Originalists Against Trump

[FromWayDowntown]

When the devoted originalists (i.e., Scalia acolytes) are expressly willing to cede the Courts -- and the Courts seem to be one of the arguments that continues to give Trump some traction -- to avoid everything else that would come along with a Trump presidency, we're in a very strange place. Note that this is not a group of nobodies, even if most of the electorate couldn't care less what they have to say; the list of signers to this statement is a roster of thinkers who are largely responsible for curating the originalist position from an intellectual and philosophical standpoint.

From their statement:

Many Americans still support Trump in the belief that he will protect the Constitution. We understand that belief, but we do not share it. Trump’s long record of statements and conduct, in his campaign and in his business career, have shown him indifferent or hostile to the Constitution’s basic features—including a government of limited powers, an independent judiciary, religious liberty, freedom of speech, and due process of law.

* * * *

We also understand the argument that Trump will nominate qualified judicial candidates who will themselves be committed to the Constitution and the rule of law. Notwithstanding those he has already named, we do not trust him to do so. More importantly, we do not trust him to respect constitutional limits in the rest of his conduct in office, of which judicial nominations are only one part.

Whatever reasons there might be to support Donald Trump, the Constitution is not among them.

We are under no illusions about the choices posed by this election—or about whether Hillary Clinton, were she elected, would be any friend to originalism. Yet our country’s commitment to its Constitution is not so fragile that it can be undone by a single administration or a single court. Originalism has faced setbacks before; it has recovered. Whoever wins in November, it will do so again.

https://originalistsagainsttrump.wordpress.com

[Oh, Gee!!]

cuckservatives /sarc

[hater]

Blah, blah, blah we are neocons who support Shillary

[Winehole23]

your beloved and obsessively predicted WWIII will never come to pass without them...are you trying to egg them on?

[SnakeBoy]

Yet our country’s commitment to its Constitution is not so fragile that it can be undone by a single administration or a single court. Originalism has faced setbacks before; it has recovered. Whoever wins in November, it will do so again.


These are the same people who have spent the last 8 years telling voters exactly the opposite.

[rmt]

These are the same people who have spent the last 8 years telling voters exactly the opposite.

They just don't want Trump. They must know that the next president could nominate 4 justices and if relatively young, they could serve for 40 years and forever change the balance of the SC.

[FromWayDowntown]

They just don't want Trump. They must know that the next president could nominate 4 justices and if relatively young, they could serve for 40 years and forever change the balance of the SC.

That's precisely what their statement says. They know that the next President will likely swing the Supreme Court; they seem to prefer that to the idea of President Trump.

Whether you agree with it or not, it's a principled position. It's certainly not one that's in the best interests of their chosen legal philosophy.

[rmt]

That's precisely what their statement says. They know that the next President will likely swing the Supreme Court; they seem to prefer that to the idea of President Trump.

Whether you agree with it or not, it's a principled position. It's certainly not one that's in the best interests of their chosen legal philosophy.

How can it be a principled position when it's the opposite of what they have been telling the voters the past 8 years? How can they think that 4 years of Trump could possibly be worse than 40 years of a liberal court (if they are indeed conservative) unless they expect him to blow up the world and the world won't exist after Trump's presidency?

[boutons_deux]

"How can it be a principled position"

... because they see how nightmarishly HORRIBLE Trash is.

The right wing SCOTUS has been a disaster for America. Repugs/conservatives fuck America every chance they get.

[FromWayDowntown]

How can it be a principled position when it's the opposite of what they have been telling the voters the past 8 years? How can they think that 4 years of Trump could possibly be worse than 40 years of a liberal court (if they are indeed conservative) unless they expect him to blow up the world and the world won't exist after Trump's presidency?

It's principled precisely because they acknowledge that their position on originalism is unchanged, while recognizing that insisting upon their position may not be conducive to accomplishing the greatest good. That is, they are concerned with things other than just furthering their position and standing against Trump -- to them -- is more important than hoping for the fulfillment of their philosophy.

I think they also recognize that Trump doesn't guarantee their sorts of constitutionalists on the Court. As they say, the notion that Trump has any particular interest in or love for the Constitution is readily belied by both his professional actions and his campaign rhetoric.

Besides, if conservatives were truly interested in avoiding a generational shift at the Supreme Court, they would have nominated a serious candidate. ANY serious Republican candidate -- even someone as roundly disliked by non-conservatives as Ted Cruz -- would be demolishing Clinton at this point.

[boutons_deux]

"would be demolishing Clinton at this point"

bullshit, and apart from the Repug shitstorm that they don't, can't have "serious" candidates, the tea baggers/Freedom caucus/racist-base won't allow it.

[FromWayDowntown]

"would be demolishing Clinton at this point"

bullshit, and apart from the Repug shitstorm that they don't, can't have serious candidates because the tea baggers/Freedom caucus/racist-base won't allow it.




If you say so. Without the distraction of the Bush-Trump tape, this was an even race and that's with Trump's unfavorables rivaling -- at least at the point that Trump himself was revealed to be so utterly despicable -- Clinton's.

The surmise that a different candidate - one who could focus this campaign on policy differences (instead of his own moronic behavior), who could stay on message without be goaded into looking foolish with tirades of insults, and who could take advantage of the original lack of enthusiasm from Bernie's Brigade for Hillary -- would have a sizable lead isn't particularly far-fetched.

I agree that the dynamics of the GOP have made it difficult for a candidate who would even appear to be a conservative-in-centrist-clothing to win a national nomination, so the hypothetical remains just that. But if they had somehow nominated Kasich or Rubio, I think the odds are substantial that Hillary would be behind in all the red states and would be behind in many of the battlegrounds (including either Florida or Ohio, and probably Pennsylvania and Michigan).

[rmt]

Trump has already put out a list and promised that he will only nominate from that list. From most accounts, the list is made up of very conservative judges who should suit their principles. That is some convoluted reasoning when the SC is the last word on our laws. What do you think they think Trump by himself (without the help of Congress) could do to be so much worse than 40 years of a liberal court (to them)?

These originalists are not the voters who are sick and tired of what is going on in DC and who nominated Trump.

[FromWayDowntown]

Trump has already put out a list and promised that he will only nominate from that list. From most accounts, the list is made up of very conservative judges who should suit their principles.

Nothing actually binds Trump to that list (other than perhaps his own pragmatism in hoping to be re-elected) and suggestions have already circulated that Trump would consider others not actually mentioned on his list.

As we know by now, Trump seems to think that any contract or agreement can be re-negotiated at any time and ignored if fulfillment is not in his own interest.

[FromWayDowntown]

These originalists are not the voters who are sick and tired of what is going on in DC and who nominated Trump.

Obviously. It doesn't mean that their viewpoint is invalid; if anything, they're more knowledgable about weighing the relative peril of a Trump presidency (conjecture) or a Clinton Supreme Court (well-informed conjecture on their part), and believe that the risk of a Clinton Supreme Court is less perilous than the risk of a Trump presidency.

If you think they're wrong, tell them. I'm sure they'll be very happy to hear from you.

[DMC]

House and Senate more important, less visible it seems.