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.
Containing Trump
Let’s assume that my prediction is wrong and that, on the evening of November 8, President-Elect Donald Trump gets to say “Hillary, you’re fired.” Liberal heads explode, NeverTrump garments are rended, and — while everyone has their suspicions — no one can prove that Jeff Sessions intentionally popped that champagne cork into Ben Sasse’s eye. Let’s further assume that Republicans hold the House and — to make matters interesting — say the Senate is split 50-50.
Come 2017, Trump and the new Congress are sworn in and… things go well. Construction begins on the Wall, the Chinese start behaving, Speaker Paul Ryan passes some sensible-if-underwhelming ObamaCare reforms, and Attorney General Rudy Giuliani accepts the FBI’s new recommendation to indict Hillary Clinton following the latest WikiLeak revelations. Then, out of nowhere, Ruth Bader Ginsburg announces her retirement so she can spend more time with her cats. In response, President Trump nominates a previously-unheard-of immigration judge (and close friend) from Staten Island as her replacement*. Journalists quickly discover that the judge — though tough on immigration — believes that Roe and Casey are subject to stare decisis, opposed Heller and McDonald, and has written several articles defending Kelo and Obergefell as “misunderstood.” When conservatives balk, Trump takes it as a personal insult to his friend and doubles-down on the decision, saying that if conservatives won’t make a deal, he can look elsewhere. Simultaneously in Paris, Boston, and Phoenix, three EEG monitors that had lain dormant for months begin to show signs of activity.
What do we do in that circumstance? When George W. Bush went off the reservation and nominated Harriet Miers, conservatives’ anger was able to manifest itself through establishment, ideological, and populist channels such that Bush eventually smartened-up and withdrew the nomination. For obvious reasons, these levers will have less effect on Trump who, after all, will be riding pretty high at this point while the glue is still drying on the newly-reformed conservative movement.
Game it out, Ricochet. We may need to.
* This character is an invention.
Published in Domestic Policy
Would you rate it more or less likely than Hillary appointing Obama to the Supreme Court? He is a Constitutional scholar, after all.
The problem with Meier wasn’t competence, it’s that it smacked of cronyism.
Speak for yourself. He was not my top choice, but I always viewed him as a choice. Reflecting back, any of the others would be losing with the usual GOP grace right now. He still has a shot.
Assuming the Senate is deadlocked at 50/50 the VP has the deciding vote in the Chamber.
Well, cronyism, too.
Honestly… roughly the same. In other words, small and vague. Though, with these small chances, it’s very easy for one to be many multiples of the other, the way something that increases likelihood of heart attack from 1% to 2% doubles the likelihood. There is talk of it among Democrats of Hillary appointing Obama, but many Dems see such an appointment as doomed if Hillary tries it, or Hillary’s non-dismissal of the suggestion as mere politeness.
I’m aware that any answer, more, less, same, can be used to make a case for Trump, if all that’s being considered are the chances of Cruz vs Obama for SCOTUS.
It’s possible that if I knew more, I’d revise the likelihood down for both. These are first guesses, not statistical analyses.
So let me get this straight:
Trump gets elected. We hold the House and the Senate (VP’s tie breaker). We break the Clinton Cartel and somehow manage to get the ChiComs to reform. And Ginsberg gets replaced by Kennedy.
Sign me up.
I mean, seriously, I’m sitting here thinking “maybe we get lucky. Maybe we find a pony in this mess.” And then you come and say “Dude, it isn’t a pony, it’s a unicorn!” And you expect me to complain that the unicorn is black instead of white?
My standards are well below that point.
Frankly the most objectionable thing in the story is Jeff Sessions popping Ben Sasse in the eye with a cork -that’s unsportsmanlike, and I like to think better of Sessions.
As a practical matter, I have zero hope that Roe or Casey will ever be formally overturned, nor do I have high hopes about Obergefell being overturned short of open revolution. As bad as losing Heller, McDonald, and Kelo would be, I already think those cases are politically weak, and that our primary defense there is actually the states and the Congress.
Look, I’m interested in the Court not being openly hostile to me. I’d settle for closetedly hostile. At this point I’d be happy with “Openly but incompetently hostile.”
The 11th guest à la mode?
Note to self, always arrive early for rico.
That will never happen.
My mistake. I thought that’s what we’re supposed to do when things don’t go the way we had hoped. Isn’t it the go-to solution for binary choices and such?
Point taken, though I expect your give-a-damn won’t be quite so used up at that point.
I understand and sympathize with folks who believe it’s imperative to vote for Trump to stop Clinton; I’m not so far off myself these days.
Even if Trump wins and even if it goes better than many suspect, we’re going to have a difficult time ensuring his priorities line up reasonably well with ours; more so than usual and it’s been pretty bad lately (Obama and Dubya). If you’re concerned about converting the MaybeTrumps and wavering Nevers, this is an opportunity. If you dislike my specific hypothetical — and I’m not going to defend this as one of the better examples of my writing or attempts persuasion — there are others.
We’ve all exhausted, but as I said above, I rather doubt our give-a-damns will be expended if Trump comes into office, even if things go well. As conservatives we’ve had to fight all Republican presidents at times, and we did so often with the advantage of the institutional checks that are currently busted.
I’ve been out of damns to give for over a year at this point. My “Trump-Curious”ness extends entirely from the question of whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take up arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them.
Put another way, is it better to suffer Caesar, regardless of who it is, but keep my hands clean -or to take the gamble that our Caesar will be easier to control and more likely to be temporary. The Republic is doomed regardless, but the risk means a chance -however slight -of stopping the fall.
What assurance do we have from Trump? He’s a bravo and lazy -he’ll do what the Congress puts in front of him.
Right- it is in the script, page 4, para 3. I stand corrected.
I’m confused, what is the possibility that Trump supporters would be confronted with?
I think Obama wants to be emperor of the world or as he sees the current equivilant – UN Secretary General
I believe you recall my post from Thursday.
So if I understand the point of the post, it is “what if Trump is elected and does something we don’t like.” won;t we all be sorry then. That unfortunately is the issue with every president. I was appalled by Iran-Contra. I thought that GWB’s pre-911 spending like a drunken sailor (apologies to drunken sailors everywhere) was a betrayal. That said, I would rather have issues with the President I voted for than the alternative.
More generally, this post seems to be the newI of the #nevertrump bandwagon. A week or two ago, it was a combination of “He is beyond the pale, just like Hillary) with “He will crash and burn and bring down-ballot repubs with him.: Now we have “ok, he might win, but he will be horrible.” Which brings us to the new set of potential catastrophes :
I personally look forward to at least 4 years of ranting about how Trump is failing to meet my personal expectations for his Presidency. I would be doing the same if President (Republican Candidate X) had won the nomination and the election.
One final point on the “Trump is not a conservative” meme. Trump did not win the nomination due to an electoral tantrum at the establishment \ conservatives. The clear fact is that the establishment \ conservatives failed to produce results and lost the confidence of a large majority of republican primary voters. We are not at all mad at you, you have simply defended, explained and excused yourself into irrelevance.
Based on the link, that was regarding “Virtue Signalling.” I am still confused. Not attacking, simply confused.
John Janes point does not require anyone stand on principle.
Well, she was just a Tumpkin right? Phyllis Schlafly cannot have been in her right mind. How do I know? Kevin Williamson and the rest of the NeverTrump crowd think anyone voting for Trump is stupid. Also Racist.
Ditto.
Also ditto.
It’s true. Conservatives told me Reagan was going to start a race war and a nuclear war, so I voted for him, and damn if I did not get either. I see their grandchildren as just as spot on.
Right, voting for Trump is like choosing to play Russian Roulette with a revolver with three chambers loaded. It seems insane until you reflect that voting for Hillary is like playing with a semi-auto. But if the salvation of the republic is Trump, doesn’t that suggest the republic is already dead?
cliffs on both sides, downhill, the brakes are out and so is the bridge over the ravine dead ahead – does it really matter what seat we’re sitting in? De Tocqueville was right.
I was really distressed at the time at the way the RINOs in Washington joined the Dems to howl over Harriet Miers, and it is still distressing to see Ms. Miers slandered here at Ricochet.
She is a good lawyer and she had a great deal of practical experience. She had never been a judge, and so had no record of decisions for the Washington crowd to deconstruct. Washington hated her, for some really shallow reasons.
She is a conservative woman.
She is a friend of W., and was working in the White House as Counsel to the President.
Her degrees are from Southern Methodist University. (So, not Harvard.)
She is an Evangelical Christian.
The RINOs called her a lightweight, accused Bush of wanting a personal channel to the Supreme Court. They helped the Democrats by giving awful slanderous quotes to Leftist mass media.
I thought all along she would be a breath of fresh air in Washington.
To answer the Original Post.
A delegation of movement conservative senators go to the White House to discuss the nomination with Trump, early in the process when the name is only being circulated as a trial balloon. They say, “Mr. Trump, you still have over 100 positions in the process of Advise and Consent. How about you find a more suitable Court nominee? Some of the questionable choices you have put before us might look a whole lot better if we didn’t have to worry so much about the Court. And, oh by the way, what do you need from us? We are sure you have a deal or two in the works, and thought we might see what we could do to help.”
What is this supposed to mean? Are you planning some sort of retribution for Trump’s critics?