Hillary Will Appoint Corporatists, Not Progressives, to the Supreme Court

Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_-_Philosophical_SwagAfter last week’s unanimous decision by the Supreme Court overturning former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s conviction for corruption, any suggestion that there are progressives on this court has been soundly refuted. The justices endorsed political corruption as the norm, and gave a green light to bribery of public officials. The entire court is made up of corporatists who differ slightly on social issues.

Basing one’s vote upon any illusion that Hillary Clinton would appoint one or more progressives to the court is laughable. But there is nothing funny about her penchant for military belligerence, her support of trade agreements, her opposition to universal healthcare, her support of the death penalty, and her opposition to legalizing marijuana.

If Trump is president and appoints a Scalia-type replacement for Antonin Scalia, we won’t be in any worse shape that we were a few months ago.

It is preposterous to presume that Hillary Clinton will appoint a progressive to the Supreme Court. Neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama ever did, and Hillary is substantially more conservative than either her husband or Obama.

On the most important issue of the day, money influencing government, the Supreme Court is a rubber stamp for the oligarchy. Decisions granting personhood to corporations, determining that money is free speech, that corruption is acceptable, all make the Supreme Court the enemy of the American people, and the ally of Wall Street and those who own Congress.

The Hillary campaign is using smoke and mirrors to frame the importance of judicial nominations as progressive versus conservative, when in fact, the appointments will all be corporatist, with a little social issue drama as the dog-and-pony show.

The Democrats will most assuredly retake the Senate, providing an oversight of Trump judicial nominations, at least affording public scrutiny of their positions on social issues. And Trump will almost assuredly be a one term president. Democrats will nominate and elect a true progressive in 2020. If Hillary is elected, we will not be able to elect a progressive until 2024, and even then we will have lost the House until 2030.



Amory Notes:

I am unaware of any other blog with the Armory’s mission of radicalizing the animal movement. I certainly hope I am not alone, and that there are similar sentiments being expressed by comrades unknown to me.

If you know of other blogs dedicated to animal rights and the defeat of capitalism, please comment with a link.

• Be sure to follow the Armory and share it with your Facebook friends and email contacts, as well as on Twitter, Google, and all other social media platforms. Our influence and effectiveness is dependent upon you!

Natasha Sainsbury, of Good Karma Graphic Design, has joined Armory of the Revolution as Editor, and is responsible for the transformation of the blog’s appearance. Visit and follow her blog V Kind.

If you are not already subscribed to the Armory, please do so before you leave.

There’s a button to Follow us in the upper right sidebar.

• Be sure to visit Armory of the Revolution’s new commissary and bookstore: The Supply Depot

You will find recommended reading on Animal Rights, revolutionary theory, politics, economics, religion, science, and atheism. There is also a section of supplies for animal liberationists, hunt saboteurs, and social revolutionaries. This is all brand new, and we will be adding lots more merchandise in the near future!

Feel free to comment. I encourage open discussion and welcome other opinions. I moderate comments because this blog has been attacked by hunters and right wing trolls. I approve comments that are critical as well as those which agree with me. Comments that I will not tolerate are those that are spam, threatening, disrespectful, or which promote animal abuse and cruelty

If you support the Amory’s work and mission, please help us grow.

Just $3 per month will allow is to advertise!



21 thoughts on “Hillary Will Appoint Corporatists, Not Progressives, to the Supreme Court

  1. Also, voting anything other than 2 party is useless until the electoral college is crushed….The EC will never in a million years vote for 3rd party, don’t voluntarily throw away your vote…..Besides that look how much gets accomplished with a congress/senate that doesnt side with the presidents party, we already see many Republicans argue and fight Obama’s intentions just because of party affiliation, what will get accomplished when the entirety of congress/senate are against the president? What needs to happen is that we need to end the EC, make congressional term limits, and elect new younger more diverse congressmen/women. We have a number of congress up for reelection this year and no one is talking about it, most of them even running unopposed, we have congressmen that have been there for 70 years, this needs to stop before anything can change….You want to change laws you change the lawmakers.


    • I agree, except insofar as congressional term limits are involved. Until or unless political bribery is banned, term limits would only operate to increase the power and influence of lobbyists.
      Congressional newbies have no legislative memories. They are ill prepared to withstand lobbyist pressure and stand up to the millions of dollars in bribes, the unsolicited research, the offers to write legislation, the orchestrated input from constituents. Only legislators who know how lobbyists work are able to stand up to them, and even then, most do not.


  2. Roland, every time I read anything you write, it sounds like you use big words ONLY to sound smart, and not to better your sentences…It comes across as you talking down to everyone.


