How long have we been waiting for Hillary Clinton to tell us who she'd put on the Supreme Court?

What's News

5 Things About the Supreme Court From Last Night’s Debate

By Carrie Severino | October 20th, 2016

1. Clinton Basically Avoided Mentioning the Constitution

The only time Clinton actually invoked a provision of the Constitution was in demanding that the Senate confirm the president’s Supreme Court nominee.  When the moderator, Chris Wallace, asked Clinton how the Constitution should be interpreted, her answer had a lot to do with the Democratic Party’s political coalition and little to do with the Constitution:

You know, I think when we talk about the Supreme Court, it really raises the central issue in this election, namely, what kind of country are we going to be? What kind of opportunities will we provide for our citizens? What kind of rights will Americans have? . . . But I feel that at this point in our country’s history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United, we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace, that we stand up and basically say: The Supreme Court should represent all of us.

That’s how I see the court, and the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on behalf of our rights as Americans.

Maybe she is just clumsy with her wording, but it also struck me as odd that she framed the Supreme Court as a purely representative body. It’s not, and even the Washington Post has called her out for confusing the court’s function with the job of the political branches.

Trump’s answer to the same question echoed statements he has made in the context of announcing lists of possible Supreme Court nominees.  As he put it:
Read the rest of this entry »


Browse by Category:

On Twitter @judicialnetwork