SCOTUS Brief – Debate Edition
Severino in Morning Consult: Hillary Clinton refusing to answer questions about the judicial philosophy of her potential SCOTUS nominees – Hillary Clinton’s Litmus Test: Justices That Will Rubber Stamp Her Liberal Political Agenda – Severino in USA Today: What would a Ginsburg Court do?
To get live SCOTUS reaction during tomorrow’s debate on Twitter follow:
- In a column for the Morning Consult, Judicial Crisis Network Chief Counsel Carrie Severino writes that Hillary Clinton is refusing to answer “major questions” about the judicial philosophy of her potential Supreme Court appointments.
Severino in Morning Consult: Clinton promised “litmus test” for judicial selection
“Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton also broke new ground, but not necessarily in a good way. She promised to apply a ‘litmus test’ to judicial selection, nominating only justices who would overturn key protections for political speech and give her administration control over elections in certain states. She also admitted in the most recent presidential debate that she wanted a Supreme Court that would be nakedly partisan, rubber-stamping a list of Democratic policy priorities. Clinton’s Supreme Court, she argued, would strike down voter identification requirements and perpetuate the Supreme Court’s radical pro-abortion decisions. So much for blind justice.”
- The Washington Post Editorial Board criticized Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for promising a “litmus test” to pick Justices that will rubber stamp her liberal political agenda.
Hillary Clinton’s Litmus Test: Justices That Will Rubber Stamp Her Liberal Political Agenda
“Ms. Clinton’s emphasis on appointing judges who will rule in specific ways on particular issues echoed her earlier statement that, ‘I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests, because the next president could get as many as three appointments.’ Perhaps Ms. Clinton is simply stating the obvious: She would prefer to appoint judges who would rule the way she would like them to rule on specific, hot-button issues. But her candor is not costless, and the attitude it represents should not be accepted as normal. As a potential president, Ms. Clinton should have more respect for the independence and dignity of the judiciary as a co-equal but non-political branch of government. Selecting judges is not just policymaking through other means — or, at least, it should not be. Every step closer to accepting ideological litmus tests developed in the heat of political campaigns as the basis for judicial selections — every step toward putting court rulings to a vote — erodes the foundations of the judicial branch.”
- In a column for USA Today, Carrie Severino writes that if Hillary Clinton is elected president and a fifth liberal vote is confirmed to the Supreme Court, we should look to Justice Ginsburg to see what a liberal Court would do.
Severino in USA Today: What would a Ginsburg court do?
“In cases where the liberals win by only five votes to four, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the most senior liberal justice, will have power to influence the development of constitutional law as she chooses which justice will write each of the Court’s opinions… In 2008, a 5-4 majority defeated Ginsburg’s vote to impose a narrow version of the Second Amendment right to bear arms that would have limited gun rights to state militia members… In 2014, Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent joined by three other liberal justices in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. complaining about laws that prevent the government from forcing people to provide contraceptives against their religious beliefs… Just last year, Justice Ginsburg joined a dissent by Justice Breyer that openly speculated about the death penalty’s constitutionality and practically begged for an opportunity to strike it down…In three crucial 5-4 cases, Justice Ginsburg and the rest of the liberal bloc voted to approve laws restricting political speech.”
