There have been commentators who have argued that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are not that much different than Republicans. With Bill Clinton people talk about the crime bill, the welfare "reform" bill, and the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act. With Barack Obama it has been the failure of the Obama administration to support the "public option" during the Affordable Care Act debate, the failure to obtain more stimulus spending, the failure to push for a comprehensive immigration bill when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, and the advancing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement. With both men it has been their ties to Wall Street which includes receiving campaign contributions from Wall Street and the appointment of officials like former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
I understand these criticisms. At times I have been known to make them myself. I remember when Obama appointed Geithner as Treasury Secretary that I was appalled at that choice. I thought that it was exactly the wrong message to be sending to Wall Street following the Great Recession of 2008-2009.
There is one area, however, where Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have stood in stark contrast to the Republicans, and that is in appointments to the United States Supreme Court. Below there are six decisions that I have listed where Clinton and Obama appointees to the Supreme Court dissented in decisions where the five Republican appointees constituted the majority. Everyone of these decisions was harmful to the goals of liberals and progressives
From the more well known decision in Citizens United to the lesser known, but significant decision in ATT Mobility v. Concepion, the conservative majority has consistently ruled in favor of those with corporate and monetary power and against those who challenge that power. Consistently they have been opposed by the Democratic appointees of Clinton and Obama.
If there had been five Democratic appointees on the Supreme Court, these decisions would, in all likelihood have been drastically different, if indeed the cases would have been taken in by the Supreme Court at all. Think of the impact of not having the Citizens United decision or of not having the Voting Rights Act gutted. Think of the impact on consumers on allowing state law to prevail when it comes to mandatory arbitration or of allowing class-action lawsuits to proceed in employer discrimination cases. Think of the possible impact of a decision supporting Texas's restrictions on abortion clinics, which is the case being argued today, March 2, 2016 or of a decision overturning Obama's actions on immigration.
There are a lot of things at stake in the 2016 presidential and senatorial election. The future of the Affordable Care Act being one of them, but the most important may be in the control of the Supreme Court. The conservatives know that control of the Supreme Court in up for grabs. This is why they are fighting so hard to make sure that Obama doesn't get to appoint Scalia's successor. The question is does the left understand the importance of Supreme Court control?
While most liberals and progressives would say that they understand the importance of this election and the United States Supreme Court, comments like "I will never support Hillary Clinton" or "I will never support Bernie Sanders" make me wonder if a lot of visitors to this site and similar sites really understand what is at stake.
It is possible that a Democratic President could have four appointments to the Supreme Court if he or she served two terms. If that happened those four appointments would dramatically change the course of the legal history of the United States, not to mention the appointments to the lower federal courts that a Democratic president would be able to make.
When it comes to Supreme Court appointments there is a marked difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. There is no doubt in my mind that either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton would make better appointments to the Supreme Court from a liberal or progressive perspective than any of the Republicans. There is also no doubt in my mind that such appointees would make decisions that would lead to a better America, a more inclusive America.
So here is my plea: If your candidate loses the battle to become the nominee of the Democratic Party don't sit out this election and don't vote for the Republican nominee. Do the right thing and support whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Control of the Supreme Court may depend on this election and that is too important to be left to the other side.
Citizens United v. FEC (allowing corporate contributions to candidates)
Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom PAC v. Bennett, (striking down Arizona's system of limiting campaign spending if candidates accepted public financing)
Wal-Mart v. Dukes (limiting the use of class actions in workplace lawsuits)
ATT Mobility v. Concepion (allowing Federal law on mandatory arbitration to overrule California law)
Janus Capital Group v. Derivative Traders ( allowing corporations to avoid liability to shareholders by placing statements in a trading prospectus)
Shelby County, Alabama, v. Holder (striking down the pre-clearance section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act which allowed states like Alabama to impose new restrictions on voting for African-Americans and others.)
