Laura Ingraham: 'Bushism is Over,' Back Trump to Save SCOTUS

[mystery-ak]

http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.aspx/?nodeid=725949


Newsmax
Laura Ingraham: 'Bushism is Over,' Back Trump to Save SCOTUS
Tuesday, April 26, 2016 11:45 PM

By: Greg Richter

Conservatives at National Review and elsewhere may be mad that Donald Trump is going to be the Republican presidential nominee, but they must unite behind him for the good of conservatism, talk radio host Laura Ingraham told Fox News.

"Bushism is over. That is gone. There is no audience," Ingraham said of the failed candidacy of establishment favorite Jeb Bush.

Trump won decisive victories in five states Tuesday, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich no longer have a chance to win the nomination unless there is a contested convention.

National Review dedicated an issue to fighting Trump, but Ingraham said its staff now needs to worry about the future of the conservative movement. If television cameras see a party split at the convention in Cleveland, Hillary Clinton will win the White House, she said.

If that happens, "we have lost the Supreme Court for a lifetime," she said.

[ABX]

What in Trump's history shows he can be reliable or trustworthy for SCOTUS nominations? All he has shown is he'll make whatever deal makes himself popular and doesn't have a ideological foundation.

[Wingnut]

Even if the Oracle of Orange put forth several potential SCOTUS candidates he would concider as Pres....  Like AB said, the Great Pumpkin can not be trusted to follow thu.

[sinkspur]

Ben Shapiro ‏@benshapiro  12m12 minutes ago

Trumpsters: "#NeverTrump is too weak to stop the Trump Train!"
Trumpsters: "If Trump loses 43 states, that'll be #NeverTrump's fault!"


Ben Shapiro ‏@benshapiro  11m11 minutes ago

Trumpsters: We want to nominate a person everyone hates.
#NeverTrump: We won't vote for him.
Trumpsters: If he loses, that's your fault.

[cato potatoe]

Trump supporters have given us the only candidate with a 100% chance of losing the election.  They knew Scalia was going to be replaced in 2017.  They need to take ownership of the SCOTUS disaster, and stop browbeating the rest of us.  It's out of our hands now.

[Frank Cannon]

Trump will nominate garbage to the court because he will be "cutting deals" with his pals in the Rat party.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Not a Trump fan, but I think he will defer to more knowing people to elect SCROTUS candidates. He'll have to, because he knows jack squat about the SCROTUS. Like much else.

None of this matters, because according to polls someone from this forum is probably more  likely to hit Powerball than for Trump to win in November, assuming he is the nominee.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Trump will nominate garbage to the court because he will be "cutting deals" with his pals in the Rat party.

Upon what source are you basing this allegation?

[Bigun]

What in Trump's history shows he can be reliable or trustworthy for SCOTUS nominations? All he has shown is he'll make whatever deal makes himself popular and doesn't have a ideological foundation.

Exactly nothing!  IMHO his SCOTUS  nominations will be just as bad or worse than any Hillary would make!

[sinkspur]

Ben Shapiro ‏@benshapiro  32m32 minutes ago

Trumpsters: Romney lost because we didn't show up. That's not our fault. Also, if our man loses because you didn't show up, it's your fault.

[cato potatoe]

I'm going to throw this out there.  The Senate should consider hearings for Merrick Garland, with a tentative vote scheduled for post-election.  He will be 64 in November, and by some accounts he holds moderate views.  Hillary will almost certainly find a 40 year old clone of Ginsberg. 

On the one hand, it could mitigate the damage of Scalia's passing, and on the other, it would most certainly anger the base.  It's a disastrous situation either way. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I'm going to throw this out there.  The Senate should consider hearings for Merrick Garland, with a tentative vote scheduled for post-election.  He will be 64 in November, and by some accounts he holds moderate views.  Hillary will almost certainly find a 40 year old clone of Ginsberg. 

On the one hand, it could mitigate the damage of Scalia's passing, and on the other, it would most certainly anger the base.  It's a disastrous situation either way.

 

Been saying this for a while. Not holding hearing for this guy is basically assuming we win in November. Which is far from a sure thing... quite the opposite really.

Can't wait for the Hillary's genderfluid Muslim vegan supreme court justice.

[sinkspur]

I'm going to throw this out there.  The Senate should consider hearings for Merrick Garland, with a tentative vote scheduled for post-election.  He will be 64 in November, and by some accounts he holds moderate views.  Hillary will almost certainly find a 40 year old clone of Ginsberg. 

On the one hand, it could mitigate the damage of Scalia's passing, and on the other, it would most certainly anger the base.  It's a disastrous situation either way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/04/25/the-leader-of-the-opposition-to-merrick-garland-explains-why-hell-never-be-on-the-supreme-court/

Why the effort to keep Merrick Garland off the Supreme Court has been remarkably successful

[Free Vulcan]

I'm going to throw this out there.  The Senate should consider hearings for Merrick Garland, with a tentative vote scheduled for post-election.  He will be 64 in November, and by some accounts he holds moderate views.  Hillary will almost certainly find a 40 year old clone of Ginsberg. 

On the one hand, it could mitigate the damage of Scalia's passing, and on the other, it would most certainly anger the base.  It's a disastrous situation either way.

They could probably do it right after the nominations to see who we got for candidates.

[HAPPY2BME]

She's right.

And she's pained a large bullseye on her back.

The neocon progressive committee is out to cut her legs off at her knees and feed them to the hogs.

[geronl]

This is completely insane.

Trump will appoint very liberal justices, because he is a liberal

[jmyrlefuller]

I've said it before, and I wish I didn't have to say it again.

No, he won't save SCOTUS.