Supreme Court

Trump Will Torch the Supreme Court

Conservatives hoping Trump will be better than Hillary on SCOTUS are fooling themselves.

|

Many conservatives and libertarians are openly flirting with voting for Donald Trump because they fear ceding control of the Supreme Court to liberals. They reckon that Hillary Clinton's judicial appointments are guaranteed to be awful. Trump, on the other hand, despite all his flaws, has no reason to oppose originalist jurists committed to protecting limited government and constitutional checks and balances.

If it were any other candidate, this would be a reasonable argument. But this is Donald J. Trump we are talking about.

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 7th Circuit's Diane Sykes, who wrote a stellar opinion defending the First Amendment right of Americans to record police officers in public, and 10th Circuit's Neil Gorsuch, who attacked judicial deference to unconstitutional executive edicts. My personal favorite (for sentimental reasons) is Michigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young, who married my husband and me, and authored a fantastic opinion overturning the notorious Poletown ruling that permitted Detroit authorities to use the city's eminent domain powers to bulldoze a flourishing neighborhood to make room for a GM factory.

Still, it would be a mistake to put too much stock in Trump's list—and not only because he is an ignoramus who thinks judges "sign bills." 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.

It is 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.

It is unclear how many justices the next president will appoint, but if Clinton only fills the late Justice Antonin Scalia's vacant seat, she'll tip the Supreme Court in a liberal direction. That still does not justify the apocalyptic tone that some conservatives strike, notes Ian Tuttle of the National Review, far from a lefty rag.

That's because setting aside the high-profile cases that both sides use to rally their base, on a day-to-day basis, partisan disagreements don't affect the court all that much. Tuttle notes that between January 2012 and June 2014, the Supreme Court ruled against the Obama administration unanimously 13 times—on everything from recess appointments to abortion clinic "buffer zones." Nor was this an anomaly. Since 1995, more than 40 percent of cases were settled unanimously by the court.

Despite their ideological disagreements, justices are far more united than divided on the law. And presidents, by and large, have respected the independence of the judiciary and left the court alone to settle cases as it sees fit—with some notorious exceptions like FDR. He famously threatened to force justices who struck down the New Deal into retirement and "pack the court" with more pliant ones.

Trump would be FDR on steroids. He savaged Judge Gonzalo Curiel's "Mexican" heritage because the judge didn't dismiss the case against Trump University. If something as low stakes as this can set Trump off, imagine what he'll do if the Supreme Court takes up a challenge to a signature issue of his presidency? A Trump presidency is likely to be a rolling wave of one manufactured constitutional crisis after another.

That, however, isn't likely to be President Trump's worst damage.

To the extent that Trump has a vision for the GOP, it is along the lines of Europe-style workers' parties (his term) such as France's National Front. This is an authoritarian, nationalistic, right-wing party whose main goal is to aggressively realign the economy around the interest of domestic workers by fanning the fires of xenophobia and protectionism. George Mason University's Ilya Somin points out that such a party will have no use for federalism, separation of powers, and individual rights. To the contrary, such commitments are likely to be an impediment to its goals.

It is unclear what the full contours of Trump'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.

If Trump succeeds in remaking the GOP in accordance with his vision, the party's judicial philosophy will change accordingly. The Constitution may not be a living document, but it also not writ carved in stone. It is a malleable text, which is always open to interpretation. There is nothing in it that says originalism is the correct approach. So don't expect Trump's GOP to die on the cross of originalism. Far more likely, says Somin, is that it'll embrace "judicial deference"—or the view that the proper function of courts is to defer to the political branches, not necessarily keep each branch within its constitutional limits. That would be much more convenient for the GOP's new agenda and there are plenty of judges who are inclined to this view already, he says. And the transformed GOP is likely to elevate them and marginalize originalists in the Age of Trump.

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.

The tragedy is that by the time Trump burns it all down, the GOP might well be past the point of caring.

This column originally appeared in The Week.

NEXT: The Handful of Counties Still Imposing the Death Penalty Are a Constitutional Mess

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. Is anyone else rolling their eyes?

    1. Oh, yeah.

      1. My co-worker’s step-sister makes $97 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for six months but last month her paycheck was $14100 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go this website and click to tech tab to start your work… http://tinyurl.com/hhwe4zl

    2. *Lights the TDS signal*

    3. My eyes can’t roll far enough back in my head to illustrate how far up their own ass Shikha is. Hillary Clinton is demonstrably an anti-constitutionalist. Trump is a retarded blow hard.

