"Why Hillary is better than Trump" arguments, dissected: SCOTUS
Note: These essays are critical of the "Support Hillary because X" arguments. The intent is to dissect and examine them on the merits, and expose their weaknesses if any. I have a bias in that I'm a #BernieOrBust person. I won't vote for Hillary, and I find the arguments I'm critiquing unconvincing. These essays are meant to explore how and why I have come to that conclusion.
The process has more or less played out, and it's clear that barring some extraordinarily unlikely event (e.g. Bernie convincing super delegates to switch, an indictment, etc.) Hillary will be the democratic nominee. This is the point in the process where various high-profile individuals, including elected officials and prominent pundits, and many not-so-high-profile individuals will begin to make or step up their calls for unity. They will offer a variety of arguments why it's important for us to rally behind Ms. Clinton. These will generally consist of a combination of a few core arguments with some marginal nuance around the edges. They are generally arguments Hillary supporters (and the candidate herself) have been using during the primary, with a focus on electability or the ability to "get things done" or both of these. The arguments will be substantially similar now, but with a focus on unity since the "electability" and "getting things done" questions are essentially moot. These arguments have been and should be critically examined, however, and I'd like to make a series of diaries I (and readers, if interested) can use as a reference point for discussion.
I intend this to be a multi-part essay series. This is the first, and pertains to SCOTUS. I am collecting information for other common pro-Hillary arguments, including:
- Healthcare
- Social Security/Other "safety net"
- Foreign Policy
- Social Justice/Racism
- Fascism
SCOTUS
SCOTUS is an important, powerful institution in American politics. Decisions made by POTUS can have sweeping, long-lasting effects. It's important that we have as liberal a SCOTUS as is possible. During the primary season, the SCOTUS-based argument for supporting Hillary was one of electability and fear: Sanders can't win against the GOP, so support Hillary because she's our best chance at the most liberal SCOTUS possible, and a SCOTUS nominee from any Republican is just scary. Now the argument is unity based: we must unify and support her so that we avoid our fear of a Trump nominee and so that we get the most liberal SCOTUS possible.
In two critical areas of concern for liberals Hillary has indicated a fairly liberal take on nominations to SCOTUS. Taking her at face value, she would not appoint somebody who opposes abortion and she would only appoint somebody who would overturn Citizens United. However there are other areas that haven't been examined. What are her views regarding privacy, government surveillance, and drug crimes (all issues that are important to a large slice of Bernie supporters), to name a few others, for example? On climate change? Since the media haven't done their job to ask about those issues, either on the trail or in debates, we must rely on the candidate's record to make an inference.
The issue of privacy and government surveillance impacts all Americans, but especially citizens and non-citizen residents of particularly vulnerable ethnicities and nationalities. With the state of foreign affairs as they are, and calls for escalation of our country's "War on Terror" this issue is at least as important as abortion. Hillary's record on privacy and government surveillance is clear: she voted for the USAPATRIOT Act and has repeatedly called for increased surveillance and spying powers. It's unreasonable to conclude she will nominate a person who is opposed to these things. On this point, from a liberal's perspective, she's no better than any Republican.
There are so many issues related to drug crimes. Among these are civil forfeiture laws, disparity in sentencing, and even whether and to what extent drug use ought to be considered criminal. This issue impacts people who use medical marijuana (legally, per state laws, but illegally, per federal laws), and as usual it disproportionately impacts the poor, non-white, and other marginalized and vulnerable populations. On this point, Hillary's record is again clear: she's from the "drug war" view. She has repeatedly indicated that she does not think marijuana use should be decriminalized (although she has softened more recently to a "wait and see" approach). She also has consistently supported "diversion" programs (that is, to use courts--again, treating drug use as a criminal matter--to divert drug users into treatment programs instead of prisons). If she even considers drug laws when vetting nominees it is likely she will take a conservative approach. So once again, on this issue, Hillary isn't really better than any Republican.
