Trump's lack of integrity and tenuous relationship with the truth is one reason I won't vote for him. His shameless, lifelong quest for power and money, his heated, excessive claims about what he'll do in office and how he'll make others go along mark him as just the kind of would-be-strongman that will take Obama's example of going around congress and ruling by executive order and run with it.
I think it is the height of wishful thinking to believe that such lawlessness can be contained with the threat of impeachment. After 8 years of the Obama administration's example and the tepid response it received neither Democrat or Republican will have much, if any foot to stand on to challenge such unconstitutional behavior. Trump would simply say that "Obama did it too and you did nothing." Trump is exactly the kind of demagogue that will exploit such a precedent for his own benefit and our Constitution will continue to erode to the point of meaninglessness.
The alternative, of course, is eviscerating the Constitution. If Clinton is elected, she will cement a Supreme Court that will read out of the document any restraint on Federal power (as well as the 2nd Amendment). The Constitution will effectively cease to exist: it will still be there, but it will just be said to mean whatever progressives want it to mean.
There's no reason to think that Clinton won't get to appoint two or three or even more Justices in her tenure, too. We will be in the position, for the rest of our lives, of being told that our every political belief is unconstitutional -- even the ones that were the SCOTUS's own understanding for most of the history of the country.
Nor is that the only threat to the Constitution and the law. It may be wishful thinking to hope that Republicans would impeach Trump, but it is absolutely certain that Democrats will do nothing to restrain Clinton. If she is elected, the Federal government will be restrained by neither law nor the Constitution in its power. There is simply no telling what she might do.
Wishful thinking may be all we have left. But perhaps it's not so far-fetched: if his VP choice is even minimally acceptable, Congressional Republicans might really take the option seriously.
I have given your position serious thought. Nevertheless, I cannot accept either your premise or your conclusion. You seem to believe that Trump will pick better Supreme Court justices than Clinton and, therefore, we should vote for Trump in order to preserve what is left of our Constitution. However, I see nothing in Trump that justifies such a belief. He has said his sister would make a great Supreme Court justice. She is widely recognized as a staunch judicial liberal. What in any of that gives you any faith that Trump is more trustworthy than Clinton when it comes to the Supreme Court? When you combine that with Trump's repeated statements that he will specifically target the women and children of terrorists, an act that would be an undisputed war crime, on what basis could you believe Trump should be trusted with picking justices over Hillary? If President Eisenhower can screw up and send an Earl Warren to the Court, something he called the greatest mistake of his administration, how can you think that a bloviating ignoramus like Trump (a male not even worthy to lick Eisenhower's boots clean) would do any better? No, I will never vote for Trump.
I don't disagree with anything negative you have to say about Trump. I just think he's a solvable problem. If he orders war crimes, he can be removed from office. If Clinton does, she can't be.
Trump's VP choice is important. Allahpundit was saying yesterday that Jeff Sessions is his expected selection. Now that means that a vote for Trump would be a vote for Jeff Sessions for President -- assuming Trump screws up in a way plausibly described as "high crimes and misdemeanors." You've just yourself lain out several likely ways.
What kind of SCOTUS picks would Sessions make?
Cruz may still pull this out through parliamentary maneuver, or the Republicans may find a way around Trump at the convention. If not, and especially if Trump picks a VP who would make a pretty good President, his unsuitability for the office just makes it likely he won't last in it very long.
Those are all good points and, as always, you have given me much to consider. Nevertheless, I can't escape the personal, cultural, and constitutional revulsion that snake oil salesman inspires in me.
7 comments:
Trump's lack of integrity and tenuous relationship with the truth is one reason I won't vote for him. His shameless, lifelong quest for power and money, his heated, excessive claims about what he'll do in office and how he'll make others go along mark him as just the kind of would-be-strongman that will take Obama's example of going around congress and ruling by executive order and run with it.
I think it is the height of wishful thinking to believe that such lawlessness can be contained with the threat of impeachment. After 8 years of the Obama administration's example and the tepid response it received neither Democrat or Republican will have much, if any foot to stand on to challenge such unconstitutional behavior. Trump would simply say that "Obama did it too and you did nothing." Trump is exactly the kind of demagogue that will exploit such a precedent for his own benefit and our Constitution will continue to erode to the point of meaninglessness.
The alternative, of course, is eviscerating the Constitution. If Clinton is elected, she will cement a Supreme Court that will read out of the document any restraint on Federal power (as well as the 2nd Amendment). The Constitution will effectively cease to exist: it will still be there, but it will just be said to mean whatever progressives want it to mean.
There's no reason to think that Clinton won't get to appoint two or three or even more Justices in her tenure, too. We will be in the position, for the rest of our lives, of being told that our every political belief is unconstitutional -- even the ones that were the SCOTUS's own understanding for most of the history of the country.
Nor is that the only threat to the Constitution and the law. It may be wishful thinking to hope that Republicans would impeach Trump, but it is absolutely certain that Democrats will do nothing to restrain Clinton. If she is elected, the Federal government will be restrained by neither law nor the Constitution in its power. There is simply no telling what she might do.
Wishful thinking may be all we have left. But perhaps it's not so far-fetched: if his VP choice is even minimally acceptable, Congressional Republicans might really take the option seriously.
Well, Congress was never going to impeach the first black president. That just was not going to happen.
In other news, Oklahoma just passed the Convention of States resolution, making 7 states officially on board with that.
Grim,
I have given your position serious thought. Nevertheless, I cannot accept either your premise or your conclusion. You seem to believe that Trump will pick better Supreme Court justices than Clinton and, therefore, we should vote for Trump in order to preserve what is left of our Constitution. However, I see nothing in Trump that justifies such a belief. He has said his sister would make a great Supreme Court justice. She is widely recognized as a staunch judicial liberal. What in any of that gives you any faith that Trump is more trustworthy than Clinton when it comes to the Supreme Court? When you combine that with Trump's repeated statements that he will specifically target the women and children of terrorists, an act that would be an undisputed war crime, on what basis could you believe Trump should be trusted with picking justices over Hillary? If President Eisenhower can screw up and send an Earl Warren to the Court, something he called the greatest mistake of his administration, how can you think that a bloviating ignoramus like Trump (a male not even worthy to lick Eisenhower's boots clean) would do any better? No, I will never vote for Trump.
I don't disagree with anything negative you have to say about Trump. I just think he's a solvable problem. If he orders war crimes, he can be removed from office. If Clinton does, she can't be.
Trump's VP choice is important. Allahpundit was saying yesterday that Jeff Sessions is his expected selection. Now that means that a vote for Trump would be a vote for Jeff Sessions for President -- assuming Trump screws up in a way plausibly described as "high crimes and misdemeanors." You've just yourself lain out several likely ways.
What kind of SCOTUS picks would Sessions make?
Cruz may still pull this out through parliamentary maneuver, or the Republicans may find a way around Trump at the convention. If not, and especially if Trump picks a VP who would make a pretty good President, his unsuitability for the office just makes it likely he won't last in it very long.
Those are all good points and, as always, you have given me much to consider. Nevertheless, I can't escape the personal, cultural, and constitutional revulsion that snake oil salesman inspires in me.
I certainly understand you there.
Post a Comment