      Not. Even. Close.

    4. No, facepalm.

      Good grief Shikha.

    5. I don’t roll my eyes at bedwetters. Because they really cannot help themselves, and that would make it rude.

    6. “Hey look, I know that his picks are actually quite reasonable from a conservative/libertarian perspective but he would be terrible for the supreme court because did you hear about his casino? Also, look at that hair!”

      Quality work, reason.

  2. “But Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia warns conservatives tempted to vote for him over Hillary Clinton because of that promise to think again. Hillary Clinton will be bad for the Constitution and originalism, no doubt. But Trump may well be worse.”

    Yikes.

  3. I think that support for my Fluff section has just doubled in the polls.

    1. Whatever the external threat a Clinton presidency represents to these ideas, the internal threat that Trump poses is far greater.

      If something as low stakes as this can set Trump off, imagine what he’ll do if the Supreme Court takes up a challenge to a signature issue of his presidency? A Trump presidency is likely to be a rolling wave of one manufactured constitutional crisis after another.

      Citation needed.

      1. Indeed. While I think Trump *could* be worse than Hillary, if a perfect shitstorm hit the world and the US, Hillary is guaranteed to gut the Constitution as much as possible, and will be focused on it. Trump is a clown with ADHD and unlikely to maintain any kind of focus long enough to have any policy at all. Will he appoint terrible judges and justices? Sure — but they will be terrible because of their crony attitude, not because they hate free speech and guns and work to shred every lat bit of individualism from the Constitution.

        The *only* thing which could make Hillary less worse than Trump is if her poor health kills her in the first few days in office, before she has a chance to do anything.

      2. Citation needed.

        I can only assume that, when Donald Trump is involved, the phrase *signature issue* can only be taken literally.

        If he tries to put the Trump name on top of the White House in huge gold letters and SCOTUS moves to stop him, as long as he’s only spending his own money, then they are violating his 1A rights and should be canned.

  4. Is this a repost? I’m suffering a powerful bout of deja vu.

    1. It’s gas and regurgitation, Brooksie. Pay it no mind; take some simethicone or some Pepto, and lay off the fibre otherwise if your discomfort persists. More importantly, how’s the neck of yours? What type of orthopaedic carpentry did you have done?

  5. But Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia warns…

    SD;DR

    1. Don’t you just love some words that have become very popular with the media as of late, like ‘warns!’, ‘slams!’, ‘rips!’? I guess that somehow those words are supposed to magically make journalists be taken more seriously. And then you actually read the article…

      1. +1 WATCH REASON’S SHIKHA DALMIA EVISCERATE DONALD TRUMP

        1. +1 MOAR BIGGER BUZZWORD!

        2. This. This. So much This.

        3. EPIC TAKEDOWN.

      2. My personal favourites are, “CRUSHES!”, “DESTROYS!”, and, “DEVASTATING!” when evaluating media drivel these days. Euro-Landia may be slanted Left Progressive generally, but they usually aren’t given to ridiculous hyperbole, most UK smut rags notwithstanding.

        1. There are typically better and less biased articles on some of the Brit rags than there are anywhere in the US media, outside of Reason.

          1. InterFax, Kiev Post (though they are prone to bedwetting), Pravda (yes, Pravda), and even Daily FAIL are more reputable and even-handed than most USA media. Sometimes moreso than even Reason these days.

            1. I’ll go on a limb and say you are not “passionate about social justice,” then…

              1. You don’t have to go very far out on that limb at all, Panny Z.-) “Social Justice,” almost always means, “GIMME YOUR SHIT! NOW!”

                1. Oh not always.

                  A lot of the time it simply means “SUBMIT TO YOUR BETTERS AND REPEAT THE LITURGY!”

        2. I want tits with my hyperbole.

      3. Don’t you just love some words that have become very popular with the media as of late, like ‘warns!’, ‘slams!’, ‘rips!’?

        See above. ‘signature’ just became my new favorite one.

        Barrack Obama’s *signature* issue is the ACA. In the article, in true Shikha backhanded-racist fashion, Trump has one of several signature issues.

        I’m officially calling for common sense signature control. Nobody needs more than two signature issues.

    2. Didn’t read it either. Came for the comments, but am fairly disappointed with them overall. I’m going to postulate that everyone’s so sick of Dalmia’s industrial-grade stupidity by now that the comments section is only a half-hearted attempt at broiling, leaving it undercooked and unpalatable.