Hillary Clinton has been a strong advocate for "free trade" agreements, fracking, and the fossil fuel industry in general. She has been consistent on these issues for a very long time, and while she is not opposed to cleaner energy she is still full-bore for fossil fuels. Her rhetoric and policy positions indicate she does not perceive Climate Change to be a very urgent issue. She doesn't ignore it, but she clearly has other priorities. Given her political positions to-date, I am skeptical that she will consider climate change at all when choosing a nominee. If she does, my view is she will more likely than not choose a person who is likely to rule in favor of fossil fuel industry defendants on any climate change issue that arises before SCOTUS.
Summary: If one considers only abortion or Citizens United, and if one takes her at her word, Hillary is a clearly superior choice versus any Republican. If one considers a broader class of issues likely to come before the court and that impact at least as many Americans as those two, she's at best on par with any Republican nominee.
Verdict: Potential SCOTUS nominations are insufficiently convincing as arguments to support Hillary Clinton.
Comments
As a moderator, please let me jump in here to say....
Attack the message and NEVER THE MESSENGER. We do not want to stifle debate or political passions, but the rule is you must be civil to each other. We do not want a community environment like the one at top.
Thanks,
dk
EDIT: This comment was NOT directed at the author of this essay or any of the comments in it. After the overly raucous 300 comment essay the other day, I just wanted to remind everyone to stay focused on the message. If I implied anything any different, I absolutely did not mean to. Hope this clarification helps.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
We had a raucous 300 post essay
and I missed it? Link please!
i
don't vote for Clintons. However, I don't think anyone who reviews the records of the eleven Klansmen that The Hairball has put forth as his potential Supreme Court nominees would or could reasonably conclude that The Mad Bomber would appoint people "at best on par" with such Cro-Magnons.
I wasn't aware Trump has eleven Klansmen in his list
Who are they?
Quite aside from that, I'm skeptical much more damage to civil rights could be accomplished from the bench than the effective destruction of the VRA and the terrible rulings in favor of law enforcement. Most of the justices, including Obama's appointees, have been far more inclined to side with police and prosecutors in criminal matters, and Hillary is very much in the strong-on-crime camp. Does it matter if the justice ruling in favor of a racist system isn't him or herself overtly bigoted? Is that really an important distinction to make in this context?
as i said,
I think it's worthwhile to research these people, to discover who they are, before deciding The Mad Bomber would nominate people "at best on par" with them.
Before you wrote this, did you research the eleven people The Hairball has said he might elevate to the high court?
"Most of the justices, including Obama's appointees, have been far more inclined to side with police and prosecutors in criminal matters." Well, last week here, we achieved another dog-nose dismissal, thanks to Rodriguez v. US. We also like City of Los Angeles v. Patel. Sotomayor wrote that one. Then there is her dissent in Mullenix v. Lena. It is true that there is no Douglas up there, that they all have a long way to go. But to assert that on criminal-law matters, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, say, are indistinguishable from Thomas and Alito, that is not reflected in the record.
Yes, that's why I asked you to substantiate your assertion
that his list consists of Klansmen.
I never wrote anything about Ginsburg or Sotomayor. I based this essay on Hillary's record and statements. Neither Ginsburg nor Sotomayor are Hillary's, so bringing them up doesn't seem pertinent.
this
is a direct quote from your essay: "Most of the justices, including Obama's appointees, have been far more inclined to side with police and prosecutors in criminal matters." I responded to it.
They are not literal Klansmen. So far as is known. Since you have researched them, perhaps it would be helpful if you would name them, review their records, and then marshal evidence that The Mad Bomber would nominate people "at best on par" with them.
Your response is cherry-picking at best. And
now you're leaving the klansmen comment behind.
