Note: These essays are critical of the "Support Hillary because X" arguments. The intent is to dissect and examine them on the merits, and expose their weaknesses if any. I have a bias in that I'm a #BernieOrBust person. I won't vote for Hillary, and I find the arguments I'm critiquing unconvincing. These essays are meant to explore how and why I have come to that conclusion.

The process has more or less played out, and it's clear that barring some extraordinarily unlikely event (e.g. Bernie convincing super delegates to switch, an indictment, etc.) Hillary will be the democratic nominee. This is the point in the process where various high-profile individuals, including elected officials and prominent pundits, and many not-so-high-profile individuals will begin to make or step up their calls for unity. They will offer a variety of arguments why it's important for us to rally behind Ms. Clinton. These will generally consist of a combination of a few core arguments with some marginal nuance around the edges. They are generally arguments Hillary supporters (and the candidate herself) have been using during the primary, with a focus on electability or the ability to "get things done" or both of these. The arguments will be substantially similar now, but with a focus on unity since the "electability" and "getting things done" questions are essentially moot. These arguments have been and should be critically examined, however, and I'd like to make a series of diaries I (and readers, if interested) can use as a reference point for discussion.

I intend this to be a multi-part essay series. This is the first, and pertains to SCOTUS. I am collecting information for other common pro-Hillary arguments, including:

Healthcare

Social Security/Other "safety net"

Foreign Policy

Social Justice/Racism

Fascism

SCOTUS

SCOTUS is an important, powerful institution in American politics. Decisions made by POTUS can have sweeping, long-lasting effects. It's important that we have as liberal a SCOTUS as is possible. During the primary season, the SCOTUS-based argument for supporting Hillary was one of electability and fear: Sanders can't win against the GOP, so support Hillary because she's our best chance at the most liberal SCOTUS possible, and a SCOTUS nominee from any Republican is just scary. Now the argument is unity based: we must unify and support her so that we avoid our fear of a Trump nominee and so that we get the most liberal SCOTUS possible.

In two critical areas of concern for liberals Hillary has indicated a fairly liberal take on nominations to SCOTUS. Taking her at face value, she would not appoint somebody who opposes abortion and she would only appoint somebody who would overturn Citizens United. However there are other areas that haven't been examined. What are her views regarding privacy, government surveillance, and drug crimes (all issues that are important to a large slice of Bernie supporters), to name a few others, for example? On climate change? Since the media haven't done their job to ask about those issues, either on the trail or in debates, we must rely on the candidate's record to make an inference.

The issue of privacy and government surveillance impacts all Americans, but especially citizens and non-citizen residents of particularly vulnerable ethnicities and nationalities. With the state of foreign affairs as they are, and calls for escalation of our country's "War on Terror" this issue is at least as important as abortion. Hillary's record on privacy and government surveillance is clear: she voted for the USAPATRIOT Act and has repeatedly called for increased surveillance and spying powers. It's unreasonable to conclude she will nominate a person who is opposed to these things. On this point, from a liberal's perspective, she's no better than any Republican.

There are so many issues related to drug crimes. Among these are civil forfeiture laws, disparity in sentencing, and even whether and to what extent drug use ought to be considered criminal. This issue impacts people who use medical marijuana (legally, per state laws, but illegally, per federal laws), and as usual it disproportionately impacts the poor, non-white, and other marginalized and vulnerable populations. On this point, Hillary's record is again clear: she's from the "drug war" view. She has repeatedly indicated that she does not think marijuana use should be decriminalized (although she has softened more recently to a "wait and see" approach). She also has consistently supported "diversion" programs (that is, to use courts--again, treating drug use as a criminal matter--to divert drug users into treatment programs instead of prisons). If she even considers drug laws when vetting nominees it is likely she will take a conservative approach. So once again, on this issue, Hillary isn't really better than any Republican.

Hillary Clinton has been a strong advocate for "free trade" agreements, fracking, and the fossil fuel industry in general. She has been consistent on these issues for a very long time, and while she is not opposed to cleaner energy she is still full-bore for fossil fuels. Her rhetoric and policy positions indicate she does not perceive Climate Change to be a very urgent issue. She doesn't ignore it, but she clearly has other priorities. Given her political positions to-date, I am skeptical that she will consider climate change at all when choosing a nominee. If she does, my view is she will more likely than not choose a person who is likely to rule in favor of fossil fuel industry defendants on any climate change issue that arises before SCOTUS.

Summary: If one considers only abortion or Citizens United, and if one takes her at her word, Hillary is a clearly superior choice versus any Republican. If one considers a broader class of issues likely to come before the court and that impact at least as many Americans as those two, she's at best on par with any Republican nominee.

Verdict: Potential SCOTUS nominations are insufficiently convincing as arguments to support Hillary Clinton.