      “SD;DR” is somewhat funny, though. Credit given where due.

  6. Eh, I am less worried about the justices that a President rump might appoint to SCOTUS, and I am more worried about his potential for executive actions.

    1. er, President Trump

      although President Rump isn’t half-bad either 🙂

    2. At least his executive action could lead to impeachment.

      1. Whereas Hillary’s executive actions, that she’s already come right out and said she’s going to partake of on a much greater scale than Obama has, won’t be. And that’s somehow better, right?

        1. Yes, but Trump could, might, may potentially possibly be worse. Even though there is nothing to actually realistically base such an assumption on.

          1. I don’t know if that is such an unjustified opinion.

            We know Hillary is hostile to big parts of the Constitution. Trump is *at best* ignorant of the whole damn thing. I think Trump would trade away big parts of it without even really giving it a second thought on what he is doing is constitutional or not. “That’s just what a strong leader would do” or some such.

            1. So, your worst-case scenario is Trump inadvertantly doing something Hillary will do intentionally?

              1. I think Hillary would intentionally shred parts of the Constitution.

                I think Trump would unintentionally (or perhaps intentionally, who knows) shred bigger, and different, parts of the Constitution.

                1. If the Constitution is so weak that some bumbling fool would trip and fall and wreck it, it’s probably not worth getting bent out of shape about.

              2. That’s about my opinion, except that because Trump is less focused and so ignorant, there remains a very small chance that he could be worse than Hillary. But this is like saying Hitler might have been worse than Stalin if he had left his generals alone so they actually beat Russia.

              3. There’s also the important distinction that the media will give Hillary a free ride, covering up every possible scandal, but not let Trump even sneeze without saying how terrible he is.

          2. Sure there is. He’s a Republican AND, and this is not a small and, has pretty much ignored and even insulted the PC crowd.

            1. “has pretty much ignored and even insulted the PC crowd.”

              Not really. On the PC *issues* of the day – transgender bathrooms and the like – Trump sides with the PC crowd. For Trump, being “anti-PC” just means giving *himself* a license to be rude.

              1. Here’s the thing though — on the substance of many so-called social justice issues, most people are generally sympathetic, if not fervently devoted to the exclusion of all else. The PC crowd is who they are because of their fervent, uncompromising devotion and their demands of complete fealty from the general public on issues that most people may feel sympathetic toward, but not think are terribly important in the context of the world at large.

                So saying that he’s sympathetic to some of these issues doesn’t put him outside the mainstream. But the PC crowd isn’t happy with tolerance or compromise anymore; they want control and domination over every aspect of the culture and political institutions, and Trump is absolutely a threat to that.

      2. Who is going to impeach a President Trump? His fellow Republicans in Congress? Yeah right.

        1. There are enough Republicans who would love to see him gone.

          1. When was the last time a president was impeached by a Congress controlled by the same party?

            1. Trump’s not a Republican.

              1. He’s a member of the Republican Party. If he is elected, it will be due to the support of those same Republican voters who also vote for Republican members of Congress.

                The reason why presidents aren’t impeached by a Congress controlled by the same party is that no party is big enough to accommodate such a wide schism among its members that would justify one faction at war with the other faction to the extent that impeachment would actually be on the table.

            2. So what? We obviously have different opinions on the subject.

        2. Yes, with the media backing them up. With Hillary? She gets a free pass no matter what and that’s one thing that makes her a hell of a lot scarier than Trump.

        3. In modern history which party, when faced with a President of their own party having been found to have committed serious breech of his duties, sent members of their own party to that President to inform him that he needed to resign the office?

          To say nothing of how the media presented the issues regarding each President to the public.

          1. Also consider which current candidate has a large portion of the judiciary lined up to support whatever un Constitutional efforts he or she might wish to employ.

            This entire article is nothing more than Dalmia saying “pay no attention to the progressives behind the curtain.”

      3. And I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. Trump’s fanbase of supporters WANT him to commit overreaching executive actions, just as long as they punish the left and implement the Trumpist agenda. Republicans that would attempt impeaching Trump over that would be themselves tossed out in the next election by those same voters.

        1. I see that your handle is related to the vast quantities of mind-altering chemicals you obviously consume.

          1. Who is more popular in the Republican Party right now, Paul Ryan or Donald Trump?

            If Paul Ryan tried to impeach Donald Trump, who do you think would win out in the end among Republicans?

