By Hillary Clinton - A make-or-break moment for Supreme Court appointments

[Alfresco]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/08/make-break-moment-for-supreme-court-appointments/ULPa9x5VEUjqfeTn8rCpdN/story.html

A make-or-break moment for Supreme Court appointments
By Hillary Clinton January 08, 2016

Excerpt:

There’s a lot at stake in this election. Nowhere is this clearer than in the US Supreme Court.

The court’s decisions have a profound impact on American families. In the past two decades alone, it effectively declared George W. Bush president, significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act, and opened the door to a flood of unaccountable money in our politics. It also made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, preserved the Affordable Care Act not once but twice, and ensured equal access to education for women.

Agree or disagree with them — and most of us have done both over the years — there’s no question that who sits on the court matters a great deal.

On Election Day, three of the current justices will be over 80 years old, which is past the court’s average retirement age. The next president could easily appoint more than one justice. That makes this a make-or-break moment — for the court and our country.

As president (and a lawyer and former law professor), I’ll appoint justices who will protect the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or political viewpoint; make sure the scales of justice aren’t tipped away from individuals toward corporations and special interests; and protect citizens’ right to vote, rather than billionaires’ right to buy elections.

[cali]

1. I trust her to appoint socially liberal justices. That's not good enough

[NCTraveler]

3. In a recent op by you, you connected actions of the Big Dog....

from over twenty years ago, to Hillary.

Are you now saying Ginsburg isn't good enough? That is using your very own metric.

Not good enough. lol.

[cali]

7. No. I said their past history will damage them.

And I said nothing about Ginsburg.

[NCTraveler]

9. Agree on all points. Fully backs up what I said.

Here is the link. And of course you didn't mention Ginsburg. It would go completely against the logic you are attempting to use.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251983912

[Dawgs]

5. I agree with you.

I don't trust her to do anything that will benefit the economics of 90% of Americans.

[Hortensis]

12. Silly. There's a lot of speculation among experts

who might be appointed by a liberal or conservative president, and it can be very interesting reading, even if many of the names have to be looked up. Absolutely NO ONE believes that a Democratic president would appoint business-oriented justices. Everyone knows that's Republican ideology and will happen only if the next president is Republican. Wealthy conservatives are extremely afraid right now.

Please note, though, that who a Democratic president CAN get on the Court will depend tremendously on the makeup of the Senate. If the Senate stays in GOP hands, the Senate will block EVERY appointment you could possibly get enthusiastic about.

We do have a chance to gain a majority in the Senate, though, and the combination of that + SCOTUS appointments is far more important to unhitching government from corporations than which of our current nominees make it to the White House. Each of them is a liberal who will appoint good people -- if he or she can.

Closing with a nice idea. I really wonder if Obama'd be interested if we vote in a Senate that would approve him. "As for Barack, though, I would of course consider him for the Supreme Court. I believe he would make a great justice, and he’s certainly qualified for the role. No US President has ever gone to the Supreme Court, nor has any individual ever served in all three branches of our government, so it would be unprecedented. But I agree; he’d definitely make for a great Supreme Court Justice, at a time when we need those seats filled with strong independent minds.” - Hillary Clinton

[Android3.14]

2. So we'd better elect someone who can win, like Bernie Sanders

Rather than a corporate puppet with no enthusiasm in the base and an endless supply of people who will vote against her.

[winter is coming]

11. +1. n/t

[Dustlawyer]

4. She will appopint corporate, bought off assholes!

Her picks will have insurance defense backgrounds, large corporate/Wall Street firm backgrounds, anyone but an attorney or judge with a background representing individuals. When was the last time a judge or attorney with a Plaintiff/Trial Lawyer background was appointed? That is what SCOTUS needs for some kind of balance! Hillary will NEVER make an appointment like that!

[Fawke Em]

6. Translation: I'm a corporate-owned toady, but I'm marginally better

than the Republicans (and only on the social issues I've "evolved" on recently, certainly not on foreign policy or economic justice).

[Alfresco]

8. Did you read the article? That's your translation? WOW?

[Fawke Em]

14. Yes. Based on what I know about her. eom

[thereismore]

10. I would like Bernie to appoint those justices. nt

[Broward]

13. Best to nominate Bernie then.