Donald Trump

Trump Won't Save the Supreme Court From Liberals, He'll Torch It

Conservatives voting for him because he'll appoint originalists are fooling themselves

|

As election day approaches, many conservatives and even libertarians I'm running into are trying to overcome their aversion to Donald Trump and vote for him anyway because they can't bear

Trump Turban
HeartsMindsEars @ Foter.com

the thought of handing over the Supreme Court to liberals for the next generation. With Hillary, they think, there is no hope of getting originalist justices but with Trump there is.

But I note in my column at The Week this morning that this is a triumph of hope over reality.

Trump may not have a completely worked out judicial philosophy right now. But that doesn't mean he'll be a cypher for GOP's preferences. Once he's in office, he'll naturally gravitate toward one that is consistent with his agenda. And what is his agenda? It ain't anything to do with the GOP's alleged commitment to limited government, checks and balances, and individual liberties. It is the opposite: Using the heavy hand of government to turn America into a worker's paradise along the lines of France's National Front, a xenophobic, protectionist, right-wing authoritarian entity.

With Trump at the helm, the GOP will inevitably get sucked into his vision, rather than vice versa, and it'll have no use for originalism or limited government or Scalia or Thomas.

Voting for Trump out of concern for the Supreme Court and originalism then is like handing the keys of your church to an arsonist clutching a can of gasoline in one hand and matches in the other — and hoping that somehow he'd spare the inner sanctum and the holy book. He won't.

Go here to read the whole thing.

NEXT: Justice Kagan's beautiful remarks at the Antonin Scalia Law School dedication

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So if Ms. Dalmia says this, this means that Trump *will* save the Supreme Court from liberals?

    1. Good bet. Seriously, I think Dalmia is just trolling now.

      1. Dalmia is Reason’s affirmative Action case for non-Libertarians.

        1. They’re 75%+ in affirmative action hires

    2. What’s utterly stupid about this post, more so than her other nonsense, is the presumption that she knows what Trump will do. It should be abundantly clear that no one, not even Trump, knows what Trump is going to do next. Given what we know about Hillary, we can reasonably assume she will appoint judges that will advance the statist agenda. Given what we know about Trump, are as likely to be random as they are supportive of an agenda – so given that Trump is the safer bet, at least if you are voting based solely on what Supreme Court nominees will be put forth.

      1. There is literally a zero percent chance that whomever Trump nominates could possibly be worse than a Hillary nomination. It’s just not possible to be more against our natural rights than she is when considering the two major candidates.

        1. Re: BYODB,

          There is literally a zero percent chance that whomever Trump nominates could possibly be worse than a Hillary nomination.

          It may be that judicial choices from El Trumpo could not be worse rhan any HillRod would offer, but the one thing YOU forget is that whereas people expect HillRod appointees to be terrible and thus people would minimize the number of cases presented to the SCOTUS, one would not have that same certainty with Trumpista appointees until they decide a few cases with whatever consequences one can guess or wake up to, in sweats and screaming; thus, people would not be as wary at first until it is too late. That is infinitely WORSE.

          1. So when Congress passes laws or the president issues executive orders that trample our rights and are contrary to the Constitution and lower courts fail to overturn (which happens often in lower courts) it’s OK with you as long as no one takes the cases SCOTUS?

    1. Over/Under on comment tally?

        1. That’s extraordinarily optimistic for a Dalmia article. You don’t need to actually read her articles in order to read her articles.

          1. Alright, i have FS down for over.

  2. SIV hardest hit.

  3. One could as easily invert the argument. Hillary will be no better for the Supreme Court than Trump. This pathetic ongoing stream of ‘distinction without a difference’ attacks on one candidate or the other are worse than pointless.
    They are the worst sort of partisan knob-polishing, from people who ought not to be partisans.

    1. With Hillary, you know exactly what sort of Justice you’ll get. How this gets glossed over, even ignored, is explainable by the TDS that has gripped the staff. At worst, Trump is ‘results-may-vary.’ No one knows who he would nominate but he would be nominally tied to a party that might guide the decision. Hillary leaves no room for doubt – if you like the Ginsburg/Kagan/Latina/Breyer type, get ready for another one and likely a younger one who will be around to fuck with your life for the next 40 years.

