Hillary has basically promised to nominate justices who would gut the First and Second Amendments. She would create the most prolonged period of judicial lawlessness since the Warren era.
Carrie Severino
August 1, 2016
Is SCOTUS a Good Reason to Support Trump? Libertarian and Conservative Legal Experts Weigh In
[Via email from Mike B.—Joe]
As a comment I saw recently expresses it, the election basically comes down to a choice between the devil we know (Hillary) and the one we don’t (Donald). And the question of whether the devil we know could possibly be worse that the one we do. My inclination is to say no, he could not possibly be worse.
The other concern is why Donald is working so hard to ensure his own defeat.
That’s basically where I’m sitting. The devil we know (Hillary) is terrible, horrible, no-good, and very bad. The devil we don’t know (Trump) is an unknown quantity; he could be better, but he could also be worse.
How could he be worse? Easy: By supporting all of the same policies that Hillary supports, but doing it with an “R” after his name. That screams “BIPARTISANSHIP”, and Congress has a hard time arguing against bipartisanship, no matter how bad, unconstitutional, or un-American the proposal may be.
I still don’t know if I can support Trump, even knowing how disastrous a “President/Dowager Empress Hillary”
couldwould be, from SCOTUS on down. (Actually, that’s not true; as of right now, I know I can’t support Trump — I’m just not sure if I can bring myself to vote for him.)It would be unlikely for Trump to be worse. Not because of his own restraint, though there too I’d give him the benefit of the doubt. But because the vast majority of media are rabid leftists, and they will serve as a potent restraint on any Trumpian outrage. On the other hand, for that exact same reason they will serve as a cheering section, not a restraint, on similar outrages from Hillary.
Go and vote the down ballot. Know your state and local candidates. If this country is ever to get back on track, after going off this rails over a hundred years ago, it’ll have to come from the states. At the federal level it’s long gone. The first Progressive president was a Republican anyway.
Pingback: SayUncle » The Trumpening: Let’s pro/con this whole Trump thing
Some people, just as with Obama in ’08, have invested a tremendous amount of hope in Trump. Michael Savage just this morning was saying that Trump may very well be our Winston Churchill, the new savior of Western Civilization itself – not just America but all of Western Civilization.
Maybe, but how would we know? He’s been to the left of Obama on socialized medicine, and has been very clear, concise and specific about that. Obviously then he either doesn’t understand the constitution, or worse yet he does understand it and rejects it.
How then, on what evidence, does anyone believe he’d appoint an adherent to the American Principles, a constitutionalist, to the Supreme Court? Is there anything in his history that suggests he’d even know a constitutionalist if one walked up and smacked him in the face? Who would tell him how to recognize a constitutionalist, and would he care if someone told him? If he cared, wouyld he then choose the constitutionalist? We have ample evidence showing that he wouldn’t know a constitutionalist from a a Marxist, or that if hid did know then he’d choose the Marxist. What evidence is there that he understands or adheres to the American Founding Principles, other than generalities unsupported in deed, and the insertions, on other people’s part, of things he never actually said or actually did?
We asked the Obama supporters these questions back in ’08 and got nothing in return but anger and insults. There was no possibility of a rational evaluation. I expect it’s the same thing here, only now it’s coming from those who seemed to have known better eight years ago.
I am now reminded of G.W. Bush’s angry blow-up at Glenn Beck, getting up in his face, finger jabbing toward him;
“You don’t UNDERSTAND! It doesn’t MATTER who’s president!” and then he clammed up, never explaining what he meant.
No; things will not be fixed at the federal level, and there’s no evidence to suggest that they could.
And then we have the frog-in-the-pot concept.
If the Republican Party has done nothing but slow down the Progressive’s Long March toward full-on authoritarianism, and if the frog-in-the-pot analogy is valid with regard to America’s 100+ year Long March toward full-on authoritarianism, then the Republican Party has played a key role in helping the Progressives achieve their goals, and nothing else whatsoever.
So if Trump wins, and accidently appoints a constitutionalist to SCOTUS, and I don’t see it happening any other way but accidently, then the next shit-eating Democrat will get a Marxist in anyway, only the Marxist will get in there later, after more Americans become accustomed to this elevated Marxism in America and more people will have forgotten what America’s promise was in the first place.
So either abandon and renounce the frog-in-the-pot analogy forever, explain in detail how it has no relationship to American politics, or go for the quick boil as soon as possible. You can’t have it both ways.
If we’d had our commie revolution back in the 1960s, had our war and mass death, I think we’d have been vastly better off by now. At this late hour it’s going to be far, far worse.
So are we kicking the can down the road to our kids and grandkids to deal with, so as to have a little Peace In Our Time, because we’re all cowards, or…what are we doing, exactly? I haven’t seen anyone attempt to explain this. If we’re putting off the revolution, what is it we hope will come along in the meantime to make it more tolerable when it comes? Will not the water in the pot be even hotter then? I’ve not seen anyone attempt to explain that one either.
The way I see it, we’re that warren of rabbits living in luxury on the farm in the book Watership Down, never saying anything to one another about the fact that the farmer is only fattening us up for slaughter, though we all know it.
Thanks, prince Harry.
The older I get, the more difficult it becomes to resist the urge to raise the Black Flag and commence the culling.
Oh yeah? You have to know where to look for the traitorous elected officials, because just attacking other low-level voters is just fighting among the chickens or goats, and the traitorous elected officials see to it that no one knows where they live.
You’d think that there would be lists of them posted with updates, somewhere on the web. I figure that people aren’t really that concerned about our nation’s problems, since those lists don’t seem to be obvious, or even exist, for that matter.
A lot simpler job would be to find the non-traitorous elected officials. In other words, those who obey their oath of office and honor the Constitution.
That set is, for all intents and purposes, the null set.
It ain’t hard. All you have to do is pick up a paper, watch the idiot-box, or click on a few of the better websites. Names, pictures, and their latest outrageous anti-Constitutional transgressions, heh.