Friday, May 15, 2015

Democrat Supreme Court Nominee Litmus Test: Overturn Citizens United

by JASmius



Did you know that Vermont communist Senator Bernie Sanders is running for president?  Not much reason you should, since (1) he's a Democrat and (2) he's a white male, so he'll never get the Donk nomination any more than Hillary Clinton will.

But BS did said something trademarkedly stupid and censurious and typically "progressive" on Deface The Nation this past Sunday:

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.

Which is to say, he does not believe anybody but George Soros and Tom Steyer should be able to buy politicians, the Obamedia's public brainwashing monopoly should be restored, and the First Amendment is undermining American democracy.  And, of course, outcome-based jurisprudence - litmus tests - are just fine when leftwingnuts squawk them, but pure Nazism when socons seek the overturning of Roe v. Wade, whose parallel as such to the Left's obsession with Citizens United is almost a photographic negative.

So of course the Ugly Dutchess twanged her hamstrings trying to catch up with Weekend Bernie:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has said that, as president, she would only put forward a Supreme Court nominee who would seek to overturn the 2010 Citizens United decision, the Washington Post reported.

[Senator Bernie Sanders] outlined her position [on Face The Nation last Sunday].

Hey, might as well tell it like it is, Newmax.

"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, one attendee told the Post.

So will eventual 2016 Democrat presidential nominee Elizabeth Warren.

Remember when Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 actually meant something?  Good times, good times.

No comments: