Clinton and Sanders differing SCOTUS nomination speeches

[ESF]

No surprises here, just a further illustration that Bernie is a one-issue guy. Frankly, I find it disturbing that he can't talk about other SCOTUS cases besides Citizens United, and reiterates my belief that he's not capable of appointing people to the judiciary. 

www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-supreme-court-nomination-219351

Clinton, Sanders blaze different trails on Supreme Court nomination
Both agree it's a matter of grave importance. The reason why is another issue.
By GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI 02/16/16 07:34 PM EST


ATLANTA — Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have expressed their outrage at Republican threats to block President Barack Obama's choice to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. It's a matter of grave importance, they tell voters on the campaign trail, a reminder of the high stakes of the presidential election.

That's where the similarities end.

For Clinton, the opening on the court has provided a chance to aggressively talk about abortion rights, immigration reform, and voting rights — issues that rile up her base and closely align her with the sitting president.

For Sanders, however, it's primarily a question of partisan obstructionism — and his standard go-to issue: campaign finance reform and 2010's Citizens United v FEC decision.

It's a difference in approaches that underscores the candidates' divergent political imperatives and constituencies.

Clinton, with deep support from Hispanic voters and the full weight of abortion rights groups behind her, reminds those blocs of their uncertain futures by singling out individual cases that could directly affect them. Sanders, hewing closely to his standard stump speech, advances his own cause by doubling down on his core message of combating wealth inequality and systemic injustice.

The first opportunity to weigh in on the matter came just hours after Scalia’s death on Saturday, and they both predictably came down hard on Republicans in dueling speeches to a Colorado Democratic Party fundraising dinner in Denver, excoriating GOP leaders for their vows not to fill the slot until 2017.

Speaking to a crowd of over 12,000 partisans, Clinton led off with an extended, emotional riff that returned to her recent campaign theme of tightly embracing Obama — who remains popular with the party rank-and-file.

“Let me just make one point: Barack Obama is president of the United States until January 20th, 2017. That is a fact, my friends, whether the Republicans like it or not. Elections have consequences. The president has a responsibility to nominate a new justice and the Senate has a responsibility to vote. And all of us Democrats, we have a responsibility to make sure a Republican doesn’t win in November and rip away all the progress we’ve made together,” she said before delving into a history lesson about previous confirmation timelines.

The front-runner had grown agitated before going on stage when an aide told her that, on a Republican debate stage across the country, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump were urging the Senate to hold off on considering any Obama pick until a new president takes over.

“As a presidential candidate, a former law professor, a recovering lawyer, and, frankly, a citizen, to hear comments like those of Leader Mitch McConnell this evening is very disappointing. It is totally out of step with our history and our constitutional principles,” she added.

Sanders’ version was shorter, more precise and tacked atop a version of his standard campaign address.

“It appears that some of my Republican colleagues in the Senate have a very interesting view of the Constitution of the United States, and apparently they believe that the Constitution does not allow a Democratic president to bring forth a nominee to replace Justice Scalia. I strongly disagree with that. And I very much hope that President Obama will bring forth a strong nominee, and that we can get that nominee confirmed as ion as possible,” he said. “The Supreme Court of the United States has nine members, not eight. We need that ninth member. A lot of important issues coming up."

When asked twice about the court on CBS’ Face The Nation on Sunday, for example, Sanders did not grab the chance to detail the policy rationale for why filling Scalia’s seat is important, choosing instead focusing on “absurd” Republican “obstructionism.”

“We cannot allow the Republican majority in the Senate to deny the president his basic constitutional right,” he told CBS. “There are very important cases that need to be heard that are not going to be determined if we do not have a ninth member of the Supreme Court."

His complaint was about political posturing and a broken system, not individual cases — an extension of his central argument against structural flaws and institutional faults, a focus that has powered his campaign to unexpected heights.

It’s a tactical choice rather than a sign of the inflexibility of his message: Sanders, for example, has added a new passage to his rarely-changing stump speech in recent days — a handful of heart-rending lines on the water contamination emergency in Flint, Michigan.

His narrow framing on the Supreme Court vacancy was on full display at a campaign stop at the University of South Carolina in Columbia early Tuesday afternoon.

“I will do everything I can to turn over this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision. In my view democracy is ‘one person, one vote.’ Not billionaires buying elections,” he said, reciting familiar phrases.

That’s a far cry from Clinton’s targeted appeals, which have relied on publicizing the stakes of individual cases facing the court — thereby energizing key groups that she’ll need by her side in the coming primary contests.

Speaking in a largely Latino neighborhood in East Las Vegas on Sunday, for example, Clinton said the election “got even more important yesterday because of the death of Supreme Court Justice Scalia."

“In the Supreme Court, because of his passing, there will most likely be a tie, four-to-four, on important issues that affect so many people in our country. And the most important is the decision about President Obama’s actions under DACA and DAPA,” she told the crowd. “In the case of the decision regarding DACA and DAPA, if there is no new justice appointed, then as with other cases before the court, the decision that was decided will stay in place. And that was a bad decision, I disagreed with it, I don’t think it was the right legal interpretation, I believe President Obama had the authority to do what he did."

In a tweet-storm on the topic of the Supreme Court late Monday night, Clinton also specifically singled out a voting rights case and an abortion rights case, on top of the immigration one.

And, if the targeted messaging wasn’t clear enough, Clinton echoed it earlier that day, at an event billed as a “Women’s Health Meeting."

“We’re going to continue to push,” she told the Reno crowd, “because some of the decisions in the court awaiting final review have to do with the very restrictive regulations put on Planned Parenthood and access to safe and legal abortion in Texas, having to do with workers’ rights, having to do with voting rights, having to do with very fundamental concerns."

Annie Karni contributed to this report from New York.



Read more: www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-supreme-court-nomination-219351#ixzz40OEBoiku

[isabel]

Do people really feel that strongly about campaign finance? I honestly don't. I don't understand (except that I do, because it's Bernie) why he's using that example over all the other major social issues that could come under fire without a moderate to liberal Justice.

[ttt]

Of course he can't talk about other cases - he doesn't even know how the Supreme Court works.

[ttt]

Feb 16, 2016 22:01:41 GMT -5 isabel said:

Do people really feel that strongly about campaign finance? I honestly don't. I don't understand (except that I do, because it's Bernie) why he's using that example over all the other major social issues that could come under fire without a moderate to liberal Justice.

This is a really good read on why campaign finance reform will never turn the US into a Bernie-esque progressive utopia:

www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10941690/campaign-finance-left

[mouse]

Feb 16, 2016 22:01:41 GMT -5 isabel said:

Do people really feel that strongly about campaign finance? I honestly don't. I don't understand (except that I do, because it's Bernie) why he's using that example over all the other major social issues that could come under fire without a moderate to liberal Justice.

It's not my central issue, but I think Molly Ivins (RIP) laid out some really good examples back in the day in how little corporations need to give to reap huge payoffs. I do think reigning it in could make it easier to make progress on a lot of other tasks (like the banks, environment).

[ESF]

Feb 16, 2016 22:03:07 GMT -5 ttt said:

Feb 16, 2016 22:01:41 GMT -5 isabel said:

Do people really feel that strongly about campaign finance? I honestly don't. I don't understand (except that I do, because it's Bernie) why he's using that example over all the other major social issues that could come under fire without a moderate to liberal Justice.

This is a really good read on why campaign finance reform will never turn the US into a Bernie-esque progressive utopia:

www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10941690/campaign-finance-left

I continue to be impressed by Vox. This was amazing, thank you.

[rupertpenny]

LOL that Clinton refers to herself as a "recovering lawyer."

[aurora]

Feb 16, 2016 22:01:41 GMT -5 isabel said:

Do people really feel that strongly about campaign finance? I honestly don't. I don't understand (except that I do, because it's Bernie) why he's using that example over all the other major social issues that could come under fire without a moderate to liberal Justice.

Well, I do think there's an element of brokenness to our $-driven, 2-party system. And some reform would probably help in some areas. I am definitely worried about wealth inequality and resulting political power differentials. But, I also don't think Sanders is going to get anywhere with either. And I also don't think his approach acknowledges the real and serious discrimination issues that cause, not just are caused by, such inequalities.

[jeaniebueller]

And this is why I can't just trust that Bernie will appoint justices who will support Roe v Wade. If Roe isn't one of your main talking points when we discuss Supreme Court appointments, then GTFO as far as I am concerned.

[blink]

Of course he sticks with campaign finance reform. He lives in a world of liberal social utopia, where nothing else need be addressed. I mean what racism? What sexism?

[jojoandleo]

Feb 17, 2016 6:44:46 GMT -5 blink said:

Of course he sticks with campaign finance reform. He lives in a world of liberal social utopia, where nothing else need be addressed. I mean what racism? What sexism?

Those can be fixed with financial reform. Bernie told me. In fact, is there anything political that CAN'T be fixed by ending poverty?  (actual question posed by Berner on facebook that caused me to drink 3 glasses of wine last night.)  I mean, if there is no poverty, no one would even actually need an abortion. Only poor people get those, anyway.

I wonder what flavor Kool-Aid they serve at the Bernie speeches.  I do love fruit punch...

[isabel]

Feb 17, 2016 1:10:18 GMT -5 aurora said:

Feb 16, 2016 22:01:41 GMT -5 isabel said:

Do people really feel that strongly about campaign finance? I honestly don't. I don't understand (except that I do, because it's Bernie) why he's using that example over all the other major social issues that could come under fire without a moderate to liberal Justice.

Well, I do think there's an element of brokenness to our $-driven, 2-party system. And some reform would probably help in some areas. I am definitely worried about wealth inequality and resulting political power differentials. But, I also don't think Sanders is going to get anywhere with either. And I also don't think his approach acknowledges the real and serious discrimination issues that cause, not just are caused by, such inequalities.

I guess it's not that I don't care. I realize the system is broken and that campaign finance is a factor, but it just seems so far from what are really the looming issues for me. I'm concerned about abortion rights and gay marriage rights not being repealed. I appreciate what he's trying to do, but, as you said, he's unlikely to get anywhere with it any time soon. Those issues should be the driving factor for SC nominations, not his worry about campaign finance.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Feb 17, 2016 0:01:40 GMT -5 rupertpenny said:

LOL that Clinton refers to herself as a "recovering lawyer."

I know. That made me giggle. She really does know my lyfe!

[simpsongal]

I don't want to oversimplify, but doesn't moneybags Jeb show that money doesn't necessarily buy an election?

[MrsAxilla]

Feb 17, 2016 10:46:40 GMT -5 isabel said:

Feb 17, 2016 1:10:18 GMT -5 aurora said:

Well, I do think there's an element of brokenness to our $-driven, 2-party system. And some reform would probably help in some areas. I am definitely worried about wealth inequality and resulting political power differentials. But, I also don't think Sanders is going to get anywhere with either. And I also don't think his approach acknowledges the real and serious discrimination issues that cause, not just are caused by, such inequalities.

I guess it's not that I don't care. I realize the system is broken and that campaign finance is a factor, but it just seems so far from what are really the looming issues for me. I'm concerned about abortion rights and gay marriage rights not being repealed. I appreciate what he's trying to do, but, as you said, he's unlikely to get anywhere with it any time soon. Those issues should be the driving factor for SC nominations, not his worry about campaign finance.

Can I use your post as a springboard to complain about how stupid my fucking sister is?  Last night, she tells me she with the Democrats on "all the social stuff" but will NEVER vote Dem because she "hates welfare and doesn't want to pay for lazy people."  We've had this discussion countless times over the year and she just flat out refuses to believe facts because she personally knows people gaming the system.  It's true, she does.  Like her mentally ill mother who was on disability, food stamps and section 8 for years even though she was able-bodied (unable to care for herself, but she didn't have a "real disability").  Or her homeless, unemployed, meth-head, single mom cousin on food stamps (the kids are with the grandmother, thankfully) who decided to have a second child "because the government will give you $6000 FREE per kid that you have!  It's true!  Look it up!!"  She knows this because her unemployed friend got a $18K tax refund last year despite have zero income.  She saw the tax return!  WHAT?!?!  The lack of compassion and ignorance is astonishing.  This is her reasoning for never, ever supporting a Dem because all they want to do is give more money to these lazy assholes.  Nevermind her 15 year old daughter's bodily autonomy; her cousin should be made to suffer (you know, MORE than a homeless methhead is already suffering)

Sorry for the tangential rant.  I just cannot wrap my mind around any of this.  

[isabel]

Feb 17, 2016 11:41:11 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Feb 17, 2016 10:46:40 GMT -5 isabel said:

I guess it's not that I don't care. I realize the system is broken and that campaign finance is a factor, but it just seems so far from what are really the looming issues for me. I'm concerned about abortion rights and gay marriage rights not being repealed. I appreciate what he's trying to do, but, as you said, he's unlikely to get anywhere with it any time soon. Those issues should be the driving factor for SC nominations, not his worry about campaign finance.

Can I use your post as a springboard to complain about how stupid my fucking sister is?  Last night, she tells me she with the Democrats on "all the social stuff" but will NEVER vote Dem because she "hates welfare and doesn't want to pay for lazy people."  We've had this discussion countless times over the year and she just flat out refuses to believe facts because she personally knows people gaming the system.  It's true, she does.  Like her mentally ill mother who was on disability, food stamps and section 8 for years even though she was able-bodied (unable to care for herself, but she didn't have a "real disability").  Or her homeless, unemployed, meth-head, single mom cousin on food stamps (the kids are with the grandmother, thankfully) who decided to have a second child "because the government will give you $6000 FREE per kid that you have!  It's true!  Look it up!!"  She knows this because her unemployed friend got a $18K tax refund last year despite have zero income.  She saw the tax return!  WHAT?!?!  The lack of compassion and ignorance is astonishing.  This is her reasoning for never, ever supporting a Dem because all they want to do is give more money to these lazy assholes.  Nevermind her 15 year old daughter's bodily autonomy; her cousin should be made to suffer (you know, MORE than a homeless methhead is already suffering)

Sorry for the tangential rant.  I just cannot wrap my mind around any of this.  

Where do I sign up for these tax programs!?

[ESF]

Feb 17, 2016 11:35:08 GMT -5 simpsongal said:

I don't want to oversimplify, but doesn't moneybags Jeb show that money doesn't necessarily buy an election?

Other exhibits: Mitt Romney, Meg Whitman

I agree that money has an influencing effect on some things, sure. But it's way too simplistic to say, "get money out of politics" because of all the ways it is used.  It seems like energy would be better spent protecting voting rights, reducing gerrymandering, and improving civics education.  If you address those things, then money becomes a hell of a lot less powerful.

[MrsAxilla]

Feb 17, 2016 11:44:38 GMT -5 isabel said:

Feb 17, 2016 11:41:11 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Can I use your post as a springboard to complain about how stupid my fucking sister is?  Last night, she tells me she with the Democrats on "all the social stuff" but will NEVER vote Dem because she "hates welfare and doesn't want to pay for lazy people."  We've had this discussion countless times over the year and she just flat out refuses to believe facts because she personally knows people gaming the system.  It's true, she does.  Like her mentally ill mother who was on disability, food stamps and section 8 for years even though she was able-bodied (unable to care for herself, but she didn't have a "real disability").  Or her homeless, unemployed, meth-head, single mom cousin on food stamps (the kids are with the grandmother, thankfully) who decided to have a second child "because the government will give you $6000 FREE per kid that you have!  It's true!  Look it up!!"  She knows this because her unemployed friend got a $18K tax refund last year despite have zero income.  She saw the tax return!  WHAT?!?!  The lack of compassion and ignorance is astonishing.  This is her reasoning for never, ever supporting a Dem because all they want to do is give more money to these lazy assholes.  Nevermind her 15 year old daughter's bodily autonomy; her cousin should be made to suffer (you know, MORE than a homeless methhead is already suffering)

Sorry for the tangential rant.  I just cannot wrap my mind around any of this.  

Where do I sign up for these tax programs!?

We clearly need better accountants.

[isabel]

Feb 17, 2016 13:26:48 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Feb 17, 2016 11:44:38 GMT -5 isabel said:

Where do I sign up for these tax programs!?

We clearly need better accountants.

H and I are meeting with a financial adviser next month. He also happens to be a CPA. I'll be sure to ask him about this.

[MrsAxilla]

Feb 17, 2016 14:12:30 GMT -5 isabel said:

Feb 17, 2016 13:26:48 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

We clearly need better accountants.

H and I are meeting with a financial adviser next month. He also happens to be a CPA. I'll be sure to ask him about this.

Please do!!!  Or not.  He'd probably look at you like you have two heads and question your overall judgement.  

[ttt]

Feb 17, 2016 14:12:30 GMT -5 isabel said:

Feb 17, 2016 13:26:48 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

We clearly need better accountants.

H and I are meeting with a financial adviser next month. He also happens to be a CPA. I'll be sure to ask him about this.

Don't forget to get your free Obamaphone too! With the money you save on cell phones, you can buy a Louis Vuitton!