The surprising, subtle messages in Trump's SCOTUS shortlist

[Right_in_Virginia]

The surprising, subtle messages in Trump’s SCOTUS shortlist
New York Post; By Post Editorial Board; May 18, 2016

Donald Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees sends multiple messages — all smart, and some pretty subtle.

The main point, of course, was to reassure Republicans that he really would name a new justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia — someone who’d resist the temptation to read his or her own policy preferences into the Constitution and the law.

And, indeed, every name on the list has a solid record of “judicial restraint” — as well as sterling legal credentials.

But they’re not quite the usual credentials: Where the current high-court members are all graduates of Harvard or Yale Law School, only one such name is on Trump’s list.

OK: The law schools of Georgetown, Chicago and Michigan aren’t blue-collar, either. But it’s still a slap at the Ivy cartel.

And where most Supreme Court short- lists only feature judges already on the federal bench, five of Trump’s picks are state Supreme Court justices. That’s a strong shout-out to voters sick of the idea that the feds have all the answers.

Finally, three picks show real generosity of spirit: Diane Sykes is the ex-wife of talk-radio jock Charles Sykes, who helped Ted Cruz beat Trump in the Wisconsin primary. Allison Eid worked for Education Secretary Bill Bennett — who’s an idol of the neoconservatives at the core of #NeverTrump. And Don Willett has repeatedly tweaked Trump on Twitter.

Some will whine that this list commits him to nothing. They’re wrong: If a President Trump names a wildly different Scalia successor, he’ll face a revolt — just as George W. Bush did when he tried to put longtime friend Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court.

Mark it as another solid step toward uniting the party against Hillary Clinton.



http://nypost.com/2016/05/18/the-surprising-subtle-messages-in-trumps-scotus-shortlist/

[DiogenesLamp]

I am very pleased that Trump announced this list.    It did a great deal to reassure me of one of my primary concerns regarding him,   as well as being one of the main reasons I supported Ted Cruz. 



Hopefully this is a demonstration of his level of astuteness regarding the party to which he has recently become a member. 


Let us believe we have a dog in your fight,   and we will support you. 

[libertybele]

I am very pleased that Trump announced this list.    It did a great deal to reassure me of one of my primary concerns regarding him,   as well as being one of the main reasons I supported Ted Cruz. 



Hopefully this is a demonstration of his level of astuteness regarding the party to which he has recently become a member. 


Let us believe we have a dog in your fight,   and we will support you.

...that's it in a nutshell ..."which he has recently become a member".  He has stated what he needs to say in order to become the nominee and to hijack the GOP.  This isn't a demonstration of anything other than Trump's ability to sell himself to a very desperate citizenry.  I don't believe him for a nano second.

[RedHead]

What surprised me is that it took Trump until this morning to begin walking back the list:

"I thought what I would do is put this forward and this would be the list that I would either choose from or pick people very close in terms of the spirit and the meaning of what they represent," the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said in an hour-long interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity.

"We're either going to choose from this list or people very close to it," he said. "At a minimum, we will keep people from this general realm."

So why not just stick with the folks on the list?

[Right_in_Virginia]

TTTT

[Mechanicos]

What surprised me is that it took Trump until this morning to begin walking back the list:

"I thought what I would do is put this forward and this would be the list that I would either choose from or pick people very close in terms of the spirit and the meaning of what they represent," the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said in an hour-long interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity.

"We're either going to choose from this list or people very close to it," he said. "At a minimum, we will keep people from this general realm."

So why not just stick with the folks on the list?

Where is the walk back? You do know that all 11 can be rejected by the senate and more like them will have to be nominated. Did you fantasize it meant anything else?