43 F
Chicago
Tuesday, February 7, 2023
HomeIllinois NewsO'Brien: Here She Goes Again... Hillary Shows Contempt for the First Amendment

O’Brien: Here She Goes Again… Hillary Shows Contempt for the First Amendment

Date:

spot_img

HillaryClinton

By Teri O'Brien - 

Hillary also isn't a fan of separation of powers, apparently.

From The Hill:

Speaking at a Democratic presidential forum on Wednesday night, a person in the crowd asked Clinton whether she would impose a “litmus test” upon potential Supreme Court justices other than on the issue of being pro-abortion.

“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests, because the next president could get as many as three appointments,” the former first lady responded. “It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”

Clinton said her potential appointments would have to support the Voting Rights Act, parts of which were invalidated by the current group of justices.

She also said potential nominees would have to believe that money does not equal speech, which led to the landmark Citizens United decision that paved the way for super-PACs.

Let's remember what the Citizens United case was all about. Do you remember?

As noted here,

The Left, including Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton and afore-mentioned commie fossil Sen. Bernie Sanders, all agree that the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) is one of the worst decisions in history. To hear them rant and rave about it, you’d have to conclude that it makes the Dred Scott decision an example of excellence in jurisprudence. Barack Obama even took the occasion of this decision to berate the Supreme Court at the 2010 State of the Union address. He stated “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections.” The democrat apparatchiks in the Lame Stream Media picked up this talking point, and used it to brainwash people who get their information from the pretend news, leading many of these fools to demonize this decision without having the slightest clue what it was about. Here’s the short, simple fact: Citizens United is a non-profit organization. Prior to the 2008 election, they wanted to air a documentary that they had produced, “Hillary: the Movie,” something that ran afoul of the heinous, anti-1st amendment McCain-Feingold law. During the oral argument of this case, the government’s attorney, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, argued that under the existing law, the government would have the right to not only ban movies, but ban books, if they contained even one sentence advocating the defeat of a particular candidate. Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the government to ban political speech.Citizens United a victory for the First Amendment, something that the Left hopes you don’t notice. Hillary told supporters in Iowa “I will do everything I can do to appoint Supreme Court justices who will protect the right to vote and not the right of billionaires to buy elections.” What she should have said is “I will appoint political hacks who will make sure it’s illegal to criticize me.”

(An aside: here's a fun game to play at your Big Game Bowl party. Ask your favorite liberal, or low information millennial, “Hillary Clinton has promised that, if elected, all her nominees to the Supreme Court, will have to pledge to overrule Citizens’ United. Do you support that policy?” When the liberal or millennial says “yes,” ask him to tell you what the holding was in that case. Sit back and enjoy awkward silence.)

In addition, the idea of a president having litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees, which is the executive removing the judge's discretion to decide cases on the law and the merits, is an outrageous affront to the concept of separation of powers, which is critical to keeping us free, as Justice Scalia has frequently noted. He even teaches a seminar on it. 

Her contempt for the Constitution is yet another disqualifying strike against her being president.

Hillary has no use for that. We've seen that she cannot abide any criticism, not only from filmmakers, but also from comedians.

Let me ask again. How can anyone consider voting for this congenital-lying, evil woman?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Politics, Pop Culture, the Hottest Issues of the Day, the flagship show of the Informed America Radio network,  The Teri O'Brien Show, featuring America’s Original Conservative Warrior Princess, Live and in vivid red, white and blue, Sundays 5-7 pm Eastern time (4-6 pm Central) at teriobrien.com and http://www.spreaker.com/show/the-teri-obrien-show, and anytime on demand on iHeart Radio, Stitcher Radio, and iTunes.

Daring to Commit Common Sense, Fearlessly, and More Important, Cheerfully, in the Age of Obama.

Listen any time on demand at teriobrien.com to not only the last episode of the show, but the archive, going back to June 2014. 

Make My Day: Text “FAN TOBCWP” to 32665

As one listener wrote “one of the most insightful and entertaining pundits in America. Also, her voice is magical.”

Serious Ideas, Irresistible Entertainment. Warning: listeners may become hopelessly addicted.

 

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories

2 COMMENTS

  1. Hillary has a long history of showing contempt for the law. As a 27 year old she tried to deny Nixon due process of law…
    “As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
    The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther and goes much deeper than anyone realizes.
    Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career. Why?
    “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
    for the rest of the story:
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/hillary-clinton-fired-for-lies-unethical-behavior/

  2. Thanks for posting this reminder, Spense. I am going to add it to the show notes for today’s edition of The Teri O’Brien Show. A person’s character is formed at a very early age, and certainly by the time one is a 27 year old. I agree with you and Mr. Zeifman. Hillary is a congenital liar, and that is so well-documented at this point that it is breath-taking that anyone is supporting her. Those who are are either (1) jaw-droppingly ignorant (2) completely emotionally driven, as in “Oh I want to make history and vote for a woman!” (3) partisan operatives and/or (4) eager to get free stuff when democrats are in power. Intelligent, well-informed Americans who aren’t partisan operatives and who pay their own way cannot possibly be supporting this evil woman.