Clean campaign warrior Bernie Sanders.
Hillary Clinton
made big news by declaring that she would use
Citizens United as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees. "I will do everything I can to appoint Supreme Court justices who protect the right to vote and do not protect the right of billionaires to buy elections," she said on the first day of her round-table discussions with voters in May. Sen. Bernie Sanders made less of a media splash when he
declared the same thing a week earlier.
"If elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice," he said. "That nominee will say that we are all going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, because that decision is undermining American democracy. I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians."
That seems like a no-brainer, solidly pro-democracy position to take, one that actually shouldn't be all that controversial. But, as
The New York Times Supreme Court analyst extraordinaire,
writes, it is. She also points out that it's also one of those IOKIFYAR issues—Republicans have long made being anti-abortion a requirement. It's in the party platform Republican presidents have run on for decades, and while they might not ask for an explicit avowal of anti-choice beliefs in Justice Committee hearings, it's the unspoken rule. So why should it be the only litmus test issue, Greenhouse argues.
Citizens United makes a fascinating litmus test because a majority of Americans — Republicans as well as Democrats — actually do want to see it overturned. Polling has been consistent on this point since the decision was issued more than five years ago. In a poll conducted jointly by a Democratic and a Republican polling firm in advance of last November’s midterm elections, a majority of likely Democratic, Republican and independent voters said they opposed Citizens United. […]
Think how refreshing it would be if a Supreme Court nominee actually talked about something during the confirmation hearing.
It would make for potentially more interesting hearings if senators were forced to try to tease out the nuances of free speech and how unlimited amounts of anonymous campaign cash aren't really corrupt. Better yet, even, to have a nominee have to wade through those distinctions. But here's the part of Greenhouse's column that resonates:
Litmus tests can be problematic, for sure, but let’s be intrigued rather than shocked that opposition to Citizens United has emerged as the latest one. During the presidential debates in 2012, neither candidate was asked a single question about the Supreme Court. If a Citizens United litmus test serves only to put the court on the campaign screen, where it urgently belongs, it will have done some good before the first vote is cast.
The Supreme Court should be front and center in every presidential debate, or at the very least, included. If it takes a presidential candidate declaring that they will have a Supreme Court litmus test to actually boost the issue into political reporters' awareness, more power to Hillary and Bernie. They've done us all a great service.