Here's the point of my essay: we do not know who Hillary might nominate, but it is reasonable to assume she'd choose people likely to agree with the constitutionality of policies she'd pursue. Based on her record, we can reasonably conclude her appointments would lean conservative on matters of domestic surveillance, climate change, and civil rights with a couple of exceptions. My assertion is that this renders any SCOTUS arguments for supporting her neutral at best, because said nominees are likely to be much closer to the GOP view than to the views of a person on the left, and therefore any difference is in reality a distinction without difference.
nope
Not cherry-picking at all. Seems to me the person "ignoring a significant portion of cases or data that may contradict [the] position," that would be you. ; )
For if you actually researched the records of the 11 nominees of The Hairball, and then compared them to the judicial nominees, and policies, that The Mad Bomber has supported, or opposed, you would find that your "distinction without a difference," that does not exist, in objective, verifiable, Reality.
As I said at the outset, I don't vote for Clintons. But I know this area. I work in criminal law. And I am not going to blind myself, self-lobotomize, just because it might sound Kool to say she would appoint people "at best on par" with the selections of The Hairball.
You're entitled to do that. Could do without the insults.
And distinction without difference is matter of opinion. You're entitled to yours, of course.
there have been
no insults. Not from me.
You're substituting Obama's appointees in
for Clinton's and ignoring her record, and asserting my argument rests on agreement with the basic notion that her appointees would be similar to his. I'm not buying it.
Your use of loaded language like "self-lobotomize" and "Kool" carries a clear implication. You can retract that if you like. Until you do my assumption is you're more interested in slinging sly insults than anything else.
it was you
who mentioned Obama's appointees; I quoted directly from your piece. Too, it was you who stated in your piece that The Mad Bomber would appoint people "at best on par" with the Hairball's selections, and stated in comments that with their appointees there would be a "distinction without a difference." I have not at all ignored her record: it is because I am aware of both her policy record, and her record of supporting or opposing judicial nominees, as compared to the policies emitted by The Hairball, and the records of the nominees he has set forth, that I would indeed need to self-lobotomize to embrace the Kool position that there is a "distinction without a difference," that her nominees would be "at best on par" with his. I told you; I work in this field. I can't just blithely pretend something is, that actually isn't.
You have repeatedly been invited to name and explore The Hairball nominees, and demonstrate how Clinton's would be "at best on par" with them, how there would be a "distinction without a difference." These invitations you have repeatedly declined. This indicates to me that you are interested simply in slinging sweeping statements, to support a pre-determined conclusion, without grounding those statements in actual objective, verifiable Reality.
But then, that's what blogging's all about, isn't it? ; )
I am unreasonable.
'Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years, Doctor, and I’m happy to state I finally won out over it." Elwood P. Dowd "
Agree
After the shit that happened this last year with our so called "democracy", I've come to the belief that even the court is rigged. Decisions will always be 4 to 5 for appearance sake and it will continue to throw crumbs to the masses but when it comes to the interests of the uber rich it will always side with them. 5 to 4 of course.
BernieOrBust...
On Citizens United
I think it's a laughable idea that Hillary would appoint anybody who would want to overturn it, considering she is one of the largest benefactors of CU in modern politics. Besides, she's going to "need" as much financial support to beat the next Republican candidate that will destroy the country. And her predecessor is also going to need some serious funds to beat the next one. And the one after that. And the one after that. And, you guessed it, the one after that. You can't rely on someone benefiting from CU to do anything that will get rid of CU anymore than you can rely on a heroine addict (that enjoys their addiction) to shut down local heroin dealers.
That leaves her abortion stance, which is a crappy abortion with restrictions style of policy. Basically republican lite.
dkmich, I wonder what a civil reaction to an uncivil argument
will lead to? Enabling the uncivil argument to be "acceptable"? In the name of civility, I am looking for a polite expression of "Heil" something or someone.
So far, I couldn't find a way to imagine how a civil reaction to the messages of a "dear leader" would end up just as nothing but "enabling" the message and the messenger.
May be I misunderstand your warning, before anyone has been uncivil in this thread, but it shows to me how scared we all are.
I think all DK meant was to save your attacks for policy
and position, not engage in useless and divisive, not to mention distracting, ad-hominem attacks upon the writer or the commentors.
At least I think that is what he meant.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
of course, I know that, it's a given, don't think even
we have to be reminded all the time. Those constant reminders way back in the time on dailykos has surpressed a lot of people to express themselves and ended up running away to this place.
