Hillary also isn’t a fan of separation of powers, apparently.
From The Hill:
Speaking at a Democratic presidential forum on Wednesday night, a person in the crowd asked Clinton whether she would impose a “litmus test” upon potential Supreme Court justices other than on the issue of being pro-abortion.
“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests, because the next president could get as many as three appointments,” the former first lady responded. “It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”
Clinton said her potential appointments would have to support the Voting Rights Act, parts of which were invalidated by the current group of justices.
She also said potential nominees would have to believe that money does not equal speech, which led to the landmark Citizens United decision that paved the way for super-PACs.
Let’s remember what the Citizens United case was all about. Do you remember?
As noted here,
The Left, including Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton and afore-mentioned commie fossil Sen. Bernie Sanders, all agree that the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) is one of the worst decisions in history. To hear them rant and rave about it, you’d have to conclude that it makes the Dred Scott decision an example of excellence in jurisprudence. Barack Obama even took the occasion of this decision to berate the Supreme Court at the 2010 State of the Union address. He stated “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections.” The democrat apparatchiks in the Lame Stream Media picked up this talking point, and used it to brainwash people who get their information from the pretend news, leading many of these fools to demonize this decision without having the slightest clue what it was about. Here’s the short, simple fact: Citizens United is a non-profit organization. Prior to the 2008 election, they wanted to air a documentary that they had produced, “Hillary: the Movie,” something that ran afoul of the heinous, anti-1st amendment McCain-Feingold law. During the oral argument of this case, the government’s attorney, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, argued that under the existing law, the government would have the right to not only ban movies, but ban books, if they contained even one sentence advocating the defeat of a particular candidate. Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the government to ban political speech.Citizens United a victory for the First Amendment, something that the Left hopes you don’t notice. Hillary told supporters in Iowa “I will do everything I can do to appoint Supreme Court justices who will protect the right to vote and not the right of billionaires to buy elections.” What she should have said is “I will appoint political hacks who will make sure it’s illegal to criticize me.”
(An aside: here’s a fun game to play at your Big Game Bowl party. Ask your favorite liberal, or low information millennial, “Hillary Clinton has promised that, if elected, all her nominees to the Supreme Court, will have to pledge to overrule Citizens’ United. Do you support that policy?” When the liberal or millennial says “yes,” ask him to tell you what the holding was in that case. Sit back and enjoy awkward silence.)
In addition, the idea of a president having litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees, which is the executive removing the judge’s discretion to decide cases on the law and the merits, is an outrageous affront to the concept of separation of powers, which is critical to keeping us free, as Justice Scalia has frequently noted. He even teaches a seminar on it.
by Antonin Scalia [Regnery Publishing]
Hillary has no use for that. We’ve seen that she cannot abide any criticism, not only from filmmakers, but also from comedians.
Let me ask again. How can anyone consider voting for this congenital-lying, evil woman?