Patterico's Pontifications

5/16/2015

Hillary’s Litmus Test for Supreme Court Nominations: Pledge to Reverse This Pro-Free Speech Decision I Don’t Like

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:31 am

Friendly reminder from Phil Kerpen: The Citizens United case was about whether a corporation had a First Amendment right to spend money from its general treasury to promote criticism of … Hillary Clinton. People on both sides forget that, I think. It’s natural in hindsight to assume that a conservative group being scrutinized by the feds for a political attack in 2007 was training its fire on Obama. Nope. The question was, does Citizens United’s right to free speech include the right to spend big bucks publicizing “Hillary: The Movie” when Hillary was a candidate for president?

That’s the case that would-be President Hillary Clinton now desperately wants overturned.

Big Government is always going to try to take away your rights. Always. It will never stop. And the way they do it is, they try to make it sound like it’s a Good Thing that your rights are being taken away. So they pick an unpopular target like Big Corporations — which can be annoying but are subject to competition, unlike the federal government — and try to make the argument about Big Corporations controlling everything. When, in fact, the issue in Citizens United was whether citizens could band together, using the benefits of a corporation, to criticize Hillary Clinton.

Hillary — unexpectedly! — doesn’t think they should be able to. And so she will have a litmus test for her Supreme Court nominees, that they must oppose the operation of the First Amendment in this context.

Big Media will not criticize her for this. You see, Big Media benefits when other voices are shut down. Hillary can’t shut up editorial writers (yet), so when competing voices are quieted, the voices of Big Media ring out louder than ever. So the idea that media would oppose a lefty presidential candidate explicitly opposing the First Amendment — an idea that at first glance seems like a given — is actually a pipe dream.

Big Media, by and large, will applaud.

Here’s the bigger picture: The ship is going down. Electing someone like Ted Cruz instead of Hillary Clinton will slow it, but the real effort needs to be in finding systematic ways to decentralize power. Ideas include an Article V convention, states resisting federal mandates, systematic civil disobedience such as is recommended by Charles Murray in his latest book (more about that in a future post), and creating institutions that operate independently from government to the extent possible. And if none of that works, secession by the states populated by people who believe in liberty.

In the meantime, vote against Hillary Clinton and do your best to preserve your First Amendment rights for the time being. Just don’t kid yourself into believing that’s enough. It isn’t. Not even close.

Comments (52)

52 Responses to “Hillary’s Litmus Test for Supreme Court Nominations: Pledge to Reverse This Pro-Free Speech Decision I Don’t Like”

Ding.
Patterico (9c670f) — 5/16/2015 @ 9:31 am
hello! What Hildebeast cares about ANY issue?

(cue bad Russian accent)

“Apologies. Charitable givings of flying fucks not authorized.”
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/16/2015 @ 9:33 am
You wrote:

“…Big Government is always going to try to take away your rights. Always. It will never stop. And the way they do it is, they try to make it sound like it’s a Good Thing that your rights are being taken away. ..”

And that’s because they think they know better than the voters. Better than you and me.

When HRC says, “…it takes a village..” what she means is her own viewpoint. None other permitted.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 5/16/2015 @ 9:44 am
So they pick an unpopular target like Big Corporations

And Pamela Geller.
Steve57 (25a5a0) — 5/16/2015 @ 9:47 am
Meghan’s coward daddy most certainly approves of this

#theydidsomethingtohisbrain you see
happyfeet (831175) — 5/16/2015 @ 9:51 am
His mini-me definitely does approve.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/lindsey-graham-isn-t-sure-if-bloggers-deserve-first-amendment-protection-20130605

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/lindsay-graham-on-koran-burning-freedom-of-speech-is-a-great-idea-but-were-in-a-war/

I despise this man. I especially despise him because he hides behind the troops.

I can speak for at least some them when I say they’re not fighting over there so we can surrender here.
Steve57 (25a5a0) — 5/16/2015 @ 10:05 am
Capitulation does seem to be the order of the day, though.
Steve57 (25a5a0) — 5/16/2015 @ 10:06 am
Two or three more Federalist Society members on the Supreme Court could not hurt. If Wickard and such are overturned, and states regain their powers (subject to the limitations in the 14th amendment) for most local matters, there is some hope.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/16/2015 @ 10:15 am
I remain convinced that an Article V Convention will not help and could hurt. By the time such a convention would produce results, you will have enough control in Congress that it won’t be needed.

OTOH, if I had a single amendment for such a convention to consider, it would be amending Article V to add the ability of 2/3rds of the states to propose amendments by passing identical resolutions within a rolling 3-year period. Such proposals then would need to have the normal 3/4ths ratification. I’d also want to add the now-common 7-year limit to ratification.

Although I’d rather that Congress propose it in regular order.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/16/2015 @ 10:32 am
I don’t see how an Article V convention could possibly hurt. We will never have enough control in Congress that it won’t be needed.

Congress will not make itself irrelevant. Sticking its nose into every aspect of our lives provides too many attractive opportunities for the members to enrich themselves through bribery.
Steve57 (25a5a0) — 5/16/2015 @ 10:46 am
Steve… comedian Rob Bartlett was doing a mean Lindsey Graham impersonation on the Don Imus show just this past week. Hilarious… I wish it was on Youtube.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/16/2015 @ 11:25 am
Lindsey is really our jar jar binks, actually that insults jar jar,
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/16/2015 @ 11:32 am
On a side note, I caught Bill Maher last night (Ayaan Hirsi Ali was his guest) and when the panel came on, Charles Murray was seated next to a progressive chick who clearly thought more government is the answer to almost every situation. Murray sought to explain how even rehabilitating a simple bridge in some city was unable to progress because of big government demands for permits, assessments, and red tape in general. He further sought to illustrate government’s ineffectiveness and dismal results next to private companies doing the work by explaining how even building a simple, straight road takes at minimum, 8 years to get started. Again because of government. He kept his examples straightforward and still the progressive could not get it and went on about how there are projects that big government can do better and more effectively and efficiently because private industry simply can’t. That he was composed and kept his cool was impressive.
Dana (86e864) — 5/16/2015 @ 11:54 am
this is that half of the segment;

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/maher-to-ayaan-hirsi-ali-why-do-liberals-blame-the-victim-when-it-comes-to-islam/
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/16/2015 @ 12:03 pm
you know there’s a conundrum, I find it hard to wrap around, they complain about PACs yet they leverage the largest ones, Maher contributed to it, they outspent us 2/1. but Koch!!
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/16/2015 @ 12:09 pm
She sure shut down The Path to 9/11.

There are pirated copies around, I guess but ABC and Disney must have had good reasons to give up the $40 million it meant.

I wonder what they got for it ? Maybe a payment in advance,
Mike K (90dfdc) — 5/16/2015 @ 12:10 pm
well it seems there was pay to play, re one of the last opportunities we had to take out UBL, re a falconry camp, involving princes from the UAE
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/16/2015 @ 12:29 pm
well if you’ve bought the judge and bribed the jury:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-207228.html?ml=po

what difference does it make,
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/16/2015 @ 12:37 pm
I don’t see how an Article V convention could possibly hurt.

What makes you think they wouldn’t report out:

Repeal the 2nd Amendment
Add an amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion
Add an amendment banning hate “speech”
Add an amendment regulating campaigning and political speech
Add an amendment removing all remaining barriers to federal taxation
Banning the death penalty
Declaring a right to shelter, food and personal dignity
Etc.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/16/2015 @ 12:46 pm
yes, that’s a risk, there’s also a risk we might cross that way through executive action,
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/16/2015 @ 12:51 pm
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

A convention does not have the power to ratify anything on its own. Nothing that happens at a convention will have the force of law unless the states approve the measures.
Steve57 (25a5a0) — 5/16/2015 @ 12:51 pm
There are pirated copies around

There sure are. If only there was a torrent metasearch engine for firefox.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/16/2015 @ 1:07 pm
I wonder what they got for it ? Maybe a payment in advance,

Favors. It’s all about favors.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/16/2015 @ 1:09 pm
It always amuses me how leftists claim this about Citizens, but would never dream of having the same restrictions on the 1st Amendment applied to labor unions, or MFmedia corporations, except Fox. They want direct control of who can talk.
JD (3b5483) — 5/16/2015 @ 1:22 pm
JD–

And talkradio. They would ban that entirely.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/16/2015 @ 1:43 pm
except Air America, that’s where MSNBC hatched their crop of strigoi
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/16/2015 @ 1:45 pm
10- Col. I thought the iman was on the tractor pull channel.
mg (31009b) — 5/16/2015 @ 2:59 pm
The GOP’s litmus test for confirmation should be “Not!”. Of course, McCain and his posse will stab us in the back, again.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/16/2015 @ 3:12 pm
And NPR because that’s a government service.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/16/2015 @ 3:13 pm
“I just hate pussy… footin’. I’m a man who eschews equivocation and evasiveness I like to get to it. So as soon as I announce my candidacy on June 1st, I will start right in on my fundraisers. I love me a good party and my fundraisers are gonna be Hell-raisers. I’m gonna call mine fun-raisers, cuz we will have us some fun, y’all. When I first formed my presidential exploratory committee, “Security Through Strength” – or STS – I threw an old-fashioned luau with wine… I called it “Pois Will Be Pois” and everybody got leid.”

– Senator Lindsey Graham
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/16/2015 @ 3:33 pm
…I’m a man who eschews equivocation and evasiveness…

And the First Amendment.
Steve57 (25a5a0) — 5/16/2015 @ 3:58 pm
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/have-hostile-governments-stolen-hillarys-emails.php

Have Hostile Governments Stolen Hillary’s Emails?

The short answer is yes.

…Hillary’s judgment is dismally poor. Consider, in addition to the email server, the numerous scandals associated with the Clinton Foundation, her multi-hundred-thousand-dollar speeches (which can only be considered barely-concealed bribes), and–worst of all–the absurd decision to overthrow Qaddafi without having any plan whatsoever for what would come after, leading to Libya becoming a failed state and terrorist haven. I can’t imagine why anyone would want a person with such bad judgment as president.

Oh, I can imagine why. Apparently we need someone who knows what it’s like to menstruate as President.

I know many of you aren’t religious but, seriously, God help us all.
Steve57 (25a5a0) — 5/16/2015 @ 4:50 pm
By the way.

http://www.weaselzippers.us/223796-happy-armed-forces-day/
Steve57 (820638) — 5/16/2015 @ 7:32 pm
Or this
I was there today.

“The momentous meaning of this occasion impressed me deeply. I resolved to mark it by some token of recognition, which could be no other than a salute of arms. Well aware of the responsibility assumed, and of the criticisms that would follow, as the sequel proved, nothing of that kind could move me in the least. The act could be defended, if needful, by the suggestion that such a salute was not to the cause for which the flag of the Confederacy stood, but to its going down before the flag of the Union. My main reason, however, was one for which I sought no authority nor asked forgiveness. Before us in proud humiliation stood the embodiment of manhood: men whom neither toils and sufferings, nor the fact of death, nor disaster, nor hopelessness could bend from their resolve; standing before us now, thin, worn, and famished, but erect, and with eyes looking level into ours, waking memories that bound us together as no other bond;—was not such manhood to be welcomed back into a Union so tested and assured? Instructions had been given; and when the head of each division column comes opposite our group, our bugle sounds the signal and instantly our whole line from right to left, regiment by regiment in succession, gives the soldier’s salutation, from the “order arms” to the old “carry”—the marching salute. Gordon at the head of the column, riding with heavy spirit and downcast face, catches the sound of shifting arms, looks up, and, taking the meaning, wheels superbly, making with himself and his horse one uplifted figure, with profound salutation as he drops the point of his sword to the boot toe; then facing to his own command, gives word for his successive brigades to pass us with the same position of the manual,—honor answering honor. On our part not a sound of trumpet more, nor roll of drum; not a cheer, nor word nor whisper of vain-glorying, nor motion of man standing again at the order, but an awed stillness rather, and breath-holding, as if it were the passing of the dead!”

. (Joshua Chamberlain, The Passing of the Armies)

Are there men like Grant or Lee or Chamberlain today?
kishnevi (adea75) — 5/16/2015 @ 7:57 pm
33. …Are there men like Grant or Lee or Chamberlain today?

kishnevi (adea75) — 5/16/2015 @ 7:57 pm

Yes. They tend not to get promoted beyond o-5.
Steve57 (820638) — 5/16/2015 @ 8:32 pm
I do not include myself in their company.
Steve57 (820638) — 5/16/2015 @ 8:33 pm
Romney robbed and a coyote howls somewhere in Texas…

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/16/video-the-romney-holyfield-fight-mitt-was-robbed/
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/16/2015 @ 8:55 pm
IF LIBTARDS LIKE!!!!! I’ll trade CITIZENS UNITED……..SETTLED LAW.
For….ROE vs WADE……….SETTLED LAW.

K??
Gus (7cc192) — 5/16/2015 @ 9:27 pm
lindsay-graham-on-koran-burning-freedom-of-speech-is-a-great-idea-but-were-in-a-war

Graham is the epitome of a squishy, squish-squish, milquetoast Republican. And, yes, I’m aware that a person’s private life may not provide hints at that person’s public life, politically or otherwise. But rumors about Graham’s sexuality — if accurate — make me think he’s therefore that much more prone to tilting left, since homosexuality and liberal instincts often (and do) go hand-in-hand.
Mark (cc1c30) — 5/16/2015 @ 11:12 pm
Can you give it a rest, Mark?
Steve57 (820638) — 5/16/2015 @ 11:34 pm
An Article V convention will most likely result in the destruction of the US. But secession could save large portions of the US. And the feared armed rebellion could do the same. I already know massive inflation and an overburdening Federal debt is coming, as soon as the Fed stops its near-zero interest rates. And that’ll happen shortly after a Republican becomes President. It is a given. One trillion dollars just to finance the current national debt, all hidden and unreported, will be the sledge hammer Democrats use to reclaim all the controls. This, despite Obama’s and the Democrats’ huge, massive, irresponsible deficit spending the likes NOBODY has ever seen before.

I agree Ted Cruz is the best option currently available. I also agree Ted Cruz is just a stop-gap that will only slow the destruction of the US. I don’t see the US Constitution and Declaration surviving the next 20 years.

Abraham Lincoln said:

At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Ronald Reagan said:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

That day is, unfortunately, upon us.
John Hitchcock (da3ea6) — 5/16/2015 @ 11:48 pm
A convention does not have the power to ratify anything on its own. Nothing that happens at a convention will have the force of law unless the states approve the measures.

That’s what they said when they created the last convention, in 1787. And the convention decided to ignore its terms of reference and do its own thing, and then create ratifying commissions to ratify what it had done, completely bypassing the state legislatures. Who’s to say a new convention wouldn’t a similar thing: write its own new constitution, and organise a nationwide referendum on it, in which aliens can vote and no ID may be required.
Milhouse (bdebad) — 5/17/2015 @ 12:09 am
Can you give it a rest, Mark?

Steve57, until and unless you can determine data like the following isn’t a window into the minds of people, I’d say that equating one particular aspect of a person with another aspect of him (or her) needs to be highlighted instead of rarely or never mentioned. IOW, in the public arena (among researchers or scientists, for example), how often, if ever, are liberal instincts and sexuality scrutinized? The media most certainly never wants to equate GLBT (or, for that matter, other segments of “minority America” too) with liberalism and visa versa. Why?

gallup.com, Gallup’s landmark study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans finds that 44% identify as Democratic, 43% as independent, and 13% as Republican. That compares to 32% of non-LGBT Americans who identify as Democratic, 39% as independent, and 30% as Republican.