I simply try to say and warn that it could easily result here in same fashion.
alpha is right on mimi
You can tell me what I think is stupid. Just don't tell me that I am stupid. If someone gets personal with you, remind them it is against site rules. Don't react and respond in kind. If you think someone is really over the top with you or others, send a message to the moderators. Delegate it up mimi.
We want discourse to be free and free to be spirited. We just don't want anyone fighting and attacking each other on a personal level. If we start doing that, we are no better than top.
Thanks for asking mimi.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I understood this since years, and have seldom
stepped over that line as being rude or in the attack of a person. What is rude in one cultural setting might not be considered rude in another. Of course you would need to have experienced different cultural settings to be aware of it.
Nevertheless I try to say that ... "in the name" of civility you can end up to be an enabler of something that you didn't want to enable. I have a thin skin when it comes to be accused of displaying a "Good German" or a "bad authoritarian German", because I have a sense when a messenger is abusing his free speech rights to incite divisiveness or much worse, racial or ethnic or gender related violence. Can't help it. It's happening all over in Europe right now and there is no way that in the name of "civility" I would accept "messengers' hate inciting speech".
I agree. The SCOTUS argument doesn't hold water for me...
I am just as worried that she will nominate judges that will do nothing about CU, which is one of the biggest issues we need to overcome in order to get the rest of the problems we are facing under control.
Another thing is trust.
I don't trust her at all to select candidates that are best for us, her selections will benefit Wall Street and not my street.
The reason they are going to have so much trouble achieving "Unity" is because for most progressives I imagine their calls for unity are little different in impact than any that may come from the right.
Why would I want to unify behind a political candidate that represents everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party?
Why would I want to unify behind a political candidate that has spent the last 6 months insulting me and my fellow Sanders Supporters, lied to and about us as well as shit on our goals as being "Unicorns, rainbows and ponies."
Screw Clinton, Screw the DNC & the party elites that run it and screw the MSM for working alongside her to do so.
Only progressives get my votes from now on.
Knowing that the days of holding my nose and having to take a shower after voting because I feel like I need to wash off the stench of corruption are behind me makes me feel actually quite good.
There is something about realizing you are no longer going to compromise your moral beliefs and that you no longer have an obligation to do so anymore, because those that you have done so for repeatedly and consistently stabbed you in the back, that is difficult to but into words. Happy? Joyful?
Neither of those seem appropriate.
Freeing. That's what it is.
For the first time in my entire political life I feel free. Free to vote for those that I trust and respect. Free to vote out of desire to see a candidate you truly support win, not out of fear that the other guy will.
I am free.
I will not put those bindings back on myself just to get someone ill-suited, not to mention corrupt and a serial liar, elected.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
It IS a good feelin, isn't it, Alpha?
It's certainly not joyful, by any means. But refusing to be complicit in the corruption in any way has it's own rewards.
Shit will go down, but it won't be with my vote supporting it.
It is freeing to finally refuse to vote for anyone who you can't honestly say you agree with more than you disagree. No candidate is going to be perfect, even with Bernie we have points of disagreement. But deciding that you have minimum standards: integrity required, supporting at least the majority of a candidates' stance, and not voting for anyone who is more likely to cause harm is remarkably freeing.
What I am rapidly starting to realize is that I can support
someone that doesn't agree with me on all my issues, nor even most of them, as long as I feel they are HONESTLY speaking their beliefs and positions.
I can work with someone that is honest that I disagree with much more easily that I can work with a dishonest one that says they agree.
Honesty and Integrity are almost as important if not as important to me as positions.
TBH, there are MANY areas of Sanders platform that I disagree with, but I do believe that at least with a person like Sanders I could make my pitch, and if my pitch was sound and logical he would actually at least consider it and potentially change his mind.
Someone like Clinton? The only thing that would ever get her to change her mind is Money. (Something I don't have near enough of, and certainly not enough of to entice a Clinton.)