  3. I don’t support Trump, but I don’t support Hillary either. The campaigning I’m doing for Jill Stein and the Green party is because I, like ten’s of millions of other Americans don’t support Trump or Hillary. I know a large number of people who are, like me going Green, and by the way, a significant number of those people I’ve spoken to would, if she weren’t running, vote for Trump. Now we can say that’s poor judgment, but that statement changes nothing. The simple fact is that the DNC has admitted that it cheated in the primaries for Hillary, even apologising for it, then promptly said it doesn’t matter and vote for Hillary any way… or Trump. All I know for sure at this point is we can’t take a year of saying that we would never vote for Hillary and abandon that position, it would be an endorsement of her past corruption and a permission slip for more, and I won’t write such a permission slip, and neither will many others. You may feel differently, or you may agree with me, that the best way to defeat the idiot Trump is to go third party, considering the mass exodus from the DNC since Hillary was given the nomination, despite the voter fraud that took the voices of millions of Bernie supporters away from them, I genuinely believe that the Hillary supporters are doing more to help Trump than the Stein supporters, simply because Hillary is not, and cannot draw support away from Trump, unlike Stein who can, has and is. But in pretending that a third party option can never work, that directly undermines that migration away from Trump, which only serves to help his campaign.
    As to the Supreme Court, don’t imagine Hillary would appoint anyone not approved of by the Walton family or Goldman Sachs or Big Oil or Halliburton or any of the many and varied Wall Street and other donors to whom she is beholden to. Yes it’s easy to suggest that Trump would be a disaster, but let’s not pretend that Hillary would not be. As the saying goes “the lesser of two evils is still evil” and it’s by always voting for an evil that has brought us to this position that we’re in now. Jill is a third option, and she will be getting my vote, and the votes of many ten’s of millions of other progressives because I’m tired of lesser evils. And by the way, if we all do the same, she’ll win!


    • I support Jill Stein in red and blue states. I support Trump in purple states. This strategy will help ensure Hillary’s defeat, and will help grow the Green party. Of course, if enough people in red and blue states vote for Stein, she could win. But the odds that will happen are minuscule.


  4. When you speak of “…the enemy of the American people” you err by forgetting that some Americans may be in favor of the SCOTUS decisions you deplore. You may speak for you, not everyone. The SCOTUS is anti-Constitutional limits, pro expansion of power, like all branches, most politicians, and most bureaucrats. But that is to be expected with a system of institutionalized violence. If you want social justice do not expect it at the point of a gun. Only when individual rights are recognized (and that can’t happen under a coercion system), will we fulfill the American Dream. That was undermined by parts of the Constitution but more so by the unspoken assumption that initiation of force can stop right’s violations. It is responsible for them. The goal must match the means. The only means compatible with rights is voluntary social interaction using moral persuasion, not brute force. The force of reason needs no violent threats anymore than it needs trickery (fraud). A civil society is built on respect for each other, as is all communication. When this new political paradigm is adopted, we will have, for the first time, justice.


    • I believe force is a necessary ingredient of justice. The protection of the rights of all requires a government strong enough to enforce those rights and to require that those attempting to breach those rights are prevented from doing so.


      • “…protection of the rights requires a govt….” was the argument 200+ years ago. Now we see govt. has been the biggest danger to rights, in the US Empire, and all other countries. Your statement requires a profound willful blindness. And begs the question: “Who will protect us from our protectors?”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Your concern was raised 200 years ago, and has become irrelevant with the growth of capitalism. Banks, Wall Street, Big Oil, etc, now are greater threats to individual rights than government ever was. Government must level the playing field for the people.


  5. Pingback: Hillary Will Appoint Corporatists, Not Progressives, to the Supreme Court | My Blog

    • Your eloquent analysis of each of the points raised was profoundly insightful. Rarely have I encountered such skilful and salient observations being made. I was especially impressed with your command of the Mother Tongue and rapier wit. In the wake of such a devastating refutation of my thesis, I will have to revisit my entire worldview.


  6. Thank you Roland,, I totally agree. We already have evidence of corporate law with the unconstitutional A.E.T.A bill both parties slipped under that backdoor in 06. The SHAC7 were the first victims of animal rights activists not allowed free speech. How long before they jail us all. I will be voting Green. Blessing my friend


    • I urge all my friends to vote Green if they live in red or blue states. If they live in battleground states (purple) where there is a chance to defeat Hillary, I implore people to vote for Trump. We must stop Hillary! She is the animals’ worst nightmare!


  7. Sorry this is a opinion piece. It’s not based on reason or fact. The Governor of Va is a shady individual but you can’t just put people in jail because they skated around the lack of state laws. This article doesn’t even addressing.a anything other then the author’s opinion which is based on a snapshot in time. Hillary helped vet Ruth Bader Ginsburg one of the most progressive jurist in history and Hillary voted against Roberts and Alito, and tried to filibuster Alito. The fact she would appoint progressives is without question. People please take a step back for a few days.

    Here is the list Trump put out. These are truly conservatives, republicans, NEO-Cons and whatever else you want call them. These are not the crop Hillary would pick from.


    These are just a few of the types of Supreme Court nominees that are possible. Do your own research on them.

    Paul Watford
    Jane Kelly
    Janice Rogers Brown
    Goodwin Liu
    Paul Smith
    Leah Ward Sears
    Pam Karlan
    Sri Srinivasan


    • Firstly, how absurd to ridicule an opinion piece as an opinion piece. Of course my articles reflect my opinion. But you seriously overstate your case to asset that my opinions are without reason or fact. Did you read the McDonald opinion by the UNANIMOUS court? It is outrageous. And if you think Ginsburg is a progressive you must not have read the decision.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.