      1. Exactly right, wareagle.

      2. ^ This x 1000. I’ll take my chances with the Trump justice lottery pick vs. the surely liberal asshole choice Hillary is sure to make. This whole article is built on some mystical presumptions.

    2. They are the worst sort of partisan knob-polishing, from people who ought not to be partisans.

      This is the season where the journalist/political class does their best to find distinction between the two cardboard cutouts we are offered by the duopoly. If you rely on/lend credibility to partisan media, every day is full of a new litany of “differences” that we’re all supposed to panic about.

      There’s still a useful exercise to be done in listing out their different actual stated policy positions and reminding yourself how little difference there is, in fact, between them.

      Don’t fool yourself into thinking Trump will pick nominees (whether you think that’s good or bad). He will nominate whomever the Party tells him to nominate.

  4. So Trump is going to reduce the size of government by getting rid of a whole branch of the federal government?

  5. Reading this would only waste precious seconds so I’ll just say dumb broad writes dumb shit. Does that pretty much sum it up?

    1. “I didn’t read it but I’m sure she wrote something dumb and also she’s a woman” pretty well sums up any comment made on any Dalmia article.

      1. Well, after you’ve read a bunch of Dalmia articles you have enough of a sample size to be able to make a reasonable prediction.

        1. She actually had an article several months back that was well written and well reasoned, probably because it didn’t involve Trump or immigration, so she can write well and be credible if she wants to. That one article has since been buried under a mountain of garbage and sifting through it to find the gems seems like a bit of a waste of time.

          1. She had an article yesterday that wasn’t too bad.

            But, yeah. If you write an article attacking one candidate for what they will do in office, without any comparison to the other candidate, you are a partisan hack. A propagandist. This is a contest between (realistically) two candidates. Ignoring that context strips any useful meaning from the article, making it, well, partisan propaganda.

          2. Take the highlighted paragraph above about Trump-as-arsonist.

            If you are concerned about SCOTUS and originalism, Trump is a weak reed, indeed. If you are choosing which candidate is likely to be worse on these issues (which is what is really going on), then handwaving away the fact that Hillary will be, at best, as bad as Trump, kind of misses the point.

            There’s a big difference between “Trump Bad” and “Trump Bad, Hillary Worse”. You do the first one when the obvious intent of the article is to discourage voting for Trump. Leaving out the way Hillary is worse is like, well, running articles on Trump’s technical lack of a filing for his Foundation, without mentioning at all the numerous technical and much more substantive problems with Hillary’s foundation.

      2. Let’s all thank Hugh for the service that white knight does in ensuring that Shikha is safe from all imaginary sexism on the Reason comment boards

        1. What your saying is that we’re all negging on Shikha and Hugh is just trying to cock-block?

      3. pretty well sums up any comment made on any Dalmia article.

        You’re leaving out the comments just like your own – the smug-superior moaning about how d?class? this place has become since the election started. “ugh, i bet this will just lure out the WORST people! (gets popcorn, unzips)”

        that has to be like, 30% of the commenting at least.

        1. I don’t recall saying anything about it starting with the election.

          1. I actually sympathize with what you’re saying a little bit Hugh but you don’t have to listen to the latest Nickelback album to know it’ll be terrible. Just out of curiosity I read the article and my original suspicions were confirmed.

          2. “Oh, how droll. Bravo, darling. (tings champagne flute with salad fork)”

        2. And how much of the commenting is people complaining about people who come and complain about people coming to complain about the Dalmia articles that they don’t read?
          How many layers of meta-commenting is it possible to have before it gets too confusing to be meaningful?

          I usually just skip her articles altogether and stay out of the comments, but I guess I’m particularly determined to waste time right now.

          1. How many layers of meta-commenting is it possible to have before it gets too confusing to be meaningful?

            [Examines Tootsie-Roll Pop]

            “Three”

  6. “Trump may not have a completely worked out judicial philosophy right now. But that doesn’t mean he’ll be a cypher for GOP’s preferences.”

    But we do know that Hillary will be a cypher for liberal Democrat preferences.

    So explain to me exactly how Trump is a worse choice than Hillary.

