your time

arguing how a Bernie Sanders comment within the context of law and judicial ethics with people who obviously don't know a thing about either and who think Bernie Sanders can never ever misspeak (and when they cant get around the fact that Bernie said something dumb, reflexively insist that Hillary's did it, too) is a futile exercise.

[Armstead]

134. What part of “I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests" don't you understand?

That was Clinton.

[Gwhittey]

107. What I find funny

Why do Hillary Clinton people spend so much time arguing and acting petty over Sanders now that they said the primary was all wrapped up? Seems kinda odd to be playing primary tit for tat when you "know" she won.

[Hiraeth]

109. tis curious, I must say.

[Empowerer]

111. I don't know. Why don't you ask the "Hillary Clinton people" who've said the primary is wrapped up?

I have said no such thing, so I'm not sure why you're directing this question to me.

[BeanMusical]

120. +1000

[EffieBlack]

125. I saw the interview and think he spoke without thinking

Either that or he's completely clueless since he should know that the only reason for the President to withdraw a nomination in a lame duck session would be if there's a likelihood of confirmation, i.e., if the Republicans had already held a hearing and were about to schedule a vote. And if they were about to schedule a vote that would confirm his nominee, why would the President withdraw the name? He's not so enamored of Bernie Sanders that he would give him a Supreme Court nomination as a parting gift.

[dubyadiprecession]

137. Bernie said he wanted to nominate someone more progressive.

[pdsimdars]

138. What leaves me scratchingi my head is why the Democras keep saying it is critical that we have

a Democratic president because of Supreme Court nominations. . . . and yet, those Democratic Presidents appoint right wing Justices. I heard a great analysis by Cenk on TYT about this latest guy. He's the guy the REPUBLICANS suggested and now Obama is actually nominating him.
Why elect a Democratic president if he's just going to nominate the Republican's choice?

[MoonRiver]

139. I really hope the electorate is paying attention to these comments.

I think he will really tank in the upcoming primaries/caucuses.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

142. If he becomes president he should be able to select the nominee.

And, anyone who thinks that litmus tests aren't applied during the vetting process should cut down on their vodka.

[Empowerer]

143. You're right

If Sanders becomes President and a vacancy occurs on the Court during his presidency, he definitely should be able to nominate the replacement. But it is President Obama's prerogative to select the nominee to fill any vacancy that occurs on HIS watch. And he does not need to - and should not - relinquish that right to his successor, whether that successor is a Democrat or a Republican.

And you seem to be confused about what a "litmus test" is. In this context, litmus test simply means a standard that a nominee must meet in order to be considered. It does not define what that is. There are all sorts of litmus tests that are peefectly acceptable. But requiring a nominee to promise a specific ruling in a future case is not one of them.

[thesquanderer]

146. No, you can't promise a specific ruling on a future case.

You'd have to know the details of the case before you could rule on it.

But the way such a litmus test works is essentially, "looking at the facts in the CU decision, which way would you have voted, and why?" That's the litmus test, because it is specific, and it tells the president what s/he needs to know, i.e. what kind of decision to expect if there is another case with similar issues (which there will be, once word is out that the court is open to re-examining the issue).

This is a litmus test, and it is legitimate. It does not reference the specifics of some unknown future case, because really, it simply cannot, those facts are unknown. But it lets you know that the candidate agrees with you in respect to the core constitutional issues at hand.

[Cheese Sandwich]

151. "requiring a nominee to promise a specific ruling in a future case is not one of them"

Why not?

Would you require a nominee support the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act? And agree not to overturn those?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

144. Why no direct quotes? I don't believe he said "promising, promises, or promise"

On Edit: I found it DIRECTLY from his ISSUES section of his website:

Only appoint Supreme Court justices who will make it a priority to overturn Citizens United and who understand that corruption in politics means more than just quid pro quo.

Nobody promises anything.

[Empowerer]

145. You want direct quotes?

Here you go:

"If elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice. And that nominee will say that we are all going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision on Citizens United because that decision is undermining American democracy. I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians."

---Bernie Sanders on Face the Nation, May 10, 2015
http://www.cbsnews.com/face-the-nation-transcripts-february-7-2016-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/


"No nominee of mine to the United States Supreme Court will get that job unless he or she is loud and clear that one of their first orders of business will be to overturn Citizens United."

---Bernie Sanders at University of Chicago Institute of Politics, September 28, 2015
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/politics/bernie-sanders-chicago-koch-brothers-scotus/

"I have said over and over again that I do have a litmus test for a Supreme Court justice and that litmus test is that justice must be loud and clear in telling us that he or she will vote to overturn this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision."

---Bernie Sanders on Rachel Maddow Show
http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2016-03-17

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

171. No "promise". You must take us for fools.

[thesquanderer]

148. One can ask...

He can *ask* Obama to let him make his own nomination. It's a request, not a demand nor even an implication that Obama has any kind of obligation to him or that he doesn't have the full authority to stick with his own nominee, at his own discretion. Doesn't hurt to ask. Does not imply that the President doesn't have full and legitimate authority to decline.

[book_worm]

149. We got to get away from litmus tests

and the politicalization of SC nominees. We got lots of good people prior to all of this. Even some GOP nominees were outstanding. I think George Bush the First put David Souter on the Court and he turned out to be pretty liberal.

[beachbumbob]

153. I couldn't believe sanders statement either....

[Buzz cook]

154. Geez cart before the horse much

You don't nominate a judge then demand that they pass certain litmus tests, You don't have to. You find potential nominees that meet the standards you want in a judge, then you nominate them.

To pretend that there is something unethical about picking nominees fit the standards you set is just silly.

[Onlooker]

159. Those seem like pretty minor concerns

1. Obviously, this is just politics. If the Democrats were in the same position as the Republicans, they'd be doing the same thing.
2. The litmus test is fine. Sanders can choose who he wants, and the Justice, once appointed, can do whatever he or she wants.

[tabasco]

162. Your second point is laughable.

Citizens United is an ASSAULT on the constitution that needs to be rectified. I admire Sanders for acknowledging that and requiring that a nominee acknowledge that. It has nothing to do with judicial ethics because it is not an arguable point. CU is WRONG and harmful to our democracy. Failure to acknowledge that and act accordingly would be cowardly and stupid.

[democrattotheend]

164. Actually, I think it plays right into Obama's strategy

Especially if Sanders manages to turn things around and become the nominee (unlikely, but not impossible). Republicans will be scared shitless of who he might nominate and will be much more eager to confirm Garland.