There were a lot of fireworks at the last presidential debate that perhaps overshadowed the most substantive difference between the two candidates – namely, how they would be guided in office by the U.S. Constitution.
When the candidates were asked about the criteria they would use to select Supreme Court nominees, Hillary Clinton responded very clearly: “You’re right. This is one of the most important issues in this election. I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world works, who have real-life experience, maybe they tried more cases, understand what people are up against. I think the current court has gone in the wrong direction. So I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United, and get dark money out of our politics. Donald doesn’t support that. Voting rights are a big part of our country. We don’t always do everything to ensure that everybody can exercise their franchise.
“I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade. And Donald Trump has put together some candidates, and they will reverse Roe v. Wade and marriage equality. I want a Supreme Court that understands you shouldn’t have any more rights than anybody else. I want to change the balance of the Supreme Court, and I regret that the Congress has not done its job, and has not given the candidate put forward by President Obama a vote. That was a dereliction of duty. If I’m so fortunate enough as to be president, I will immediately move to make sure that we fill that, we have nine justices.”
Now let me translate that for you.
Here are Hillary Clinton’s litmus tests for nominees to the Supreme Court:
- Her nominees will be pledged to overturn Citizens United, which affirms the First Amendment’s absolute guarantee of freedom of political speech – the very kind of expression the founders had in mind when they ratified the Bill of Rights. Citizens United was a ruling approved by a 5-4 majority that included John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. In essence, the decision found that freedom of speech prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. Hillary Clinton, thus, wants to appoint only Supreme Court justices who want to restrict the free exercise of political speech.
- As to “voting rights” restrictions, what Hillary Clinton is talking about are voter identification laws. She doesn’t believe poll workers should be allowed to require photo ID to ensure only citizens get to vote. She believes voting should be a free-for-all open to any warm body. In fact, I’m not so sure she would reject dead voters. Democrats from Lyndon Johnson in Texas to Richard Daly in Chicago were renown for encouraging dead people to vote. For Hillary, elections are to be won by any means necessary, not necessarily by the rule of law and the Constitution. So her Supreme Court nominees will all, by necessity, be pledged to encourage vote fraud.
- Her third litmus test for Supreme Court justices is a familiar one – they must not be opposed to the sacred Roe v. Wade decision that essentially struck down state restrictions on abortion throughout the country. By taking power out of the hands of state legislators, where it rightfully belonged, it turned abortion into one of the most polarizing political issues of the last 43 years. It has also resulted in the execution, without due process, of some 58 million unborn babies in that time period.
I’d also like you to ponder this strange quote from Hillary Clinton: “I want a Supreme Court that understands you shouldn’t have any more rights than anybody else.” Notice the way she cast that assertion – in the negative. She didn’t say, “I want a Supreme Court that will protect the rights of all citizens equally.” Instead, she said that no one should have more rights than anyone else. That’s not the American way.
After all, in a free and just society, by necessity, we sometimes deny people their rights – criminals, for instance. It’s part of the justice system. When people abuse their freedom and violate the laws of the land, they are punished. That’s why it is inappropriate for Hillary, an attorney who admittedly had trouble passing the bar exam, to cast the statement as she did. However, I’m not surprised she did. Because she has shown throughout her political clear that she has no respect for the Constitution. Notice her statement about how she would select nominees to the Supreme Court never once mentioned the Constitution.
Now, let’s contrast what she said in her response to what Donald Trump said.
“Justice Scalia, great judge, died recently, and we have a vacancy. I am looking to appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice Scalia. I’m looking for judges, and I’ve actually picked 20 of them so that people would see, highly respected, highly thought-of, and actually very beautifully reviewed by just about everybody. But people that will respect the Constitution of the United States. I think that this is so important. Also the Second Amendment, which is totally under siege by people like Hillary Clinton, they will respect the Second Amendment, so important to me.”
There you have it. One candidate uses as his one and only litmus test for Supreme Court nominees the test of the Constitution. The other uses a standard of her own political ideology and how she feels about past Supreme Court decisions – some she likes and wants to uphold and others she doesn’t like and wants to overturn.
Decide for yourself which has a proper view of the role of the Supreme Court.
Decide for yourself which of the two is imposing ideological litmus tests on Supreme Court nominees.
Decide for yourself which of the two will produce a Supreme Court that will actually uphold the spirit and letter of the Constitution.
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].
|
