How many paragraphs do you think the NYT needs to fulminate before it tells us even one of the names on that list?
Would you believe five paragraphs?
Here's the list, to spare you reading all about how nobody trusts Trump and the list is meaningless (which you get again in the paragraphs following the list):
According to a list released by the campaign, Mr. Trump’s potential nominees include several federal judges: Steven M. Colloton of Iowa; Raymond W. Gruender of Missouri; Thomas M. Hardiman of Pennsylvania; William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin; and Raymond M. Kethledge of Michigan; and several state Supreme Court justices: Allison H. Eid of Colorado; Joan Larsen of Michigan; Thomas Lee of Utah; David Stras of Minnesota; and Don Willett of Texas.It's possibly the most consequential issue of the election. What do you think?
14 comments:
I would love to think he will appoint conservative justices, and it's always fun to hear the NYT squeal.
Sykes, for one, is very good, indeed. No clue about the rest.
From Powerline, we learn about Justice Don Willett (twitter post)
https://twitter.com/JusticeWillett/status/732742087867686912/photo/1
MUST be a good judge, no?
He's a good judge of the front sight, to be sure.
Boom. Headshot to #NeverTrump.
Jonah Goldberg and Charles Krauthammer on this evening's Special Report with Bret Baier have done their vetting, and they said the list was universally conservative.
Eric Hines
This looks like a pretty good quick rundown of the people on the list.
The list is great. The problem is that he's mentioned a couple of good names in the past- I can't recall who now- but since he is always saying whatever he thinks people want to hear, and then reversing himself when the winds shift, how can I have any confidence at all that he'll stick to this list? If he puts it on a signed contract that he will nominate from that list or resign the presidency, then maybe I'll vote for him. Otherwise, the list carries about as much weight as anything else he says. Roughly equal to that of a feather.
I would also point out that this is a list of candidates that he is "considering." There is A LOT of wiggle room in that word. Trump isn't anymore committed to that list than his first two marriages.
On the other hand, he has no reason to cater to conservatives just now, having sewn up the nomination. If he were pandering, I'd expect him to pander to the middle. But like you, I don't put much stock in his statements, and am looking for other ways to judge how seriously to take his words, such as his probable motive. If he gets into the habit of speaking consistently and acting to back up his words, I'll start paying more attention to his words.
And of course the bottom line remains that, with all these doubts and qualifiers, he still beats Hillary Clinton in my book.
Ever notice how many Generals get fired when a Serious War breaks out and they don't get results? Would we rather the politicians stuck with their first choice no matter what? So Trump is supposed to have some ironclad line by now? Who is the standard hers, anyway? Obama, who seems to have run his entire administration with half the posts filled? Clinton or Sanders, who will fill the posts with avowed America Haters?
I keep hearing all the stuff about Trumps lack of character, or business dealings, but no specifics. Certainly he is no more sleazy than the opposition, that would take a politician. Any opposition on to Trump based on his personal life is laughable. Look at at it like this-at least he likes Women, above the age of 18.
One more thing to roll around in the noggin- Some of history greatest tyrants were acetic in their personal lives. While living large is easy to point fingers at, eating veggies and living like a monk is absolutely no guarantee of character.
So far, I am convinced the second coming of Clinton or the election of an avowed communist will shred whatever we have left of a constitutional republic. No question.
So explain again exactly what we have to lose?
Would we rather see the presidency go to someone who has no record, and is questionable, or see it go to people who have a KNOWN agenda of hating this country and seeking to destroy it's people and establish a tyranny over the remains.
At this time, that is the choice. Play Russian roulette with six chambers loaded, or one.
Hillary Clinton doesn't like the list. That vets it right there.
...this is a list of candidates that he is "considering." There is A LOT of wiggle room....
Of course there is, from one of two major sources: either he's weasel-wording, or he's recognizing the reality that the best he can offer is an opening position.
I've seen nothing to indicate the folks on the list have been approached by Trump; there's the matter that the Senate might express an opinion; there's the matter that in order to smooth/speed things along, he might have some give and take with Senators before he nominates;....
Any politician who says he's gonna do this or that is lying through his teeth.
Eric Hines
"So explain again exactly what we have to lose?"
On SCOTUS, nothing. It's the other areas -- sadly a vast number -- in which a Trump Presidency represents a risk. But as you say, we can be fairly sure that Clinton will do bad things in almost every areas. With Trump, it's a gamble.
"And of course the bottom line remains that, with all these doubts and qualifiers, he still beats Hillary Clinton in my book."
Sure, but does that beat 'Let it burn'? I'm starting to lean to the latter.
"... or he's recognizing the reality that the best he can offer is an opening position.
"
Yes, he's always thinking in terms of the next step of negotiation, which is why he never wants to get pinned down. He came out with the list to appease some voters and the republican leadership, and then realized that's giving up too much leverage and grabbed some leverage back by saying later it's people he's "considering". So in doing that, he just put the Republican leadership back having to woo him, and in a position to give something up, not get something- but hey, that's been proven to be pretty easy to do, unfortunately.
Therein lies the problem with Trump- it might be good to have him negotiating for your side, but he's not on the side of Republicans, he's on the side of Donald Trump. Who knows where that goes after down the rabbit hole? Is that really preferable to a know evil who is at least predictable and who has a knack for getting into situations that could result in legal problems? I'm not sure.
As far as I can tell, the Republicans are not on "my" side either. As far as Trump being "in it for himself", of course he is- just like every other candidate. The best we can hope for is that some of the next presidents values align with ours-
Post a Comment