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Big reason why I'm voting for Jill Stein
in addition to agreeing with most of her policies. I wish she had more governmental experience and there are some other weak points about her, but she is clearly authentic and passionate about our biggest threats. That puts her (and Bernie) way above any other candidate running.
Beware the bullshit factories.
HRC has been crowned by the democratic party.
Good for them! Let's see if the democratic party can ratfuck the voting machines enough to get her elected. It'll be interesting to watch the blackhat crews from the two parties duke it out in the general, nicely disguised under a thin veneer of "getting out the vote". It'll probably come down to who touches the voting machines last, or most often. Jump ball!
Meanwhile, I no longer think that the Supreme Court really matters at all. After all, the precedent has now been set that the Senate doesn't have to do a *damned thing* on any nomination: they don't have to even acknowledge that it happens, let alone vote on it. So if Drumpf wins, and nominates someone horrible, all that needs to happen is for a few of the democrats to absolutely block voting on them for a few years.
The court will eventually get down to only one or two members, by attrition, but hey- you can't make omelettes without breaking some eggs, amirite? The outcome of this election, between the two least desirable candidates in history, will simply be the greatest gridlock in history. Problem solved!
We will get a lot of post offices named, though, at least until the sea level rises and swallows them. Can't have them go down unnamed! Oh, and a few wars started. But that was the desired outcome of the democratic party and their owners, wasn't it? Sure looks like it to me!
At this point, I can't bring myself to believe that the above was actually snark. I _mourn_ our "democracy".
Duplicate post for some reason
Please ignore.
The real issue is "taking her at her word"
And that's the one thing she's proven it is foolish to do.
So, really, we have no more idea what kind of judge she would nominate then Trump. The only thing we can say for sure is that her pick will be far more "strategic" and not in a way that will benefit the 99%.
This was posted at k4s reddit subthread - troll TPs done well
[am intentionally not identifying the poster's handle] I think it hits some major points we'll be seeing in the coordinated push to back Clinton now, in LTEs and online comments and blogs. It's longer than most from obvious trolls and achieves a reasonable tone. It will persuade some--perhaps many. Take a look and get ready to make counter arguments when you see this stuff, if you care to engage rather than ignore:
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti
Yes I saw that one and thought it unbelievable
It's to be expected, though. There are a lot of Sanders supporters who are go-along-to-get-along types.
I'm going to include some info about Hillary's supposed support for women in children in one of the essays in this series.
Honestly
I don't think we should be taking 'normal paradigms' for granted when it comes to Sanders supporters. I'd venture that there are not nearly as many "go along to get along" types as we'd ascribe to most other candidates.
You think that's well done?
No insult intended, but it's pretty weak. first of all - there are no "penny-ante" DNC shenanigans. Any shenanigans at all are completely unacceptable, full stop.
This legitimate votes thing - all we have to do is look at the exit-polling discrepancies to realize we can't know how many votes were legitimate. Add that to the premature media announcement, and that's major voter suppression.
What a ringing endorsement: Her judgment isn't great (who needs judgment in a president?) and she loves money too much (who needs public-spiritedness in a President??).
Honestly, I hope this is the best the paid trolls can do, because it's pathetically weak. I also will not play any part in a Trump presidency. In addition, I won't play any part in a Clinton presidency. As was intended from the beginning, I will vote for the candidate I can actually support.
Well done in not being an obvious troll to many readers,
I think. I bothered to respond there for other eyes. Some responses seemed to take that post at face value, accepting the "I was for Bernie and now I'm for Hillary because..." script. But it's been down voted into negative nos., which I find encouraging.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti
Deja vu all over again.
Except the 'I am not a troll' GS essay rolled into three pages here yesterday.
The trolling is becoming more obvious, for those who look.