    1. Hillary has flat out said she wants to overturn Citizen’s United, which means overturning the first amendment, and that regarding the second amendment, and the rest of the constitution, “If it is a constitutional right, then it ? like every other constitutional right ? is subject to reasonable regulations.”

      But yeah, no reason to believe she would be any worse than Trump. Unless you look at the actual evidence in record.

    2. I think the point was not that Trump was worse than Hillary but rather that he wasn’t going to be any better so the “but Mah Suprm Cort” argument in favor of voting for Trump was at best wishful thinking

      1. the “but Mah Suprm Cort” argument in favor of voting for Trump was at best wishful thinking
        Except that position is contradicted by the evidence available.

        1. It might be a lie. Maybe. Or Trump will nominate an ok justice or two.

      2. I suspect Trump would be somewhat better. But you never know. And it’s not like conservative justices overall have a great record on certain aspects of free speech, the 4th amendment or police accountability.

        I say the supreme court should have 100 people on it. And it should be like jury duty.

        1. And it should be like jury duty.

          Oh, great, so only idiots who can’t get out of it will decide everything based on feels.

          1. Maybe like jury duty that you can’t get out of. And pays better.

            It’s a work in progress.

        2. “I say the supreme court should have 100 people on it”

          +1 FDR court packing scheme.

          1. Only if you ignore the last part where there is no ideological test (or any other test). But that model has its flaws too, I’m sure.

      3. It is still “Trump likely will be awful” against “Clinton is awful, and what her stated goals are, is awful.”

        One is a SWAG (at best), the other is a known quantity.

        1. ^ This. With the caveat that Clinton is almost certainly lying about her stated goals. Example: TPP.

    3. “So explain to me exactly how Trump is a worse choice than Hillary.”

      Some people think those cocktail parties are just a myth, a joke…

  7. Go here to read the whole thing.

    Not

    fucking

    likely.

  8. Dalmia fears the Pepe.

  9. Like almost every other area of policy, we know what Hillary will do — she will choose justices who hate individual rights like free speech (Citizens United) and gun rights (Heller and McDonald).

    And we don’t know what Trump will do. He probably won’t pick anti-individuals like Hillary, but he is likely to choose the same government-is-right-when-it-does-it-my-way justices. I also have the sneaky suspicion that Trump will have so little focus and consistency that very little will actually get done.

    So while I won’t be voting for either, I do view Hillary as more dreadful than Trump.

    1. I also have the sneaky suspicion that Trump will have so little focus and consistency that very little will actually get done.

      didn’t libertarians once see this as a feature?

      1. No, because Trumpitler.

      2. Did he say that it was a negative?

        I, at least, see that as one of the likely upsides of Trump.

        1. I see that as a YUUUGE upside. Trump is loathed by the media, the federal bureaucracy and the establishment politicians in the House and Senate, who will work to thwart him at every turn. On the other hand these same entities will work to excuse and enable Hillary and her programs.

      3. I still do, at least as comparing Trump vs Hillary. But reality is that my vote is even more meaningless than usual, living in California. So it’s as hypothetical an advantage as any libertarian wish list.

  10. Shrikea Dalmia

  11. Does Trump suck? Yes.

    Would he be worse than Hillary? How could he be?

    He’s likely to get bored, and let Pence taker the rudder. Hillary will never get bored; she’ll burrow in like a tick and get down to “the People’s” business.

  12. Sorry, but the article this links to is pretty weak. After saying Trump has specified some pretty terrific judges (by Dalmia’s own admission) for consideration, the article basically says don’t believe him because he’s icky.

    That’s not a particularly compelling argument. We know the alternatives have weaker picks up front. Hell, even Johnson, as much as I support him, has suggested some pretty godawful models for what he’d look for.

    1. Yeah, Trump’s list of picks looks pretty decent, but while Hillary hasn’t released a similar list, we know for a fact she will appoint justices who are willing to overturn the first amendment (Citizen’s United) as well as agree that “If it is a constitutional right, then it ? like every other constitutional right ? is subject to reasonable regulations.”

      I fail to see how Hillary isn’t worse given the evidence.

    2. After saying Trump has specified some pretty terrific judges (by Dalmia’s own admission) for consideration, the article basically says don’t believe him because he’s icky.

