Clinton pledges constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United ruling

[The Other Castro]

Wouldn't it be easier to just fill Scalia's seat, and wait for them to take up a similar case and overrule the previous ruling?

[The Other Castro]

Good luck with that, Hillary! You won't get 2/3 of each branch of Congress to pass the authorization and you won't get 3/4 of the states to ratify.

Alternatively, you won't get 2/3rds of the states to call for a Constitutional Convention.

Fail. Just like your campaign come November and your pathetic attempt to jail a guy who made a video for "egging on" the Benghazi attacks.

Quit being sexist.

Reality is very sexist.

The House will remain Republican. The Republicans may lose a few seats in the Senate, but the Democrats do not have a mathematical way to get to 2/3rds.

And even assuming that happens, how many complete state legislatures + governors are solely controlled by the Democrats right now?

This amendment is about as dead as any Republican attempt to define marriage solely between a man and a women via amendment. And that's with Republicans in control of both Houses and a good number of state apparatuses.

Red meat for the base's consumption. Nothing more, nothing less.

Well yeah, that's the point. I don't think Clinton has any intention of actually getting such an amendment passed. That would be delusional and a little grandiose.

[The Other Castro]

It's not surprising that she thinks people who made a video against her presidential campaign should be prosecuted.

For crap's sake, cut the conspiracy crap. Clinton is not going to prosecute Republicans for opposing her, this is about making sure that Super PACs have to disclose their donors. If these PACs are on the up and up, they would have no problem disclosing their donors. Drug dealers and organized criminals could funnel money into elections through shadow Super PACs. This is serious.

This isn't a conspiracy theory.

Citizen's United V. FEC was about restrictions on a conservative non-profit that wanted to release a movie in 2008 that was critical of Hillary Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/washington/15scotus.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/us/politics/16ads.html

This is something to keep in mind when Hillary Clinton discusses the decision. There's a conflict of interest.

Citizen's United itself was probably the least important aspect of the ruling. I'd think that most people cared as much about that possible Clinton movie as they do about anything Dinesh D'Souza puts out, which is to say not very much. For anyone to not recognize the broader focus of the ruling is very shortsighted.