Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Judging Trump’s Judges
I still don’t believe Trump is a conservative on domestic policy or responsible enough to lead our nation’s foreign policy. But he is starting to unify the party with the right moves, if his list of potential appointments to the Supreme Court are any sign.
Everyone on the list is an outstanding legal conservative. They are also all younger, smart, and committed. They would excel in any comparison with whom Hillary Clinton would appoint to the Supreme Court. Several of the possibilities, such as Tom Lee of Utah, Allison Eid of Colorado, and David Stras of Minnesota, are former law clerks of Justice Clarence Thomas, while others, such as Steve Colloton of Iowa and Joan Larsen of Michigan, clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. They are joined by other well-known judicial conservatives, such as Diane Sykes, Don Willet, Ray Kethledge, and Bill Pryor.
These names are a Federalist Society all-star list of conservative jurisprudence. In the interests of full disclosure, I count several of them as colleagues and friends. It is a good sign that, on one of a President’s most important decisions, Trump clearly turned to the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation for advice. Despite his anti-Bush rhetoric, Trump also owes a debt to the Bush administration. Many of the Trump possibilities were appointed by Bush or held positions in his administration. While the Bush administration’s foreign and domestic policies remain a source of debate for Republicans today, Conservatives must agree that most of Bush’s judicial appointments were stellar.
The other promising sign is that Trump’s advisers have looked beyond the lower federal courts to include potential nominees from the state supreme courts. State supreme court justices will have special sensitivity to the balance between federal power and state sovereignty. Many have run for office and already know what it is like to be attacked by the Left. They may prove more immune to the New York-Washington liberal media/academic elite that has swayed Justice Anthony Kennedy and other Republican appointees before him.
It also doesn’t hurt that many of the possibilities are from battleground states in the coming November elections. Trump’s team clearly shows respect for the voters in Colorado, Minnesota, Utah, Michigan, and Texas, where he has named state Supreme Court justices who have run for election.
I am thrilled by this list. But that said, I cannot trust Trump to keep his word. He has already flip-flopped on so many issues, before, during, and after the campaign. How do we know he would not start wheeling and dealing on judicial appointments if he were to win the Oval Office?
Published in General
Fair enough, but please keep in mind that Trump doesn’t know who any of these people he apparently thinks qualify for SCOTUS are, or why they might be important.
But hey, it’s a list, amirite?
No sale. Trump’s deficiencies are largely similar to Hill’s- both are putrid human beings– yet he’s also an ignoramus.
Some smart moves… a smart move.
I’m also impressed, as impressed as I can be with a man I cannot trust.
But let’s not go overboard.
. . . and after. <cough> Roberts <cough>
So Peter, what do you make of Trump’s discussing his new list?
Emphasis added. He’s already hedging, surprise, surprise.
You’re all being conned.
The Democrats could filibuster an appointment to the Supreme Court unless the Republicans have 60 seats. The filibuster has only been removed for lower court appointments.
I’d like to amend this comment to include some thoughts on the idea of baby steps from the movie “What about Bob?”
You know, BI’ll Murray’s character was so neurotic that he wore his gold fish bowl around his neck and muttered “baby steps.”
That’s where I am: with the fish bowl necklace and a tattered judge list in my hand.
It’s going to take a lot more to earn my vote than “he fights,” “he deals,” he’s built,” and this judge list.
The judge list tempts me to listen and watch.
I agree. Trump does flip flop, and I don’t know what he believes honestly, but this is a good start. We have no choice but to support this because we know exactly, 100%, without a doubt what a Clinton judicial list would look like. There is no point arguing about tariffs, foreign policy, social issues etc. without the courts being a factor. This is the issue. The next President will probably get four or five appointments (Yes, that many).
So yes, call me a Trumpist if you want. I know the alternative, and it is unacceptable. Trump is at least consulting with the Federalist Society and Heritage. That’s a good thing. Let’s enjoy this small victory.
Then let them filibuster, it will only make them look like the obstructionist. For the last four years, I’ve wanted the Republicans to send bill after bill to Obama’s desk to get vetoed. It would have made them look bad and would have showed that the GOP listened to us. They didn’t, and this is why we are in the predicament we are in with Trump.
Here’s all I need to know: today my dyed-in-the-wool hippie liberal (except when it comes to the military, for some reason probably related to my belated WWII-survivor submariner grandfather) mother declared that “Trump has won. I’m moving to France.”
Look, in a choice between a revolver with all six barrels loaded, and one with only one loaded, you know which one to put up to your head.
I don’t like Trump, but he actually wants to win this. And he claims he’s on our side. The last two who said they were on our side didn’t actually do much to win. Let’s at least try to win this, maybe?
This isn’t a problem that’s exclusively Trump. GHWBush had to have his feet held to the fire to stick with Clarence Thomas when he was savaged by the left. The GOPe is notorious for turning and running when the going gets tough.
And here is why Trump is the nominee (at least one of the reasons). Faced with the same circumstances, the Dems would change the rules again, and eliminate the filibuster. We have zero expectation of the GOP doing the same.
#NeverTrumpers may not like Hillary but she likes them, does she ever.
But wait, the list isn’t finished!
You’re being conned.
I have seen no one here who is being conned. Every post here has been wide opened that Trump is likely to fall through.
Conned implies people don’t know the truth.
If anything Trump has said or done in this campaign has lead you to believe he will be a better president than Hillary, you have been conned.
LOL.
To say there will be no difference between them is not true on the face of things.
Please back up said statement with something to prove it.
They will be very different in their awfulness. But Trump will be equally awful in the degree of his ultimate awful impact or much worse, if for no other reason than every conservative who backed him will own his failure and have no credibility when they want to turn back to a sane candidate and conservative principles and solutions.
“Honey, when we’re married, the drinking, gambling, lying and womanizing are over.”
“Oh, Donald, you love me. You really love me.”
Actually, as narratives go, this is one. The special woman tames the savage man. So I would argue, of course people buy into it. It is one of those archtypical narratives that work at a primal level.
Does not make them factually true, but they feel true.
Well, that is your supposition on what the future holds.
I do not hold Fred Barns in less regard because he is making a practical choice. I don’t hold #NeverTrumpers in less regard because they are making what they see is a practical choice.
Neither side there is being “conned”. Both are making a choice based on what appears to be the best option in a lousy situation. Just because you fall on one side, that does not make the other side foolish, just different.
I find looking at the character, the ignorance, the lack of experience, the recent past support for causes directly opposed to the causes on which we now want Trump to be superior to Clinton, the blatant lies, the pandering to hate groups, the irresponsible rhetoric toward allies and enemies with regard to foreign policy, the incoherent and dangerous policy positions both in the domestic and foreign arenas, and many more reasons more than ample proof that Trump is in no way better than Clinton. It takes willful blindness or an utter act of credulity to believe otherwise by anyone who has been paying attention. So I have no issue calling blatant foolishness just that.
Trump being no better than Clinton as a person does not mean a Trump Administration will be no better than a Clinton one.
I do not think that you have proved that connection.
You’re right, his complete lack of experience in government and politics, his complete ignorance on all the major issues he would have to deal with, his complete lack of core principles or guiding philosophy for public policy, his recklessness, and his complete unfamiliarity and disregard for conservative ideas and solutions, not to mention the likelihood he’s as likely to thwart or negotiate against his own party will make him just as bad, or worse as president,
We’ll have to dance with the devil that brung us to the dance if Trump wins.
What Conservative principles are we willing to trade to get one or more from Trump’s judge list onto the bench?
So, your contention is that his Administration will be as by or worse in effect on the nation as a Clinton one, 100% sure.
You can say that. You might be right. To dismiss someone else for thinking there might be a chance as being conned or laughable is not reasonable. It is close minded.
There is a non-zero chance you could be wrong.
So the standard is that if there is any chance at all that something might happen, it’s not foolish to bet on it? Sorry, that’s more foolishness.
The standard is:
I know Clinton will be horrible, Trump might not be as bad. I have only two choices, as one or the other will win. Voting for someone else will increase the chances of it being Clinton whom I know is a worst case option. So I vote for Trump.
That is a logical, reasonable standard, but you are intent on calling anyone who is thinking that way a fool.
Frankly, this is why I am starting to see my of #NeverTrump as no less dogmatic than the ProTrump crowd.
Trump is also more of a patriot than Clinton. Does Clinton want to make America Great again? Clearly not. She want to make America less than she is, just another citizen of the world.
Trump reminds me of the gangster in the Rocketeer: A bad guy from NYC who still was for the good old USofA.
Nonsense, you are looking only at this election and the next four years. It is most likely that Trump will be just as bad or worse than Clinton. If that happens, not only will there have been no benefit to avoiding Clinton, conservatives will then be powerless to stop the left from taking over after Trump.
There will be elections after 2016 A disastrous Trump presidency will be worse for conservatives and the future beyond 2016 than a disastrous Clunton presidency
Ah see, I no longer listen to the siren call of “Wait until the next election”. I have doing that since 1996. So far, no lasting conservative wins.
I am done with “we are in a rebuilding year”. Either you go for the championship, or you lose.