      This pretty well settles the differential diagnosis of TDS.

      1. it’s never lupus.

    3. the article basically says don’t believe him because he’s icky

      Given that you’re a fucking moron, I can see how you might have interpreted the article that way.

      What it actually says — as opposed to what a fucking moron like you thinks it “basically” says — is that Trump lies constantly about everything, and so there’s no reason to believe what he says about judges.

      1. Man, you sure walloped him with your intelligence stick! It’s now clear to everyone that your comprehension of the issue is far superior. Well done!

        1. The article actually says that Trump is a habitual liar, and so there’s no particular reason to trust what he says about judges.

          Bill said that the article basically says that Trump shouldn’t be believed because he’s icky.

          I’m open to some explanation for Bill’s reading comprehension failure besides galloping stupidity.

  13. We know the alternatives have weaker picks up front.

    As I recall, when you’re playing “War” you don’t start out by throwing down your aces and kings.

    1. Not sure I understand what you’re getting at.

      Johnson has said he’d look at Breyer or Garland as models. That’s not sending out the JV ahead of the varsity. That’s putting the other team on your roster.

    2. That’s not how war (the card game) works. And in trick taking games, that’s not necessarily a bad approach in all cases.

  14. Shikha is really good at these hyperventilating articles.

    1. Not really. they’re short and substanceless and jump straight from Thesis to Conclusion with little actual evidence-based argument in between

      The only time she actually drags any facts into her emotional-crystal-ball prognostication, its to try and dismiss them because they’re glaringly inconsistent with her theory.

      e.g.

      There is no doubt that Trump’s list of potential justices ? shrewdly released to calm conservatives jittery over his many heterodoxies ? is a good one. It includes judges such as [X, Y, Z]

      Still, it would be a mistake to put too much stock in Trump’s list ….because a Trump presidency will have a transformative effect on the GOP itself. Indeed, by the time he’s done, the GOP will have little use for originalism or limited government. Whatever the external threat a Clinton presidency represents to these ideas, the internal threat that Trump poses is far greater.

      She establishes that Justices aren’t much affected by politics, praises his actual list of appointees… then says, “well, they don’t really matter because…. they’ll end up being overwhelmed by the New GOP shit-tastic agenda”

      Apparently in the Shikha-future, the rest of the GOP will suddenly drop their #nevertrump attitude, or their pretenses to Conservative bona-fides, and will all get on board with the Nationalist Populist Authoritarian agenda… because….. uh…. because she wouldn’t have a point if they didn’t

      1. the rest of the GOP will suddenly drop their #nevertrump attitude

        That wing of the GOP either never existed in large enough numbers to matter or has been subverted by the Trumpkins, and in any event the hardcore #NeverTrump contingent (all dozen or so of them) have largely disavowed the party.

        So, yes, I can see the remaining Trump skeptics readily shelving their intransigence and embracing the ascendent nationalist sentiments the party now embodies.

        1. I “can see” a lot of things, but it doesn’t make my dice-rolling prognostication worth $0.2 relative to something like an ‘actual track-record in government’, a la the Hildog

          1. What, you think your two cents are worth ten times as much as the rest of ours!?

            1. #inflation

  15. Imagine the shrieking from leftists if Trump announced that if elected he would nominate Janice Rogers Brown to the Supreme Court.

    Their hypocrisy on “diversity” would be on full display in opposing a black woman nominee.

    1. If only the Republicans had the balls to uniformly attack them for racists and misogynists.

  16. Here’s the cliff notes version so you don’t have to waste time reading the article:

    “blah blah blah … Trump! Racist! Xenophobe! Hitler!!!”

  17. Don’t piss off the orange monkey god, Shikha. I’m warning you….

  18. So WDATPDIM? We’re screwed on the Supreme Court either way but I am way more terrified of handing the DoJ, FBI, and NSA over to Hillary Clinton.

  19. From the linked article:

    Still, it would be a mistake to put too much stock in Trump’s list ? and not only because he is an ignoramus who probably thinks judges sign bills into law. Or because his word is worth less than his bankrupt Atlantic City casinos. Or because his temperamental and character flaws are too great to be offset by a good court.