            1. Your confusion on this might be the issue. Let me try to help. Trump is more popular with the public, yes. The public are pretty pissed off with the political establishment, at least on the right. Ryan is the face of the GOP establishment. And like the Dem establishment, the latter does not give a fucking rat’s ass what the public thinks.

              And then you have this. The media are out to get Trump, and they will have no mercy on him, on a daily basis, 24/7 if he is president.

              Yes, the GOP congress we have now would absolutely impeach Trump no matter what their constituents think about it. They’re already in the shit can and they aren’t getting out anytime soon.

              1. “Yes, the GOP congress we have now would absolutely impeach Trump no matter what their constituents think about it.”

                They would instantly lose their jobs at the next election if they were to attempt to do so, because – as I mentioned – the people who would vote for Trump are the *same people* who would stay at home and refuse to vote for their R Congresscritters – or vote for the Democrat – should they attempt to impeach their Dear Leader.

                They value their own jobs more than any sort of make-believe principle they might invent in order to oppose Trump. Why else do you think the incumbency rate is so high?

                Let me put it this way. The same people who couldn’t be bothered to impeach Obama over far more serious actions, would impeach Trump instead? You have got to be kidding me.

                “Oh, but the Republicans in Congress actually secretly agree with Obama, they just lie about it at election time”. Well if that is your argument – and I have heard that one a lot – the I hate to break it to you, but Trump’s ideology and Obama’s ideology have about an 80% overlap. They agree on most major issues. If Republicans are really just closet Democrats agreeing with Obama, then why would they not roll over and submit to Trump’s agenda?

                1. I have a feeling this is Eddie Munster’s last term as speaker anyway. He’s now more unpopular than orange man was when he fled.

                  1. Probably. So if Trump is elected, and if Paul Ryan steps down as Speaker, who do you think is going to replace him? Hint: It will be someone who is far more comfortable with Trump than Paul Ryan is. Because *that is where the Republican voters are*.

                    Republicans are not going to impeach one of their own. Just like Democrats are not going to impeach one of their own.

          2. I don’t think it’s worked out well for him. Maybe he should talk to Agile.

  7. 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.

    Har-dee-fucking-har.

    1. Because handing the keys to someone in a fire suit with a flamethrower won’t be nearly as bad. Jesus Christ, Dalmia is fucking ridiculous.

  8. Isn’t this “Trump Eats Babies” piece a rerun?

    Didn’t we do this already?

    Yeah, the point is “originalism”.

    Hillary has promised to specifically go after the First Amendment by way of Citizens United if she’s elected, and she’ll also specifically target justices for nomination who are hostile to our Second Amendment rights.

    With Trump, on the other hand, you may not get a candidate that’s all about defending our First Amendment and Second Amendment rights by way of supporting Citizens United and Heller, but that’s the difference between Donald accidentally stepping on your toes and Hillary chasing you down with a hatchet.

    P.S. If originalism is what you’re worried about, it’s not like Hillary’s the horse you should bet on either.

    1. It’s just pussy grabbing all the way down.

    2. “Hillary has promised to specifically go after the First Amendment by way of Citizens United if she’s elected, and she’ll also specifically target justices for nomination who are hostile to our Second Amendment rights.”

      Well, true. But we would be naive I think to assume that Trump wouldn’t deliberately pick judges that would agree with him on his issues. For instance it isn’t hard to imagine that Trump would pick a judge who would rubber-stamp his “Law And Order” agenda vis a vis the Fourth Amendment.

      I think Hillary is *explicitly* worse when it comes to the Constitution, but they are both pretty damn awful.

      1. “Well, true. But we would be naive I think to assume that Trump wouldn’t deliberately pick judges that would agree with him on his issues.”

        I don’t know what “law and order” means exactly.

        I know what Heller is about.

        Whatever Trump would do for “law and order” wouldn’t be for the specific purpose of extinguishing certain rights.

        Hillary Clinton wants to do to our Second Amendment rights what O.J. Simpson did to Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

        P.S. Yeah, I also care more about some rights rather than others.

        1. “Whatever Trump would do for “law and order” wouldn’t be for the specific purpose of extinguishing certain rights.”

          No, it would just extinguish certain rights as a side effect, not as the main objective.

