Trump

[Play Angry]

Is there a compelling reason to believe Trump will nominate reliably right-leaning SCOTUS candidates? I despise Hillary, but I just have no confidence Trump isn't, at his core, a carbon-copy of her in many ways.

He has said that he will, and we all know he does not change his mind when convenience or self-interest beckons.

[shockmonster]

Is there a compelling reason to believe Trump will nominate reliably right-leaning SCOTUS candidates? I despise Hillary, but I just have no confidence Trump isn't, at his core, a carbon-copy of her in many ways.

I don't necessarily have confidence but if he expects to be supported for another election, he will. I can tell you what Hillary will do and Garland (Obamas nomination) will be conservative compared to her nomination. With her the conservative agenda (religious freedom, abortion, immigration executive decisions, etc. ) will go out the window to perhaps a generation.

[ShockRef]

Who are your "at least 3" and the possible 5? Are you assuming Scalia's isn't filled by January?

JD,
Obviously Scalia plus Bader Ginsburg and Kennedy are quite elderly (83 & 80) and both have been quoted about retiring soon.
Thomas has recently made comments about retiring (especially since passing of close comrade Scalia) and there has been rumblings about the health of Breyer.

That is all.

[Aargh]

I saw a cartoon that went something like this:

"You wouldn't even hold a hearing on Garland"

"You wanted to wait until after the elections"

"Then Hillary won the election"

"Meet your new nominee for the Supreme Court"

...and it was Obama.

(I do enjoy irony in humor).

[jdshock]

JD,
Obviously Scalia plus Bader Ginsburg and Kennedy are quite elderly (83 & 80) and both have been quoted about retiring soon.
Thomas has recently made comments about retiring (especially since passing of close comrade Scalia) and there has been rumblings about the health of Breyer.

That is all.

Ginsburg has always been very opposed to retirement. I think she'll either pass away or her health will have to take a very serious turn before she'll leave. If you have a source where she said she'd be open to retirement, I'd love to see it. Kennedy won't retire if Clinton wins. I'll give you that both could die in the next four years, but it's incredibly unlikely. If Trump wins, it's possible Kennedy retires, but I'd think he'd be worried about Trump's pro-choice history. To get to the likely three, Scalia would have to not be replaced, and both Ginsburg and Kennedy would have to die. It's far from "likely," but it is possible, I suppose.

Five isn't happening, though. Thomas isn't going to retire. He has not spoken about it, he's still young, and his wife rejected the thought. Breyer won't retire if Trump wins. If his health is bad, he may retire during a Clinton presidency. The Justices have the best health care in the world, and I'm sure it can keep Breyer alive for four years if Trump wins. I'll bet any amount of money that the next president doesn't get five replacements.

As I asked earlier, do you really think Obama won't be able to get one through despite trying for a year, but Trump or Clinton could get five?

[jdshock]

I don't necessarily have confidence but if he expects to be supported for another election, he will. I can tell you what Hillary will do and Garland (Obamas nomination) will be conservative compared to her nomination. With her the conservative agenda (religious freedom, abortion, immigration executive decisions, etc. ) will go out the window to perhaps a generation.

Garland is a fairly uncontroversial pick because Obama wanted to get an appointment this year, but I don't get why people assume a Clinton presidency would result in significantly more liberal Justices. Hillary Clinton is more toward the center than Obama.

Edit: I thought about it, and I guess she is not really more center than Obama on social issues, which tend to be the deciding factor for people re: Supreme Court Justices. She doesn't seem further left, though.

[Play Angry]

Literally every single presidential election features hypotheses of a tidal wave of retirements on SCOTUS. This one is no different - some may retire, some may die, but we do not have an especially elderly or infirm bench compared to prior elections.

I cringe at the thought of the judges Hillary would appoint but have little faith that Trump would honor his word regarding judicial appointments. He has zero credibility and extolls stark ideological about-faces as a virtue of leadership. He is playing his right wing supporters for simpletons because of their arrogant assumption they can "control" his decisions if they just surround him with the right VP, etc. (lol).

If you are a conservative supporting Trump primarily because you think he will appoint the next Scalia, I have a bridge to sell you.

[shockmonster]

Literally every single presidential election features hypotheses of a tidal wave of retirements on SCOTUS. This one is no different - some may retire, some may die, but we do not have an especially elderly or infirm bench compared to prior elections.

I cringe at the thought of the judges Hillary would appoint but have little faith that Trump would honor his word regarding judicial appointments. He has zero credibility and extolls stark ideological about-faces as a virtue of leadership. He is playing his right wing supporters for simpletons because of their arrogant assumption they can "control" his decisions if they just surround him with the right VP, etc. (lol).

If you are a conservative supporting Trump primarily because you think he will appoint the next Scalia, I have a bridge to sell you.

You are gambling on your hoped outcome just as much as I am. You are gambling that the possible changed SCOTUS During the next 4-8 years won't do extensive harm. I and others are gambling that Trump figures politics and this Presidential thing out.

