The right doesn't care about prior precedent or case law. They just want their way, and have proved themselves perfectly willing to use the federal judiciary to advance their agenda by stacking the court with partisan jurists. Per Charlie Pierce:

"I will be told that I am a Bad Analyst because I am essentially arguing that multiple wrongs make a right, but I don't really care. Leave aside the historic reality that the [Supreme] Court always has been politicized, sometimes garishly so, but we are now at the end of a 30-year process in which a well-financed conservative infrastructure restructured the federal court system from top to bottom, seeding it with reliable judges who supported dubious interpretations of laws to which their ideological sponsors were unfriendly.

We're making a big tactical mistake, separating this into individual silos and allowing decorum to dictate the manner in which we will and will not respond to direct challenges such as this one.

Honestly, this is exactly why liberals consistently lose political fights like this. I'm all for standing upon principle, but not to the point of committing democratic (with a small d) hara kiri on its behalf. What DO we stand for, exactly, when we refuse to take a firm stand on our own behalf -- or worse still, form circular firing squads and blaze away at those who are on our side?

"Ginsberg is not intolerant of conservatives; she and Scalia were opera buddies. But she's 83, sharp as a tack, and a survivor of pancreatic cancer, which generally gives you the same odds as stepping in front of a westbound freight. Her big bag of fcks was empty long ago. She's seen what's happened to the courts first-hand, and she is right to warn us that a Trump administration is just as likely to put the gardener at Mar-A-Lago on the bench as not. Liberals, of course, are supposed to make sure they use the right fork when they sit down to dinner with barbarians."

Fundamentally I think Clinton is an untalented politician, especially as a campaigner. I believe she would at worst be an adequate President, except possibly in foreign policy where she might fail badly (the problems may be beyond any President, frankly), and possibly an effective one.
I have two suggestions.
First, someone on the Democratic side needs to kill the idea that white, working-class U.S. citizens are a problem. Really?? Nobody who is working class has any power as an actor in today's economy. Bring them in, don't single them out. I'm not seeing that Clinton is blaming this group, but I don't see a lot of white in her rainbow. We are all American.

Second, recast the message on immigration. Every country has a right to control its borders. In this point, I am not referring to Mexico, where I don't believe that the illegal immigration can be stopped, and I also think it is a net positive, anyway; I am thinking more about the cases where we can practically control the flow. Worry about terrorists immigrating to the U.S. is legitimate. Instead of embracing the commitment to bringing in new citizens, why not emphasize that we have  stringent process already, and say that protecting American citizens is an extremely high priority in the area of immigration.

What do they say? the money is always right?