    Sorry, but that’s some seriously weak tea. His temperamental and character flaws will only be in office for four years, eight at the most. A good court will last a generation. So it’s really no contest; he would be completely offset by a good court. In fact that’s kinda the whole point of a good court: to offset shitty presidents and a shitty congress.

    1. Confounded squirrels. Second paragraph is mine if it’s not obvious.

    2. You’re making the mistake of trying to apply logic to Shikha-pieces. You have to *feel* their argument

      1. You’re making the mistake of trying to apply logic to Shikha-pieces. You have to *feel* their argument

        Her argument feels like a crock of shit.

      2. “You have to *feel* their argument”

        So it’s “feeling” the force in a Star Wars movie.

        Only less entertaining.

  20. Just because nobody cares:

    I’ll give clicks to Gawker before I go read anything at the Week.

    1. “Mister Gawker, He Dead”

  21. Hmmmm one candidate absolutely wants to appoint the most gun grabby justices she can. The other claims the exact opposite in fairly certain language, and then mutters a bunch of inconsistent stuff unrelated to gun laws.

    I’ll go back to watching your cocktail invites fed into the woodchiper of polite society

  22. Actually, we don’t know exactly what Trump will end up doing. He’s unprincipled and emotive and therefore unreliable.

    However, Hillary is an Alinisky-ite ideologue and we know EXACTLY what she will do.

    1. Agreed- for all we know Mike Pence will get to make the Supreme Court pick, which would be far better than any pick Clinton would make.

  23. Also Dalmia’s living in a fantasy world if she thinks Scalia’s seat would be the only one that gets replaced. Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy are getting way up there.

    1. Yup. Ginsburg is going to die in the next few years. She really messed up not retiring when DemoRats held the Senate and Presidency. Speaks volumes that she thinks only SHE can make a difference on the Court.

      Typical bureaucrat thinking that they irreplaceable.

      1. Or it could be that she likes the job, wants to keep it and doesn’t think about retiring in terms of political strategy.

        1. Yeah, why would anyone suspect Ginsburg of allowing political bias to affect her decision making?

          1. I didn’t say it wasn’t that. But the fact that she hasn’t retired already suggests that she isn’t primarily concerned with the ideological makeup of the court and she either simply likes the job, or is very full of herself (or likely both).

            If her decisions regarding when to retire were based on politics, I would have thought she would have retired while she could still be sure that a Democrat would pick her replacement. Her refusal to retire suggests that the political makeup of the court isn’t her primary concern.

  24. Not sure I understand what you’re getting at.

    I was just trying to obtusely make the point that a putative savvy politician would not name somebody who would provide additional motivation to the other side. If Trump said, “That judge the other day- the one who struck down open carry restrictions- she’s at the top of my list,” the Brady nuts would rise up as one to oppose him.

  25. Shikha went from reading fake Trump tweets to reading his mind. impressive.

  26. From the linked article:

    Still, it would be a mistake to put too much stock in Trump’s list ? and not only because he is an ignoramus who probably thinks judges sign bills into law. Or because his word is worth less than his bankrupt Atlantic City casinos. Or because his temperamental and character flaws are too great to be offset by a good court.

    “Oogah boogah! Trump no good! Him scare me.”

    1. “Oogah boogah! Trump no good! Him scare me.”

      Racist

      Triggering

      Microaggressing

      You hit the Trifecta.

  27. [article retracted due to author’s perception of reality being an epiphenomenon of a fevered imagination]

    Calling it now!

    1. Can’t they take her off the Trump beat?

      There’s stuff she supposedly is knowledgeable about, she can write about that.

  28. a Trump presidency will have a transformative effect on the GOP itself. Indeed, by the time he’s done, the GOP will have little use for originalism or limited government.

    I hate to tell you this, Shirley, but that boat has already jumped the tracks and departed the barn.

  29. Speaking of SCOTUS appointees, the ever-excecrable white-hating Williamson vents his black-supremacist spleen in defense of Clarence Thomas.

