Confirmation Vote on Progressive Revisionist - Citizen's United's Impact Rehased

Senate Confirmation Vote Today On
Progressive Revisionist Andrew Hurwits
For the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Today in Washington, D.C. - June 11, 2012:
The House is in recess.

The Senate will reconvene at 2 PM today. And will resume post-cloture consideration of the motion to proceed to the farm bill, S. 3240.

At 4:30 PM, the Senate will take up the nomination of Andrew Hurwitz to be a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Following an hour of debate, the Senate will vote on cloture on the nomination.  With only one hour of debate, either the Senate is not taking this nomination seriously, or the fix is already in for 60 votes by the democrats to push through this nomination.  This means some Republicans will not evidence a concern for either "Life" or "preserving the Constitution." Giving a life-time appointed to Andrew Hurwits is unconscionable but that is what the liberal progressive desire.

A few words about Andrew Hurwitz. From a detailed article, Life News identified:

Andrew Hurwitz brags that, while clerking for U.S. District Court Judge Jon Newman, he played a key role in writing the 1972 opinions that provided the basis for the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Roe v. Wade. Pro-life groups are understandably opposed to his nomination.

. . . the real problem with Andrew Hurwitz nomination. It is not that Hurwitz favors abortion on demand or that he got caught up in the judicial activism of the 1960′s and 1970′s. It’s that, in the forty years since Roe, he doesn’t seem to have learned anything about interpreting the Constitution in an intellectually honest fashion. . . . Hurwitz never got the message that it’s no longer legally or publicly acceptable for judges to make stuff up and that pulling new rights from the constitutional ether is something judges deny, not brag about.

Citizens United Rehashed -  Much of the attention on this subject recently has been on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which removed some limitations on political contributions from corporations and labor unions. However, many on the Left have been attacking this decision, inaccurately representing it, and turning it into a bogeyman for everything they dislike about politics. Of course, last week’s historic election in Wisconsin, where Gov. Scott Walker prevailed against an attempt to recall him from office, was no exception.

In an Wall Street Journal op-ed today, a different McConnell addresses the facts in Wisconsin.  Former appeals court Judge Michael McConnell explains that Citizens United was not the reason that Walker won, as some have claimed. He writes, “In the wake of Wisconsin's recall election, the Washington Post's Greg Sargent, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell and other commentators disappointed with the result are not blaming the electorate or the apparent success and popularity of Gov. Scott Walker's reforms. Instead, they are singling out the Supreme Court's 2010 campaign-finance decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, as the reason for Mr. Walker's 7-1 spending advantage.

“Citizens United held that associations of Americans, including corporations and labor unions, have a First Amendment right to make independent expenditures in support or opposition to candidates for public office. In a sense, Citizens United did have an important effect on the Wisconsin election. But the effect was almost exactly the opposite of what many pundits imply.

“Labor unions poured money into the state to recall Mr. Walker. . . . Little or none of these independent expenditures endorsing a candidate would have been legal under federal law before Citizens United.”

“By contrast, the large spenders on behalf of Mr. Walker were mostly individuals. . . . These donations have nothing to do with Citizens United. Individuals have been free to make unlimited independent expenditures in support of candidates since the Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo (1976). . . . For the most part . . . Mr. Walker's direct, big-ticket support came from sources that have been lawful for decades.”

[However,] "His opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, got his support primarily from labor unions, whose participation was legitimized by Citizens United. Without that decision so demonized by the political left, Mr. Barrett would have been at even more of a financial disadvantage.”

Bursting a popular liberal talking point, Judge Michael McConnell explains, “Corporations rarely make independent expenditures during candidate elections in their own name, because the ads offend customers, workers and shareholders. And direct corporate contributions to candidates tend to be split more or less evenly between the two parties, largely neutralizing their effect. But unions have no compunctions against running campaign ads, and almost all of their money goes to Democrats. . . .   [T]he Supreme Court's much-maligned and misunderstood decision in Citizens United was not the cause of Scott Walker's financial advantage. It helped his Democratic opponent.”

---

Tags: U.S. Senate, progressive, judicial nominee, Andrew Hurwitz, Citizens United, revisted, Wisconsin recall, Judge Michael McConnell To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!