Sanders said the judge is “clearly very knowledgeable and can serve ably” on the high court. “But between you and me,” he told Maddow, “I think there are some more progressive judges out there.”
As he has done a number of times in this presidential cycle, Sanders said that his litmus test for an ideal Supreme Court justice is whether the person is committed to overturning the 2010 decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which made it possible for corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts in elections.
“I am very worried about the future of American democracy and about the ability of billionaires to buy elections,” he said.
Yesterday I explained why Judge Garland would not pass a Citizens United litmus test:
The harder question is what a Justice Garland would do, if faced on the Supreme Court with the opportunity to overturn Citizens United. On the merits, I have little doubt he would have been in the dissent in the original Citizens United case. But the question is one of stare decisis (respect for precedent) now. Would he be willing to overturn such a case, just a few years after the controversial ruling? My guess is that his would be a struggle for him, less about the merits of the case and more about the proper role of the Justice (particularly if he becomes the new swing Justice) on a Court that is ideologically and politically divided.