    If you were looking for a figure who personified the humiliations and triumphs of black Americans, you could hardly do better than Clarence Thomas, the son of a poor, Gullah-speaking family on the Georgia coast, a man who was not quite fluent in anything that would pass muster as English until his adulthood ? who, nonetheless, found his way into college, into the Yale law school, and the Reagan administration, whose shortcomings and errors he admonished fearlessly. When he was elevated to the Supreme Court, the Democrats ? who hate a black conservative more than they hate anything on this good green Earth ? concocted every manner of dishonest attack to try to do to him what they had successfully done to Robert Bork not long before. But Clarence Thomas prevailed over what is by now a familiar attempt by the Democrats, the party of Bull Connor, to keep a black man in what they imagine to be his place.

    But you’ll never see Williamson go to bat for redoubtable white justices like Roberts.

    1. if a museum of black history does not include Thomas but DOES include Anita Hill, calling bullshit is not an exercise in white-hating.

      1. Black Justice? Ignored.

        Third rate black law prof? Celebrated!

    2. “the ever-excecrable white-hating Williamson”

      Is this sarcasm?

      1. I’m jerking John’s chain. Racialism is loathsome and stupid. Williamson captures it pretty well in this aside:

        If the Smithsonian intends to conduct itself like a political organization ? one in which “black” is an ideological descriptor rather than a racial one ?

        Which is exactly what it boils down to for the left, subverting largely arbitrary racial distinctions into an ideological movement that unpersons those who don’t conform to the racialist narrative.

  30. I still think Suderman is the worst at this. I picture Shikha smiling and laughing as she dashes off a blog post. While McCuckerman writes in a seething rage

    1. I might be able to buy this, except that I saw that despicable piece she wrote on mild-mannered, easygoing Bobby Jindal during the primaries. The one where she basically called him the Indian equivalent of an Uncle Tom because he’s a Christian and jas the nerve to consider himself an unhyphenated American.

      It was by far the most loathsome thing any writer at Reason has written that I’ve seen. Dipshit Scumbetta is exaclty like Obama: an angry, resentful leftist whitey-hater extraordinaire.

      1. Shikha is a caucasian .

  31. Believe me, not your lying ears? C’mon Shikha this is pure speculation. You are becoming unhinged.

    Aside from your speculations we have the words of the actual candidates themselves. Trump has promised originalists which he may deliver on to some unknown degree. Cankles has explicitly promised to over turn citizens united, destroy the second amendment, take executive action where congress fails to follow her agenda, crush news agencies she deems have no right to exist, raise taxes to highs we haven’t seen in more than a generation, double the minimum wage….a leftist nightmare. She is a pure bolivarian socialist on par with Hugo Chavez.

    It is pure insanity to say that Trump is even in same universe of awfulness.

    And then there is this: “Using the heavy hand of government to turn America into a worker’s paradise along the lines of France’s National Front, a xenophobic, protectionist, right-wing authoritarian entity.”

    That is just a word salad.

    There is plenty to criticize Trump on without going off the rails like this.

  32. It is unclear what the full contours of Trump’s (or Clinton’s) judicial philosophy would be, Somin notes, but they are likely to include sweeping executive powers, a narrow view of freedom of speech, and tight restrictions on civil liberties.

    See how that works?

  33. Trump Won’t Save the Supreme Court From Liberals, He’ll Torch It

    Huh?

    Shikha Dalmia|

    Oh…

  34. I feel like the supreme Court is the only real argument for libertarians to vote for trump. Not that its overly compelling. I still wont vote for him.

  35. “Tweet”, she explained.

  36. The difference between Hillary and Trump on Supreme Court appointments is that where Hillary will nominate judges specifically because they’re opposed to gun rights, Trump will simply make nominations with their position on gun rights as a minimal consideration.

    It’s the difference between Trump absentmindedly stepping on your foot, on the one hand, and, on the other, Hillary repeatedly beating the shit out of you with an aluminum bat–on purpose.

    The general philosophy of “originalism” is a secondary consideration when Hillary is campaigning on promises to attack our Second Amendment rights specifically.

    1. when i looked at the figure of 14556 dollars .Than I have no other choice but to accept , what i saw .They have been doing this for a year and get rid of their debtss… Yesterday they purchased new Aston Martin …………. http://www.GoldWAy4.com

  37. a triumph of hope over reality.

