Glenn Beck: Electing Hillary Clinton ‘Is a Moral, Ethical Choice’

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Garland is the best conservatives are going to get given the obvious outcome of the election. I don't doubt for a minute Obama will throw him under the bus to cement a liberal majority on the SC for at least a generation. Scalia's unfortunate and untimely passing was more the exception than the rule in recent court history. The Chief has considerable internal power on the court and Roberts has shown that he will use that power to preserve his legacy.

I think Robert's decision in King v. Burwell undercuts the idea that Roberts will let the political branches sink or swim with crummy drafting.  And they certainly didn't follow his lead on Obergefell,

Garland while certainly not perfect, is orders of magnitude more judicially conservative than anyone Hilliary will nominate and a Democrat Congress will confirm in the next four years. I think the present GOP majority is sadly deluded to think Obama would not withdraw the nomination despite any promises he may have made...

Well, we'll have the opportunity to see how that comes out in just a few more weeks.

[240B]

I know nobody wants to hear this, least of all me, but no matter how anyone twists the reasons, Beck has done quite a bit to help the Hillary side over the last year.

I understand that it is not his intention. I understand that he does not support her. But from a purely logic based, outcome driven perspective, his impassioned and incessant campaigns against specifically Trump, can only help Hillary. That is a simple indisputable fact.

So the question is, two years from now when Queen Hillary's reign is in full blown 'raze the Constitution' mode, will he regret what he has done?

Hillary is ten times more anti-Christian than Trump, and many on the Left want religious doctrine to be labeled hate-speech and want to control all aspects of what a church can do and teach.

It seems to me that Beck would understand this since he has a bigger interest in this issue than most people do.

While I understand his feelings and convictions there are also real-life practical issues to consider. It is wise to remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[montanajoe]

I think Robert's decision in King v. Burwell undercuts the idea that Roberts will let the political branches sink or swim with crummy drafting.  And they certainly didn't follow his lead on Obergefell,

Well, we'll have the opportunity to see how that comes out in just a few more weeks.

There are always cases where we think a particular judge will decide in a particular way and he doesn't, but on the whole I think Roberts has been pretty consistent with the view he expressed in his confirmation hearings that he viewed his role as an umpire calling balls and strikes and not as a participant in the legislative game.

My concern is that by not confirming Garland before the election the GOP Senate is placing a sucker bet and is risking a getting a reasonably judicially conservative justice for a far more liberal justice after the election. A bird in the hand vs a bird in the bush you might say....

[Maj. Bill Martin]

My concern is that by not confirming Garland before the election the GOP Senate is placing a sucker bet and is risking a getting a reasonably judicially conservative justice for a far more liberal justice after the election. A bird in the hand vs a bird in the bush you might say....

Well, you're right in that they're taking a risk.  But realistically, if they confirmed Garland now, they'd have a rebellion by a lot of hard-line conservatives who 'd condemn them as RINO sellouts, and possibly withhold their votes in November.  I think politically, it's a stand they have to make, and then just hope that Obama is not willing to deny his nominee a seat on the Court.

[montanajoe]

Well, you're right in that they're taking a risk.  But realistically, if they confirmed Garland now, they'd have a rebellion by a lot of hard-line conservatives who 'd condemn them as RINO sellouts, and possibly withhold their votes in November.  I think politically, it's a stand they have to make, and then just hope that Obama is not willing to deny his nominee a seat on the Court.

You are right,  politically it would be almost impossible for them to do the smart thing, but when did anyone ever expect them to be particularly bright. 

The scenario I see playing out is that the Dims, knowing they will have a majority come January, will filibuster a vote on the nomination, saying its only fair that the next President gets to pick her own nominee...

[montanajoe]

I think Robert's decision in King v. Burwell undercuts the idea that Roberts will let the political branches sink or swim with crummy drafting.  And they certainly didn't follow his lead on Obergefell,

Actually both King and Obergefell illustrate my point.

In King he uses the well established rules of statutory construction (Chevron et al) to refuse to undo what congress did. He put litigant's on notice that bringing a case attempting to gut a major a recent decision of the Roberts Court is futile and he put Congress on notice that his Court is not going to do their job. They made it they need to fix it.

In Obergefell his dissent articulates his view of the Courts role in social issues making it clear that the Court was exceeding its Constitutional authority in deciding the issue.  He is "skeptical that the legal abilities of judges also reflect insight into moral and philosophical issues ... judges are unelected and unaccountable, and that the legitimacy of their power depends on confining it to the exercise of legal judgment ... attuned to the lessons of history, and what it has meant for the country and the Court when Justices have exceeded their proper bounds"

He may not always get the other Justices to go along with him but it is clear what direction he wants to take the Court. Having a Justice like Garland confirmed will make that a thousand times easier...

[Jazzhead]

You're right -- we may not.  Best historical example we have is Nixon, and Watergate.

After Nixon, the GOP brand was at its lowest point ever.  But what happened after voters punished us at the polls in '74 (especially) and '76?  We had a huge GOP tidal wave in 1980 because we had a different candidate/candidates.  I actually think the GOP leadership and various candidates have done enough to separate themselves from Trump overall (heck, even Hillary has said that Trump is an anomaly in the GOP) that our next round of candidates will get judged on their own merits, not Trump's. 

At least, I think that scenario is more likely than is Hillary not putting a vise-grip on national office for Democrats.  That's really the point for me -- that recovering from Trump is more likely than recovering from Hillary. 

I think we can likely recover from a Trump defeat.  Like you said,  even Hillary would admit he's an anomaly in the GOP,  and a clear repudiation of Trumpism at the polls will grease the skids for the alt-right to be purged just as they should have been in the first place (and would have been, back in my day).   

I'm not saying I'd elect him in order to impeach him.  I'm saying that if he crosses lines that shouldn't be crossed once election, then we can/should/will impeach him.

 He will have less institutional support in the other branches of government -- and in the military -- than any President in history.  The Democrats absolutely despise him and would likely vote for impeachment day one if they thought they could win.  More elected Republicans in Congress have affirmatively distanced themselves from Trump than from any candidate, ever.  You don't think Paul Ryan would support a vote for impeachment if Trump did something unconstitutional or criminal?  He'd call for that vote in a heartbeat -- much rather work with Pence.  Same If he were to win,  then sure, he'd be impeachable,  but at that point he will represent the GOP and conservative brands.  It's only by defeating him that the brands' reputation can be restored.   
with McConnell, and Pelosi/Schumer would happily board that train.  Trump would be toast.

How do you think he'd resist that?  Congress would vote to impeach him, the courts wouldn't back him - they're all filled with traditional GOP and Democratic appointees who also would have no particular love for Trump.  So what's his play when given the boot?  Call out the Marines?  I can assure you, they wouldn't play that game either.

If he were to win the election,  then sure, he'd be impeachable,  but at that point he will represent the GOP and conservative brands.  Maybe such impeachment would be easy, maybe it would be hard,  but at that point we'll have a monster on our hands put in office by the vote of a majority of voters.  Again - don't underestimate the tenacity of a man given that kind of power.   

It's only by defeating him in this election that our brands' reputation can be restored.   For most of this election season I was focused on nominating a candidate that could defeat Clinton.  In my opinion (and I understand and respect that you disagree) Trump's worse because Trump is existentially far more dangerous, especially to our national security because he's so damn crazy.   So my goal at this point is defeating Trump.   I think that's the better result for the nation, although it may really be just a choice of which orifice to be screwed in.   But I think the repudiation of Trumpism is absolutely necessary to save conservatism.   And not a close defeat either - a landslide, humiliating defeat is what is needed to cleanse the stables.

One thing I'll concede before a single vote is counted - if Trump is defeated I'll have no ill will towards those Republicans who've made the difficult choice that you will.  I've always been of the view that solidarity is a good thing,  and realize I'm breaking with that value for the first time in forty years.   In a lesser-of-two evils election, reasonable minds can differ as to who is the worse evil.   I say it's Trump, you say it's Clinton.   I'm voting my conscience in the face of a Hobson's choice, and so are you.  That's all one can reasonably expect of any citizen - take one's duty seriously and make a decision that lets you sleep at night.   

After this is all over,  I hope the clans can reconcile.  I hope to be able to do my part to accomplish that.           

[Chosen Daughter]

He's right, if only by reason of the explicit rejection of an alternative that is amoral and taints conservatism with its stink.

Its the moral choice if it is to save the Republican party from becoming the other left.  No we are not electing Bill Clinton but his filth will fill the White House.  Either way it disgusting.  One or the other and you know the White House turns dark.

http://observer.com/2007/10/eight-years-in-the-white-house-hillarys-dark-days-reexamined/