A pretty accurate, albeit sad, reflection on how far politics has degenerated in my opinion. Even President Obama used phrases like "no litmus test" for his nominees. Of course we all know that presidents on both sides of the aisle are picking nominees who they think are more likely to analyze cases through at least a philosophical prism with which they agree. However, brazen statements like "I will not nominate a person who would not agree to overturn Citizens United" are amazing to me. Maybe there is a history of statements like this that I'm missing, but I don't think so. Even if a few are out there, it has never been common and the fact that it can be made so openly to a cheering audience seems rather new. Very very disturbing in my opinion and I'd say this regardless of which side was saying this. Yet, hardly surprising given the increasingly populist rhetoric in politics today and lower bar in general from all sides. I also do think there is a distinction between somebody saying "I will only nominate somebody who will stand up for your constitutional right on xyz issue" vs. "I will only support somebody who I think will vote to overturn xyz specific case". I appreciate that we are in an election cycle, but just another example of how far politicians have sunk in today's world. Lines about what is acceptable today seem to have moved a country mile.

Historically, there have been some fascinating examples of Justices not turning out exactly the way some may have envisioned. Yet, there have been some amazing Justices on all sides of the spectrum and this speaks to the importance of how the focus should be so much on the nominee in a larger way vs. even a thought of a specific-case litmus test.

Citizens United is such an interesting case. Like most cases, I bet 99% of the public have never read even parts of the actual opinion and would fail a multiple choice test about what it actually says and does. I also think 99% would fail a test (at least without looking) about pre-Citizens, who could give what, monetary limits, disclosure rules, etc... However, the case is easy to use because of its general subject of corporations and campaign contributions to absolutely mobilize the anti-business/class warfare efforts today. None of this means it isn't absolutely sickening the amount of money that is spent on elections today. It is disgusting. People are right to want something different, but it is extremely difficult both practically and legally to have a society the way we have with its size and openness and have a structure that is sensible, remotely enforceable, and doesn't create challenging and almost arbitrary distinctions about who can say or give what regarding campaigns. I'd challenge anybody to read the logic and analysis behind the majority opinion and say it is just a disgusting affront to reasonable constitutional analysis. You can absolutely disagree with the majority and there is logic on both sides so I'm not suggesting it isn't reasonable to disagree, but it is a complicated constitutional application so the idea that one side is "so wrong" that supporting its repeal should be an open litmus test for a future nominee -- that is a scary bad statement to me.

And yes, I happen to think you are correct that there is a mountain of growing evidence out there that as offensive as the quantity of money spent on elections can be -- there are major diminishing returns and much of it is often money wasted in many ways. More importantly, not that a decision should be "results driven" anyway (vs. the constitutional legality of a law or regulation) but the idea that this decision somehow "opened the door" to elections being bought by corporations is simply not what is happening or more likely to in the future -- or at least it is not happening any differently than how the same forces act already.