    Reality = what you’ve foreseen when you gaze into your crystal ball?

    1. Whatever she decides it is, apparently.

  38. I don’t understand what Shikha is trying to say here. I really don’t.

    President Dolan will be really bad for the SC? And we should…what, exactly? Vote for Hilldog? Derp?

    Why do so many articles warning against a President Dolan explicitly warn against what he might do, when what Hilldog WILL do, or attempt to do, is a foregone conclusion? That is not a compelling argument against Trump. The most compelling argument against voting for Dolan Trump is that he is Dolan Trump: a populist, opportunistic turd who should not in the slightest be believed or taken seriously. The best reason to vote for Trump is that he is not Hillary Clinton, who is a known traitor, felon, rapist-enabler, and execrable stain of a human being, a woman who has not earned an honest cent in her miserable parasitic existence, a genuine slice of American political royalty who endures the people she supposedly serves with the most exquisite disdain, even as she robs us blind and sells our country’s honor and power and wealth to the highest bidder.

    So what is your point, Shikha?

    1. The point is that you should vote for Gary and hope for the best.

  39. Here is one thing everyone is overlooking.

    There are fair odds that even if she wins Hillary will never nominate a Supreme Court justice.

    I just don’t see any way that Impeachment hearings do not begin within days of the new Congress being sworn in and Congress refusing to act on any of her nominees until the impeachment process is resolved.

    Given that legally they have pretty much an open and shut case on her being guilty of high crimes there is just no downside for them in doing that.

    1. That’s a good idea.

      1. Uhmmm…

        The Stupid Party would completely fuck up the proceedings, and likely go after her for the wrong charges.

        The Evil Party would grandstand about ‘sexist’ and ‘unfair’.

        The media would focus on irrelevant and spurious details and wear down the people.

        It would turn out just like Billy’s impeachment.

        A fuckin’ Shitshow!

        1. The stoopid party NEVER had the intention of seeing HillRod prosecuted.

          It was all a dog and pony show put up for us dumb rubes.

  40. I was totally going to read this, and was actually kind of interested. Then I saw who wrote it.

  41. What happened Libertarianism when Reason’s comment section is full of people defending a right wing authoritarian! Trump’s Supreme Court picks would be chosen to circumvent the Constitution because Trump himself has no respect for it!

    1. Reason’s comment section is full of people defending a right wing authoritarian!

      You need to do it more like Hugh. If you just say it outright like that, it sounds stupid

      Trump’s Supreme Court picks would be chosen to circumvent the Constitution

      You also seem to have overlooked that the linked piece outright stated… =

      There is no doubt that Trump’s list of potential justices ? shrewdly released to calm conservatives jittery over his many heterodoxies ? is a good one.

      You seem to be caught in a paradox here = the *writers* are defending Trump’s picks! The commenters are bashing the writer. Ergo, by the law of retarded-syllogism, The Commenters are attacking Trump’s ‘conservative’ picks, and you have absolutely no basis for your accusation.

    2. As an added bitch-slap =

      when it comes to actual policy, is Hillary Clinton any less of a “Right-Wing Authoritarian”?

  42. When Hilliary wins, does Obama quick withdraw the Garland nomination so the Senate cannot quickly confirm him before Hilliary gets a chance to appoint the replacement in her watch? I guess the present GOP dominated Senate will have to look at their number of seats in the incoming Senate and make a decision on how likely they are to be able to stop Hilliary’s picks. You know damn well if the incoming Senate is Dem majority, all the rules will be changed to favor a 50+Kaine for all votes, veto upholdings, etc.

  43. Trump doesn’t know what his judicial philosophy is, Shikha herself says that. In fact, he doesn’t much know what his policies are going to be.

    Yet, Shikha has somehow channeled the Trump of Christmas-future to state definitively that he wants to turn the US into a kind of “national front worker paradise”. That’s absurd. In fact, it’s doubly absurd given that the other main motivations attributed to him are rooted in the exact opposite, namely enriching himself and billionaires.

    The article is garbage. Fact is, we don’t know who Trump would appoint. It seems unlikely to me that it would be worse than whoever Clinton comes up with, however. And the Senate has, after all, a say in the matter too.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.