It's the Supreme Court, stupid -- Hugh Hewitt

[LonestarDream]

The first two arguments are negatives. But there is a positive case for Donald Trump, a third prong in the case for working for Trump's election: He brings 3,000 political appointees with him, and the first two — Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as VP and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has chief of the transition — telegraph that the vast majority of his team in the executive branch (and his appointees on the courts) will be conservatives.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/its-the-supreme-court-stupid/article/2598256

[Night Hides Not]

Hugh, here are three reasons why SCOTUS as an issue falls flat with me:

1. John Roberts - Obamacare
2. David Souter - Kelo
3. Anthony Kennedy - too many too mention

Trump changes his views depending on what day it is. Sorry, just don't buy it anymore.

[guitar4jesus]

Hugh, here are three reasons why SCOTUS as an issue falls flat with me:

1. John Roberts - Obamacare
2. David Souter - Kelo
3. Anthony Kennedy - too many too mention

Trump changes his views depending on what day it is. Sorry, just don't buy it anymore.

Not only that but how can anyone be so blind to actually take anything he says at face value.  He's a proven liar and he continues to lie.

[skeeter]

We have to vote for the GOP because the democrat would be so much worse. Got it.

Bottom line is while this election started out with great promise we conservatives end up once again having our votes extorted by the party.

[jmyrlefuller]

Hugh, here are three reasons why SCOTUS as an issue falls flat with me:

1. John Roberts - Obamacare
2. David Souter - Kelo
3. Anthony Kennedy - too many too mention

Trump changes his views depending on what day it is. Sorry, just don't buy it anymore.

In fairness to Kennedy, he was only a compromise choice after the Senate refused to accept Bork—and I would prefer the likes of Kennedy, despite his open catering to the alphabet soup lobby, to the likes of Roberts, who is a corporatist to the core and who is hesitant to change the status quo even if it is beyond the scope of what our government is supposed to be.

Trump, who is a corporatist at his own core because that's what made him rich, would nominate people like Roberts.

Clinton, of course, would nominate more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs.

(Johnson, in the unlikely event he did get the post, would likely nominate the likes of Kennedy.)

There isn't one person in this year's field who would nominate people like Scalia (that is, unless you think Darrell Castle has a legitimate chance of winning); I'm not saying this just because I want to see a court full of Scalias, but there was a delicate balance for a good 20-plus years on the court, one that is now ever so slightly in the left's favor and will move even moreso if a staunch conservative isn't put on there to offset the rest of the court.

It's not going to be pretty.

[Silver Pines]

Trump said he doesn't much care if the Senate goes Democrat.  Anyone who thinks he would actually appoint decent judges is dreaming.

[Night Hides Not]

Trump said he doesn't much care if the Senate goes Democrat.  Anyone who thinks he would actually appoint decent judges is dreaming.

Anything the Donald says is as indelible as anything you'll find in an "Etch a Sketch." One shake of the tablet, and poof, it's gone.

[TomSea]

Some strong 2nd amendment types make the point that if Hillary wins, we will have strict gun control.

I consider it a scare tactic but that is on all sides really.

[Silver Pines]

Anything the Donald says is as indelible as anything you'll find in an "Etch a Sketch." One shake of the tablet, and poof, it's gone.

Very true.  He's devoid of principles, and his sole ideology is self-interest.

[geronl]

This is why I oppose liberals like Trump and Clinton.

[geronl]

Some strong 2nd amendment types make the point that if Hillary wins, we will have strict gun control.

I consider it a scare tactic but that is on all sides really.

No-Fly, No-Buy would be the end of the 2nd amendment, and Trump supported it.

[geronl]

Trump only said he would replace Scalia with a like minded jurist. 

his word ain't worth spit

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Hugh, here are three reasons why SCOTUS as an issue falls flat with me:

1. John Roberts - Obamacare
2. David Souter - Kelo
3. Anthony Kennedy - too many too mention

Souter was all Bush thought he could get through.

Roberts and Kennedy both have been wrong on a lot of cases -- Kennedy especially.  But they've also been right on a lot of case, including Heller, he immigration case, the Clean Air regs case, and especially Citizens United....  Just because Roberts was wrong on Obamacare doesn't make him the equivalent of Sotomayor, and to gloss over that distinction is to give away some very important issues, including the freedom of political speech that was barely restored in Citizens United.  If we lose that, we're done.

[LonestarDream]

And these justices have some decisions that have been ok as opposed to the guaranteed positions of the lock step left. 

What amazed me is that Hewitt was the one who 'got' Trump on the 'Triad'.  Trump attacked Hewitt's ratings too.

And yet.

Hewitt comes out with this deep analysis. 

Souter was all Bush thought he could get through.

Roberts and Kennedy both have been wrong on a lot of cases -- Kennedy especially.  But they've also been right on a lot of case, including Heller, he immigration case, the Clean Air regs case, and especially Citizens United....  Just because Roberts was wrong on Obamacare doesn't make him the equivalent of Sotomayor, and to gloss over that distinction is to give away some very important issues, including the freedom of political speech that was barely restored in Citizens United.  If we lose that, we're done.

[Night Hides Not]

Souter was all Bush thought he could get through.

Roberts and Kennedy both have been wrong on a lot of cases -- Kennedy especially.  But they've also been right on a lot of case, including Heller, he immigration case, the Clean Air regs case, and especially Citizens United....  Just because Roberts was wrong on Obamacare doesn't make him the equivalent of Sotomayor, and to gloss over that distinction is to give away some very important issues, including the freedom of political speech that was barely restored in Citizens United.  If we lose that, we're done.

Fair enough. I never compared Roberts to Sotomayor. I'm just saying that I don't have the confidence in Trump to appoint judges that are any better than previous Republican presidents, whose track records have been spotty. Is the Court important? Undoubtedly. If that's the only reason to vote for Trump, I'm not buying.

Until he exorcises the petulant 9 YO boy that's living inside of him, Trump's not getting my vote. Hillary damn sure isn't getting my vote, so I have 3 months to work through this conundrum.