[Play Angry]

You are gambling on your hoped outcome just as much as I am. You are gambling that the possible changed SCOTUS During the next 4-8 years won't do extensive harm. I and others are gambling that Trump figures politics and this Presidential thing out.

I am not willing to sell out for a small chance that a proven huckster and narcissist sees the light at the exact moment he becomes the most powerful man in the world. There is no "gambling" on "hope" at all in my approach - I'm just not going all in on the odds of a hail mary pass.

The Court will likely regain a liberal tilt for the first time in ~4 decades when Garland is confirmed, and that tilt may solidify if Hillary is elected (but only if Kennedy retires or another conservative unexpectedly dies). It is a bummer IMO. However, if anyone thinks the resulting court would be "unprecedentedly liberal" following a Hillary victory in 2016, I would advise them to read up on court history - the pendulum at the moment is right in the middle. We (meaning conservatives) have faced as much as a 7-2 deficit on the bench before although many of us were not even alive when that was the case.

Moral shaming to vote for arguably the most immoral nominee in party history will not carry the day. Trump advocates need to craft reasons to vote FOR the man, not just reasons to vote AGAINST Hillary - no conservatives are going to vote for Hillary in meaningful numbers. If they cannot fashion an effective argument to actively support their candidate, Trump supporters will fail spectacularly in November.

[jdshock]

I am not willing to sell out for a small chance that a proven huckster and narcissist sees the light at the exact moment he becomes the most powerful man in the world. There is no "gambling" on "hope" at all in my approach - I'm just not going all in on the odds of a hail mary pass.

The Court will likely regain a liberal tilt for the first time in ~4 decades when Garland is confirmed, and that tilt may solidify if Hillary is elected (but only if Kennedy retires or another conservative unexpectedly dies). It is a bummer IMO. However, if anyone thinks the resulting court would be "unprecedentedly liberal" following a Hillary victory in 2016, I would advise them to read up on court history - the pendulum at the moment is right in the middle. We (meaning conservatives) have faced as much as a 7-2 deficit on the bench before although many of us were not even alive when that was the case.

Moral shaming to vote for arguably the most immoral nominee in party history will not carry the day. Trump advocates need to craft reasons to vote FOR the man, not just reasons to vote AGAINST Hillary - no conservatives are going to vote for Hillary in meaningful numbers. If they cannot fashion an effective argument to actively support their candidate, Trump supporters will fail spectacularly in November.

In case anyone wants to read on this topic, this article has some good charts that discuss the leanings of the Justices: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...n-decades.html

The charts use the most widely used metric for tracking liberal vs. conservative. With Scalia, the Supreme Court was slightly leaning conservative and with Garland it would be slightly leaning liberal.

[WstateU]

I’ve found it difficult to choose which “shit sandwich” I can stomach; unfortunately, Hillary’s “shit sandwich” has a double portion of “shit”.


Would God Vote for Trump? (Sorry, if previously posted?)

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/14/god-vote-trump/

[jdshock]

I’ve found it difficult to choose which “shit sandwich” I can stomach; unfortunately, Hillary’s “shit sandwich” has a double portion of “shit”.


Would God Vote for Trump? (Sorry, if previously posted?)

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/14/god-vote-trump/

There are certainly some questionable Biblical principles in that article.

First, he talks about how Solomon "toyed with idolatry" but was "rich and powerful and respected for his wisdom." The Bible also says that Solomon was punished for his sins and the punishment specifically affected Solomon's kingdom. Solomon is an odd choice for an analogy when trying to say we need to preserve the United States' power.

Second, I've never understood the claim that there is Biblical support for saying things like "We need a leader who says, don't even think about immigrating to our country unless you will submit to our laws, customs, and morals." How is that a Biblical concept?

Lastly, I've also never understood sentiments such as "God did not intend for the United States to collapse with a whimper at the hands of Hillary and her sordid minions." Is the Christian God smaller than one politician? Is His will for a country such that it can be undone by one election? Further, what is and how can we be sure of what is God's will for the United States?

[Kung Wu]

Ginsburg has always been very opposed to retirement. I think she'll either pass away or her health will have to take a very serious turn before she'll leave. If you have a source where she said she'd be open to retirement, I'd love to see it.

It doesn't say retirement, but Ginsberg herself said:

The 83-year-old justice, who belongs to the court's liberal wing, said it's "likely that the next president, whoever she will be, will have a few appointments to make."

[Kung Wu]

I cringe at the thought of the judges Hillary would appoint but have little faith that Trump would honor his word regarding judicial appointments.

He isn't just flippantly saying he will appoint conservative judges. He has actually named the initial pool of them:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-reveals-list-of-11-potential-supreme-court-nominees/article/2591681

[Play Angry]

Yep. I'm sure that wasn't a list he simply rubber stamped and definitely believe he will not backtrack like he has on so many other policies and proposals.

This one must be different because it's what we want to hear, right?