          Look we already know how this sort of thing plays out. The last time “law and order” was a really big issue, back in the late 80’s/early 90’s, both Republicans and Democrats fell all over themselves to ramp up the drug war, hand out buckets of funding to law enforcement agencies, and lock more and more people up for longer and longer periods of time. And all of this was detrimental to our Fourth Amendment rights.

  9. “If Trump succeeds in remaking the GOP in accordance with his vision, the party’s judicial philosophy will change accordingly.”

    Well, THIS much is true anyway.

    The right’s view of the Constitution has moved decidedly away from Originalism, and more towards “it starts and ends with the Second Amendment”

    1. Actually, ‘starts and ends with the 2nd amendment’ is an almost prophetic type statement. But you wouldn’t be aware of that, I’m sure.

      1. Oh I know I know, “the Second Amendment guarantees all the rest”, and all that. But a great many on the right are at best indifferent to huge swaths of the rest of the Constitution.

        1. Both teams are almost completely indifferent to the constitution now.

        2. No, that’s just a meme put out by the left. The only reason the right mainly defends the 2nd is because the left constantly assaults it.

    2. “If Trump succeeds in remaking the GOP in accordance with his vision, the party’s judicial philosophy will change accordingly.”

      Trump can’t even get Paul Ryan to say in public that he’ll vote for Trump.

    1. Hillary has displayed superhuman strength in the face of disgusting, unfair, and false attacks on her character and judgment.

      And in the face of the totally fair and true attacks on her character and judgment, too!

      1. Yes, having the media doing the debates, 100% in your pocket to the extent of blatantly trying to help you during the debates, that is some rough shit. Poor Hillary. What are they going to do next, put her in a shark tank with Donald controlling the sharks?

        1. You forgot the “lasers.”

      2. Hillary has displayed superhuman strength in the face of disgusting, unfair, and false attacks on her character and judgment.

        Which superhuman? Christopher Reeves of course!

  10. Dalmia is secretly trying to trick Leftists into becoming libertarian.

    E.g. “Yeah, fuck Trump! Wait, what’s this about FDR and this Tuttle fellow?”

    1. They could probably actually be tricked into that. The left tricked liberals into becoming full on authoritarian leftists. IOW, they’re not too smart.

      1. Moreso bribed and strong armed than cleverly tricked, Hyp. Also, brainwashing from birth doesn’t exactly hurt recruitment either.

        1. Yeah, and then there’s keeping them in an infantilized state well into adulthood. That seems to be the final step. No wonder they want everyone to attend indoctrination camp college.

  11. Even dictator Obama doesn’t get his latest SC pick through the Senate, so there is that.

    1. Yeah, but there’s no way the next president is not going to get to pick at least one justice. And possibly 2. RBG is older than dirt.

  12. how’s the neck of yours? What type of orthopaedic carpentry did you have done?

    An anterior cervical corpectomy. They chopped and channeled c4 and removed the adjoining discs, then fused the remaining vertebrae with an extremely cute* titanium gusset. Everybody should have one.

    *It shows up in fine detail in the xrays.

    1. OUCH! DJD?

  13. I am improving, but impatient.

    1. I am glad to hear this, my friend. Keep on keeping on. Titanium huh? Aren’t you the Mr. Fancypants!

  14. Trump would be FDR on steroids.

    Or, at least, on legs.

    He savaged Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s “Mexican” heritage because the judge didn’t dismiss the case against Trump University.

    “Savaged”, huh? First of all: way to other the differently civilized, Shik. Second of all, I’m going to repost Trump –

    He is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he’s got bias. I want to build a wall. I’m going to build a wall. I’m doing very well with the Latinos, with the Hispanics, with the Mexicans, I’m doing very well with them, in my opinion. And we’re going to see, you’re going to see, because you know what, I’m providing jobs. Nobody else is giving jobs. But just so you understand, this judge has treated me very unfairly, he’s treated me in a hostile manner. And there’s something going on.

    – and maybe you can ferret out the savagery in that quote. I sure can’t.

    1. Yeah, but… but… then he grabbed it by the leg! … uhmm, I mean he grabbed something pussy like!

    2. Remember when the lefties went after Justice Thomas because his wife was politically active?

      And now they say its totally unfair to go after a judge who is himself politically active?

    3. I don’t understand the whole judge thing. Here is Latina Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor explicitly saying what Trump is saying. Which of them is wrong and why?


      New York Times: A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record

      Quote:
      In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, then an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”
      “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor.