While these results confirm that many in the LGBT community initially identify their partisanship as independent, many of these independents lean toward Democratic identity. The combined measure, which takes into account leaned party identification, shows that 65% of LGBT Americans identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, while 21% identify with or lean toward the Republican, leaving 13% as “pure” independents who do not lean one way or the other. Among the overall U.S. population, 44% identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, while 42% identify with or lean toward the Republican. Twelve percent are pure independents.

While 45% of LGBT individuals describe their political views as liberal or very liberal, one in five (20%) describe themselves as conservative or very conservative. Among non-LGBT Americans, 23% say they are liberal, and two in five (39%) say they are conservative. LGBT and non-LGBT individuals are almost equally likely to think of themselves as moderate (35% and 38%, respectively).

These basic results are generally consistent with exit polls suggesting LGBT individuals historically support Democratic presidential candidates. Exit polling from the 2008 presidential election, for example, showed that 70% of LGBT individuals voted for Obama, while 27% supported Sen. John McCain. In 2004, exit polls showed that Democratic Sen. John Kerry received 77% of the LGBT vote, compared with 23% for President George. W. Bush. Democratic candidate Al Gore received 71% of the LGBT vote in 2000. Democrat Bill Clinton garnered 72% of the LGBT vote in 1992 and 66% in 1996.

Sixty-eight percent of LGBT Americans approved of the way Obama was doing his job as president during the June-September survey period, compared with 45% of non-LGBT Americans. Twenty-eight percent of LGBT Americans disapproved of the way Obama was doing his job, compared with 51% of non-LGBT individuals.

^ I wouldn’t be surprised if a large portion of those in the GLBT who do label themselves as “conservative” (much less “Republican”) are actually thinking along lines of economics (ie, “it’s important to balance one’s checkbook each month!”) instead of pure politics or ideology, particularly that of culture.
Mark (cc1c30) — 5/17/2015 @ 12:51 am
[…] Patterico on Patterico’s Pontifications: Hillary’s Litmus Test for Supreme Court Nominations: Pledge to Reverse This Pro-Free Speech Decisi… […]
From Around the Blogroll | The First Street Journal. (21e1b9) — 5/17/2015 @ 6:20 am
[…] Patterico discusses Hillary’s free speech stance […]
Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove (93d8ff) — 5/17/2015 @ 6:55 am
states resisting federal mandates, systematic civil disobedience

I so, so agree with you. Any reform is not coming from the top down–the GOP is almost as invested in Big Government as the Dems. It’s going to be up to us.
Patricia (5fc097) — 5/17/2015 @ 7:32 am
o.t. – I pray Gowdy swears Mills in to testify.
http://nypost.com/2015/05/17/hillary-clintons-consigliere-covers-up-for-her-scandals/
mg (31009b) — 5/17/2015 @ 7:55 am
as is recommended by Charles Murray in his latest book (more about that in a future post)

I look forward to it. In the meantime, there’s always:

Robert Heinlein: Take Back Your Government (1992)
IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 5/17/2015 @ 12:14 pm
@40. Abe was the starter that paved the way for the finishing. The original rights-abridging, centralizing, income taxing, sender of men with guns. How the hell did you think that was gonna turn out?!

Abe would have love the Clintons.
Matador (97d3c8) — 5/17/2015 @ 7:19 pm
loved.
Matador (97d3c8) — 5/17/2015 @ 7:23 pm
as opposed to Douglas, seriously now,
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/17/2015 @ 7:25 pm
deflection is beneath you, sir.
Matador (97d3c8) — 5/17/2015 @ 7:32 pm

5/16/2015

Hillary’s Litmus Test for Supreme Court Nominations: Pledge to Reverse This Pro-Free Speech Decision I Don’t Like

52 Responses to “Hillary’s Litmus Test for Supreme Court Nominations: Pledge to Reverse This Pro-Free Speech Decision I Don’t Like”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out