Should Democrats Embrace A ‘Litmus Test’?
This morning, yours truly gave Liberaland readers his two cents about Hillary Clinton told “a group of her top fundraisers Thursday that if she is elected president, her nominees to the Supreme Court will have to share her belief that the court’s 2010 Citizens United decision must be overturned, according to people who heard her remarks.”
Cue the conservative outrage in 3… 2… 1…
But here’s the question: is overturning Citizens United enough of a litmus test? Should Democrats say no to judicial nominees who feel that corporations should enjoy the same constitutional rights as individuals?
Weigh in with your opinion in comments.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: dave-dr-gonzo
David Hirsch, a.k.a. Dave "Doctor" Gonzo*, is a renegade record producer, video producer, writer, reformed corporate shill, and still-registered lobbyist for non-one-percenter performing artists and musicians. He lives in a heavily fortified compound in one of Manhattan's less trendy neighborhoods.
* Hirsch is the third person to use the pseudonym, a not-so-veiled tribute to journalist and author Hunter S. Thompson, with the permission of his predecessors Gene Gaudette of American Politics Journal (currently webmaster and chief bottlewasher at Liberaland) and Stephen Meese at Smashmouth Politics.
15 responses to Should Democrats Embrace A ‘Litmus Test’?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
tracey marie May 15th, 2015 at 16:46
We are not teabaggers, they are in power because to many on the Left said the candidates are not progressive enough. Look what we have now, the most conservative Dem is much better then the most liberal repub and the teabaggers are worth nothing
madashellnow May 15th, 2015 at 17:14
You are so handy using a derogatory name….
tracey marie May 15th, 2015 at 17:19
I guess you teabaggers should not have sold bagger teashirts and stapled teabags to your hats.
dave-dr-gonzo May 16th, 2015 at 01:37
The high psychological price and social stigma of teabagging!
tracey marie May 16th, 2015 at 13:08
They do crack me up with their denials and false outrage.
Pearl Polanski May 15th, 2015 at 17:52
The tea party called themselves “teabaggers” in the beginning of the movement before they clued in to the actual meaning. By then it was too late. I also remember hearding that term used in a positive light on Fox News much to my amusement. Then on the GOP Tea Party website you could choose which politician you wanted to “teabag’. Too damn funny. So glad I saved a screen shot of it.
tracey marie May 15th, 2015 at 18:22
That was great!
Pearl Polanski May 15th, 2015 at 18:30
Right? lol. They made it up themselves! Here’s a whole pile of links:
http://bonosrama.newsvine.com/_news/2010/05/05/4244070-right-wingers-threaten-president-with-sexual-act-then-cry-foul
tracey marie May 15th, 2015 at 18:31
I have them, I find it hilarious. They really get angry when you use their self chosen moniker. I do like your links
Pearl Polanski May 15th, 2015 at 19:18
Teabaggers are experiencing self-loathing with this. Maybe they should actual teabag each other. They might find it relaxing.
OldLefty May 15th, 2015 at 19:01
Oh, you beat me to it!
OldLefty May 15th, 2015 at 19:00
“Tea Bag the Liberal Dems before they Tea Bag You!!
http://theweek.com/articles/494697/evolution-word-tea-bagger
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/357138/rise-epithet-jay-nordlinger
madashellnow May 15th, 2015 at 17:14
Citizens united should be overturned as soon as unions are prohibited from donating to campaigns.
tracey marie May 15th, 2015 at 18:21
why should Unions be prohibited from openly donating the legal limit?
OldLefty May 15th, 2015 at 19:05
Everybody says that.
(And over the past 35 years, corporate unions have become much more powerful than labor unions.
The problem with Citizens United, more than campaigns, is the dark money to PACs that are accountable to no one and don’t have to disclose who they are.
They PACs become more powerful than the parties and THEIR “platforms” aren’t public like those of the political parties.