  15. Titanium huh? Aren’t you the Mr. Fancypants!

    Held in place with titanium screws which look exactly like large coarse thread deck screws.

    They advised me not to ski this year, which is going to suck. I had eight inches of snow on my deck yesterday.

    The real damage was mostly limited to my left arm; the doctors all seemed baffled that I wasn’t a lot more fucked up from the impingement on my spinal cord. Dumb luck is better than no luck at all.

    1. Ouch. Get well soon.

  16. You know, Shikha’s perpetual hyperventilating over Trump makes me think: she already got fooled once, in a very public and humiliating fashion, by a fake Trump tweet. Is it possible that she’s been following a fake twitter account for the past 18 months or so and has been reacting as though those tweets are real? Like no one explained to her that all the other tweets were also fake?

  17. For years I have been reading Shika rant and rave about how authoritarian and awful Republicans are. Along comes Trump and now Republicans are these liberty loving babes in the woods who are being taken over by the evil Trump.

    Does she realize how ridiculous she sounds? Meanwhile. Hillary Clinton said in so many words during the last debate she planned to use her judicial appointments to effectively repeal the first two amendments of the BOR. Shika seems to be unbothered by that for some reason.

    1. Is it safe to conclude that Dalmia is no friend of the BoR?

  18. And remember, the real authoritarian danger is Trump not Hillary, the person who has such control over the FBI and DOJ that she is now effectively above the law. Again, Shika is so worried about authoritarianism yet didn’t say a single word about the corruption of DOJ and FBI by Democrats.

  19. DJD?

    Stenosis, they say, which is apparently a species of arthritis.

    Possibly, in part, the long term effects of football/lacrosse injuries from 40 years ago.

    1. Yeppers, and can be a rather nasty one, depending on which foramen or area is narrowing. Sounds like you dodged a major paralysis bullet there, Brooksie. Godspeed.

  20. Jeesh, who grabbed Dalmia’s pussy? I thought she said she was into that kind of shit anyways.

    1. If she ever bothered to get half as upset at Democratic abuses, someone might take her bitches about Trump seriously.

      1. She’s just upset that he opposes importing half of India to replace white people.

  21. Does Shikha fervently believe Trump is winning this election?

  22. Question for the commentariat:

    When they announce the winner, will you be more sad/angry/disappointed/ etc. if the winner is Trump, or Clinton?

    1. When they announce the winner, will you be more sad/angry/disappointed/ etc. if the winner is Trump, or Clinton?

      If Trump, I will sigh followed by uttering the phrase, “Well, it could have been worse.” Though I will get no small amount of joy watching the coverage of Hillary campaign HQ.

      If Clinton, I’ll scream into a pillow for 20 straight minutes before looking into migrating to the Faroe Islands.

    2. Yes.

    3. Trump will present problems, of course. They won’t be worse than the last two presidents we have had, but there will be problems.

      Hillary will be an unmitigated disaster, a train wreck that will go on and on and on seeming to never end. There is no aspect of a Clinton presidency that won’t cause tears. As my father said to me last night “If she gets in there she will steal everything in sight.” She will wreck the constitution, the rule of law, the economy, get us into more war, and engage in corruption that would make every leftist strongman in history turn green with envy.

      Given that I bet you can guess my answer on the first try.

      1. We could live without the stuff but what they most covet is power.

        So their ultimate desire and design is to convert the government into a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc.

    4. We’re fucked either way. Trump would have been more entertainment bang for the buck.

  23. “He [FDR] famously threatened to force justices who struck down the New Deal into retirement and “pack the court” with more pliant ones.”

    Not quite. Federal judges (and justices) have lifetime appointments. He couldn’t have forced any of them to retire without amending the Constitution. FDR’s “plan” would have allowed him to appoint additional justices, one for each justice over 70 1/2, though only with Senate approval. It was, of course, a terrible idea.

    1. You misspelt, “Anal,” again.

  24. I don’t agree with her premises on Trump, she has magical thinking,..she thinks she’s in his head, wrong..he is an outsider, like Reagan, not as well grounded in the constitution , but he’ll get there, and he has shown that already,..The October surprise was to cover up the emails,..and is just banter..find a guy who has not bragged..lol

    Bill did far worse, and the press gave him a pass,..think about the Hypocrisy here.