Link Please
If we're going to combat these types of attacks, you need to include links so we can respond. And remember when fighting these guys: Think of yourself as a lawyer. He's your witness. This is not Perry Mason, ie, he's NEVER going to confess. the point isn't to get him to admit he's wrong, the point is that everyone reading your conversation is your jury. The audience is your jury. convincing THEM is what the interaction is about.
name calling, even sly, passive aggressive namecalling, isn't going to impress the jury. Show them the inconsistencies of the witnesses testimony. Make them doubt the veracity of the witness. Show them the logic of your assertions. That's what combating these attacks requires. YOU may know he's a corporate shill, but unless you can prove it, there's no point in pointing it out. Attack the message.
Oh, and link please?
Lacks authenticity, as they say
One of multiple styles of "I was for Bernie but now #I'mWithHer." Coordinated, obvious, vaguely amusing in the carefully crafted earnest and thoughtful tone. Seeks to win confidence by lightly acknowledging some of Clinton's weaknesses but falls back on "omg Trump!" and "it's the Supreme Court, stupid!" and "she fights for women and children!" That last point ignores Clinton's betrayal of the Children's Defense Fund and subsequent chilliness between the Edelmans and Clintons, and her sellouts in Haiti and Honduras that harmed countless women and children. Oh yah, plus mayhem in Libya.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti
What is this reply in response to? It doesn't seem
to apply to my essay.
Sorry if that wasn't clear
You wrote: "They will offer a variety of arguments why it's important for us to rally behind Ms. Clinton."
The comment I copied from elsewhere was an example. It purported to be from a Sanders voter who is now ready to back Clinton. Its arguments: anyone but scary Trump, the Supreme Court, she's a champion of women and kids.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti
My response to that "Sanders voter":
Truly, truly say I unto thee:
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
"If one takes her at her word"
My question is #WhichHillary? The one that's willing to trade away late term abortion to the Republicans, or the one that claims to be a staunch defender of Roe v. Wade?
On Citizens United, do we trust the Hillary that claims to want it overturned because she was the victim in that particular case, or is it the neoliberal that has been the single largest beneficiary of shady corporate/1% money throughout the entire primary?
And those are her "good" issues when it comes to the SCOTUS. The problem is that Hillary takes every side of every issue whenever it's politically convenient for her, so even if I wanted to take her at her word, I wouldn't know which word to take.
Good diary
To get a sense of what sort of justices HRC might appoint, as opposed to Trump, I think it's instructive to compare the appointees of the last two Democratic versus those of the last two Republican presidents.
Bush Sr. appointed Clarence Thomas, Bush Jr. John Roberts and Samuel Alito. All hard-line right wingers, red meat for the hard core Republican base.
Bubba gave us Ruth Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, and Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. By and large socially liberal, but moderate on matters pitting the interests of individuals against those of government or corporations, as well as those pitting corporate interests versus those of government. Pretty much what you would expect from a pair of pro-corporate neoliberals who take an expansive view of executive and general government authority.
Given that Hillary Clinton seems to be even more unabashedly pro-business and pro-Imperial Presidency than either Obama or the prospective First Gentleman, I think it's safe to say that her SC appointees would tend a lot more towards the Merrick Garland model than they would towards Thurgood Marshall or William Douglas.
By the same token, it's not hard to imagine Trump seeing a relatively young right wing ideologue along the lines of Roberts or Alito as his hypothetical ideal. So from a progressive standpoint, while Clinton's choices would likely be mediocre at best, Trump's would probably be truly odious. So this would seem to be one issue that clearly favors Clinton.
However, speaking only for myself, still not nearly compelling enough to consider embracing the LOTE argument yet again, not when I consider all the other vile and morally repugnant things that such an acceptance entails.
inactive account
Not reliably so.
Not reliably so. Any such inconvenient ideals will evaporate like ethyl-ether the second $hillary's real backers and bosses (the 0.1% and their favored Prosperity "Gospel" cults) demand it. And with regards to SCOTUS nominations, they will demand it.
I mention this small flaw in the essay's reasoning because it supports the final bottom-line: If one considers a broader class of issues likely to come before the court and that impact at least as many Americans as those two, she's at best on par with any Republican nominee; and therefore, potential SCOTUS nominations really are insufficiently convincing as arguments to support Hillary Clinton.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides