Glenn ReynoldsI remain convinced that Clinton is worse, but I can see from the responses that my reasoning is not shared by anyone there. They all think Clinton will be more controlled, and maybe even more controllable. Virginia Postrel writes, for example, that "Clinton would still be subject to the checks that system provides, including the demand for a modicum of deference to the law. For the very reason that she is such a conventional politician, her opponents would know how to effectively oppose her."
professor of law at the University of Tennessee and blogger at InstaPundit.com
"I favor Trump over Clinton, on the theory that he will bring in a fresh crop of thieves, while Hillary will enable the current crop to burrow in deeper."
I think that the opposite is true. Clinton would be completely immune to the system's checks. As long as you lacked the supermajority necessary to remove her from office in the Congress, Congress would be powerless against her. She would have a progressive pure majority on the Supreme Court to back her every play. I can't imagine that she could be stopped from doing anything she wanted.
Trump, on the other hand, has set himself up with a very ordinary Republican as his Vice President. If he proved as bad a President as is likely, there's no reason his own party wouldn't go along with replacing him with President Pence. Pence could even run for two more terms as President, allowing him to stand for office with all the advantages of the incumbent until the 2028 election. So the checks on Trump will be extraordinarily strong, because it would be in the interests of both parties to remove him for any abuse.