  25. The most powerful and convincing argument to vote Trump is the very certain danger Clinton poses vs Trump’s promise to nominate originalists. Naturally that argument must be attacked with a very forceful “Nu Uhh!”.

    1. And second thought…the press is flummoxed as to why the uninformed and compliant citizenry isnt buying their bullshit so much anymore. Clearly there are forces at work that cant be understood or explained. It cant possibly be that their bullshit is getting more and more transparent.

      Those pesky hoi polloi just don’t want to do what they are told. Keep believing that people are too stupid to know when they are being lied to and double down on your bullshit.

  26. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  27. But will he torch it worse than Hillary?

  28. just as Phyllis implied I didnt know that some people can profit $5059 in 1 month on the internet
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  29. “Since 1995, more than 40 percent of cases were settled unanimously by the court.”

    That means 60% were split decisions. The split decisions that pop into my mind from the last few years were atrocious from a protection of liberty/rollback of the state POV.

    I’ll take my chances with Hairman Booring vs. Bill’s wife…

  30. Interesting article. Hillary Clinton will appoint a neo-Marxist, anti-constitution jurist. How that is better is unclear to me.

  31. It is because a Trump presidency will have a transformative effect on the GOP itself

    Oh, please, stop bullshitting. Nobody knows what a Trump presidency would do, let alone do to the GOP. For that matter, nobody knows what a Hillary presidency would do to anybody.

  32. Shikha, take a valium and quit pretending you’re a libertarian.

  33. Shikha’s argument against Trump seems to rest on the fact that France’s National Front devalues the separation of powers and individual rights! In other words, don’t worry about what Trump does or says, just look at the National Front and that will tell you everything you need to know!

  34. Why does Gillespie let this cretin keep grinding out such crap?

  35. Trump Trump Trump trump trumpet trumpster join the fun. Vote for Hillary the libertarian everyone.

  36. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  37. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  38. He makes an interesting argument. Hillary will unquestionably appoint terrible justices to the Supreme Court. Trump might do the same thing or he might not. Therefore, you should vote for Hillary.

    It sounds like playing Russian roulette and having a choice of two revolvers. Hillary offers you one that has six chambers loaded. Trump offers you one with three chambers loaded. You should pick Hillary so you know what you’ll get.

    I say, “not no, but Hell no.”

  39. Peyton . even though Billy `s report is cool… on monday I got a gorgeous Maserati after I been earnin $8985 thiss month and even more than ten k lass month . it’s certainly the easiest work Ive ever had . I started this 9-months ago and practically straight away started bringin home at least $78 per-hr . look at this now

    ……………. http://www.jobhub44.com

  40. Peyton . even though Billy `s report is cool… on monday I got a gorgeous Maserati after I been earnin $8985 thiss month and even more than ten k lass month . it’s certainly the easiest work Ive ever had . I started this 9-months ago and practically straight away started bringin home at least $78 per-hr . look at this now

    ……………. http://www.jobhub44.com

  41. Matthew . I can see what your saying… Bobby `s storry is surprising, last saturday I got a brand new Land Rover Defender since I been making $4556 this past 5 weeks and more than ten-grand this past-month . this is definitely my favourite-job I have ever had . I began this 4 months ago and immediately made more than $71 per-hr . More Info
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  42. Bella . I can see what your saying… Jesus `s blurb is good, on wednesday I bought a new Lotus Elan after making $9196 this last 4 weeks an would you believe 10/k lass month . this is really the nicest work I’ve ever done . I started this 5 months ago and almost straight away brought home minimum $73.. per hour . read
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  43. This argument is the same one that has been played out in every facet of this election: trusting the unknown Trump vs. the known, irredeemable evil of Clinton. We get it. Two more lib justices and the 1st and 2nd amendments are trashed. Not to mention the 9th and 10th irreparably destroyed. I live in CA so my vote won’t matter anyway, but I’ll take my chances with President Combover.

  44. Anna . I see what you mean… Virginia `s postlng is incredible, last tuesday I got a new Audi Quattro after having made $5000 this last 5 weeks and over 10k this past month . without a doubt it is the coolest work I have ever had . I started this seven months/ago and pretty much immediately started making minimum $85 per hour . view it
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  45. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  46. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    ……………… http://www.jobprofit9.com

  47. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  48. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  49. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  50. While coming to education, the technology has brought many advantages to students and as well as teachers. showbox For example, students can do their homework or assignment with ease and can complete it faster by using the Internet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.