Trump Thread Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter XndrK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What say you, Trump fans?
And Trump might, indeed, appoint someone better. Might. His list of potential Supreme Court nominees, released under duress in May, is promising, if hardly foolproof. But it is also provisional. There simply is no reason to believe that the same Trump who has contradicted himself on amnesty for illegal immigrants, abortion, NATO, and much else, will stick to his assurances on this. Recall that this is the same man who — in February — suggested nominating his sister, who once wrote a decision defending partial-birth abortion. (Trump added at the time that he did not like people criticizing her “for signing a certain bill,” suggesting that a septuagenarian presidential candidate was very recently under the impression that judges sign bills.)
Click to expand...
But let’s say Trump abides by his word: In the short-term, then, the best-case scenario is that a President Trump picks a reliable conservative to replace Justice Scalia. Yet even this only maintains the status quo: four liberal justices, four conservative justices, and Anthony Kennedy, swinging in the middle. And this relies on the makeup of the Senate. If Republicans win the White House in November but lose the Senate, Democrats could force Trump to replace Scalia with a Kennedy-esque “moderate.” The possibility that Trump would get to appoint conservative justices to replace any of the oldest, left-leaning justices — Ginsburg (83), Kennedy (80), or Breyer (77) — is no more likely than that they would stick around until 2020.
Click to expand...
…]
Click to expand...
These concerns are not misplaced, but the apocalyptic tone misrepresents the Court’s actual, year-by-year activity. Consider: Between January 2012 and June 2014, the Supreme Court ruled against the Obama administration unanimously 13 times — on everything from recess appointments to abortion-clinic “buffer zones.” This was not an anomaly. Since 1995, almost every year has seen more than 40 percent of cases — that is, a plurality — decided unanimously; in 2013, it was two-thirds. (To be fair, there are different degrees of unanimity.) Meanwhile, only twice since 1995 have more than 30 percent of cases split 5-4.
Click to expand...
This suggests that the Court’s justices are more likeminded legally than political pundits often recognize. There are important swaths of agreement. This was demonstrated decisively in 2012 in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in which the Court unanimously ruled that federal discrimination laws do not apply to religious organizations’ ministerial-hiring decisions. Even the liberal wing of the Court has shown contempt for certain obvious acts of overreach.
Click to expand...
…]
Click to expand...
Conservatives often forget that the Supreme Court can only render decisions on cases presented before it. Disciplined conservative legal circles can curtail the Court’s power to establish national precedents by refusing to appeal to it. In the event of an irresponsible Supreme Court, invoking higher judgment on, say, a foolish Ninth Circuit ruling should be left for another, more hopeful day. This is not a panacea, but minimizing the Court’s opportunities to rule on key issues can minimize its damage. And it’s worth remembering that there is no such thing — contra Hewitt and Grudem — as a “permanent” liberal majority. The Burger Court turned into the Rehnquist Court. Considering the question judiciously, this — not the apocalyptic scenario painted by Trump supporters — seems the more likely outcome of a liberal Supreme Court. It would be a lousy period for constitutional governance, but not the end of it. What Trump supporters refuse to do is weigh it against another clear and present danger to our constitutional order: a President Donald J. Trump.
Click to expand...
Trump’s potential abuses are numerous — and, unlike most presidential hopefuls, widely advertised. He has suggested that he will prosecute journalists who write unfavorable stories about his administration. He is open to “shutting down” parts of the Internet. (Might this be a free-speech violation? Only “foolish people” would suggest that.) The prospective commander-in-chief has declared that he would force American troops to commit war crimes. And he has said that he has no qualms about using executive orders much like President Obama has done (only Trump’s will be “better”). Trump’s dismissiveness toward the Constitution is in excess of anything Barack Obama displayed in 2008 or 2012.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court Is Not a Sufficient Reason to Vote for Trump
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
Yeah. I’m really disappointed what’s happened the past several days. Paul Ryan, who I am very familiar with being close to my neck of the woods can’t even get an endorcement from Trump. I guess I can’t be surprised by this turn of events, but I’ll say this much - I’m back to leaning towards Darrell Castle (Constitution Party) at this point. 55/45 Castle/Trump at this stage.

Conservatism may already be done. The fact Trump got nominated tells me this.
Click to expand...
Trump is appearing with Ryan tomorrow and endorsing him
 
estesbob said:
Trump is appearing with Ryan tomorrow and endorsing him
Click to expand...
I’m not sure he wants Trump’s endorsement:
It’s not clear that Ryan is keen to receive Trump’s endorsement. He repeatedly told Wisconsin radio stations in recent days that he’s only seeking endorsements from the voters in his district, and a Ryan aide said he hadn’t received word as of early Friday afternoon of Trump’s plans.
Click to expand...
cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/donald-trump-endorse-paul-ryan/
 
I was watching the news this morning and it showed a poll that said Paul Ryan is polling at 80% in his district. His opponent has 14%.

If I’m Paul Ryan, I’m lining up the confetti machine because its gonna be a blow out.
 
Alex_H said:
Reading this article.

This election frustrates me. :banghead:
Click to expand...
Perhaps it should, but not because of that article. It’s a hit piece by some left-wing think tankers. That “Catholic Womens’ Forum” for example, criticizes Pope Francis for not ordaining women, asserts that abortion can sometimes be a virtue, and things of that sort.

It’s just your basic liberal Democrat organization, and the article is so massively inaccurate in so many ways, it can’t be regarded as anything but DNC propaganda.
 
Alex_H said:
I was watching the news this morning and it showed a poll that said Paul Ryan is polling at 80% in his district. His opponent has 14%.

If I’m Paul Ryan, I’m lining up the confetti machine because its gonna be a blow out.
Click to expand...
Best to stick to the teachings of the Magestrium none of whom signed the letter
 
_Abyssinia said:
“BREAKING: Clinton’s lead over Trump narrows to less than 3 percentage points in presidential race - Reuters/IPSOS”

twitter.com/reuterspolitics/status/761673611241517056
Click to expand...
One poll doesn’t mean much. If you look at Five Thirty Eight’s Polls-only forecast which relies on a number of polls, Clinton has an 81.5% chance of winning to Trump’s 18.4%. The Now-cast is even more skewed in Clinton’s favor giving her a 91.7% chance of winning to Trump’s 8.3% if the election were held today.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now
 
Thorolfr said:
One poll doesn’t mean much. If you look at Five Thirty Eight’s Polls-only forecast which relies on a number of polls, Clinton has an 81.5% chance of winning to Trump’s 18.4%. The Now-cast is even more skewed in Clinton’s favor giving her a 91.7% chance of winning to Trump’s 8.3% if the election were held today.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now
Click to expand...
So do you not believe Five Thirty Eight’s analysis?

Like if Hillary wins in November, will you admit that Five Thirty Eight was right?

I thought that Five Thirty Eight had a pretty good track record for predicting these things.
 
Alex_H said:
So do you not believe Five Thirty Eight’s analysis?

Like if Hillary wins in November, will you admit that Five Thirty Eight was right?

I thought that Five Thirty Eight had a pretty good track record for predicting these things.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do believe in Five Thirty Eight’s analysis and think that she will win. I was just responding to Abyssinia’s posting of something about a Reuters/IPSOS poll that supposedly shows Clinton’s lead narrowing.
 
Thorolfr said:
Yes, I do believe in Five Thirty Eight’s analysis and think that she will win. I was just responding to Abyssinia’s posting of something about a Reuters/IPSOS poll that supposedly shows Clinton’s lead narrowing.
Click to expand...
:doh2:

Totally misread your post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top