Hillary's Views of the Supreme Court and the Constitution

In her own words, Hillary Clinton told us her views of the Supreme Court and Constitutional issues. "And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights,on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."

She continued: "...it is important that...we stand up and basically say - the Supreme Court should represent all of us." There is so much wrong with everything she has said, it is difficult to know where to begin. Let's start with the last comment. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to represent anyone or anything but the rule of law and the upholding of the Constitution. Representatives and Senators represent the people, judges do not.

Clinton says that the Court should not stand on the side of powerful corporations and the wealthy. She certainly seems to be saying that the Court should never decide in favor of corporations or the wealthy - even if the law and Constitution should favor their side in any case. What her comment really tells us is that she has moved towards the growing socialist-left side of her party; the Bernie Sanders side always complaining about corporations - the job creators.

Whether it is women's rights or LGBT rights, a case only reaches the Supreme Court when there are competing interests, often arguing for competing rights. Should the Court always hold in favor of any party who is female or part of the LGBT community? Regardless of what the competing interest may be? Regardless of the law and the Constitution? Apparently.

Clinton has made it clear she wants to see Citizens United overturned, or an actual Amendment to the Constitution reversing that decision. Recall that the Citizens United decision overturned part of the Campaign Reform Act banning political ads/expenditures by corporations and unions within 60 days of a general election and within 30 days of a primary election. It is difficult to imagine that in this country, with our First Amendment, that there would ever be a ban on the type of speech that is the most protected - political speech. Following the decision, unions and corporations are able to spend unlimited sums of money on political advertising, as long as there is no coordination with a candidate or candidate's campaign.

I have been rethinking why the Democrats object to this decision. And the answer, while disturbing, is not surprising. At the very beginning of Obama's first term, there was a concerted effort by him, and all the top people in his Administration, to delegitimize the Fox News Network. The Democrats have on their side virtually all of the media - CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and most major newspapers in the country. The Democrats have most of Hollywood, and therefore most TV shows and movies, many of which contain anti-Republican or anti-conservative messages. The Democrats also have an overwhelming number of professors in the academy.

But under Citizens United, conservative groups have been able to use TV and radio in order to widely disseminate a different message through paid advertisements. And this disturbs Democrats. This anti-speech agenda is profoundly anti-American. But the support by Democrats for overturning Citizens United is proof of another point I have often made. When Democrats were classical liberals they had no problem tolerating opposing viewpoints. But as today's Democrats are mostly socialists and leftists, they do not have the same appreciation for our fundamental values, such as free speech. Rather, it's all about their left-wing agenda. Let me be clear - Democrats do not want the American people exposed to a differing opinion. This attitude, my friends, is no different than that of Soviet Russia.

Hillary also said she disagreed with the Supreme Court decision in Heller vs. District of Columbia. The Court declared certain provisions in the DC law to be unconstitutional - in violation of the Second Amendment. The DC law required that all firearms in the home be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The law also restricted handgun ownership to those handguns registered prior to 1975, when the law was enacted. In other words, the purchase of handguns after 1975 was barred. Given that Clinton disagreed with the Court's decision, do not think for one minute that she is being truthful when she says she does not want to ban gun ownership.

So, forgetting the corruption issues, we have in Hillary Clinton a candidate who, reflecting her party, has no belief in the freedoms given by the First and Second Amendments. Not speech. Not gun ownership, which has been an individual right that has existed since the founding of this country. And she seems to believe that who you are (female, gay, transgender, etc.) should determine your success at the Supreme Court.