>>>What HRC doesn't want her constituents to remember is that the constitution limits how much the court can address previous rulings. She would be the last period on earth to have "standing" to seek an overturn of Citizens United. But either way, HRC has already demonstrated that she wants to use the power of government to silence her critics.
>>
>>Actually, the Constitution does no such thing. The Constitution does little more than establish that there will be courts, and lay out what kind of cases go before Federal courts (and much of the latter is in the 11th Amendment, not the original document). The number of people on the Supreme Court, the way the courts operate, and much more has been established by time and precedent, and to some extent, by the Court taking power. Marbury v. Madison was the beginning of that process.
>>
>
>Yes, it actually does.
>
>Going to use a bit of the Socratic method here. Given the nature of the original decision, legal experts acknowledge it will take a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision. The Court simply cannot invoke the "screw it with what we did 7 years ago, let's vote again" and the President cannot simply go to the court and say, "Vote again on what you decided 7 years ago because I don't like the decision and neither do the people who voted for me". If that were the case, Roe v Wade would never have survived the Reagan years.
>
>Here's what is fundamentally flawed about HRC proposing a constitutional amendment in the first 30 days to overturn Citizens United (and making promises to her followers) - the Dems already tried it in 2014 when they had a majority in the Senate, and failed. They didn't have the numbers. The Dems also lost control of the Senate a few months later. It is nearly impossible for them to get back enough votes to force a vote (and pass) a proposed amendment on this issue. Sure, they can try - just like the Republicans tried and failed many times to overturn ACA in Congress.
>
>I am both amazed and amused that HRC and Sanders are able to get their followers to believe they'll succeed on this. They can make promises, they can even make threats on executive orders, but they will not overturn Citizens United without a constitutional amendment.
>
>And THAT....is why I referred to constitutional limits. :)

I read an interesting piece on what might happen under a liberal Supreme Court. (Think it was on Vox, but I wouldn't swear to it.) The thinking there was that they'd chip away at Citizen's United. You're right that they'd be reluctant to overturn such a recent decision, but they could narrow it.

Tamar