Trump's Supreme Decision

The Donald appeals to conservatives' fears.

The last couple weeks of talk shows have presented the edifying sight of conservatives and Republicans who look like they've just eaten an entire lemon.

This sour attitude is, of course, because of the presumptive nominee being Donald J. Trump, who yesterday paid the Clintons to attend his daughter's wedding, and the day before yesterday donated to Hillary's campaign, as well as committing many other unconservative infractions.

But that was yesterday.  Today, Donald Trump is breathing fire and throwing out chunks of red meat to adulatory crowds.  Nobody knows whether he means what he says, not even he himself.

There is, however, one issue above all that focuses conservative minds wonderfully: the Supreme Court, and specifically the empty seat so recently warmed by Justice Antonin Scalia.  Today, the court sits at more or less of a tie - and that's assuming Justice Kennedy sides with the conservatives, which he often does but not always.

As we've seen, the Left loves to use the court to ram leftist changes down the throat of America, even when the actual voters have resoundingly rejected their inroads.  The people of California overwhelmingly voted to amend their constitution to forbid gay marriage, but the constitutional amendment was found unconstitutional (!) by a homosexual judge who (surprise, surprise) promptly married his lover after declaring it legal by fiat.  More recently, the Supreme Court did the same thing to the country as a whole.

The Supreme Court cannot make America great again.  It can, however, somewhat slow the slide into the pit, buying us time, and it can reject some of the left's worst excesses.

So the thoughts of Donald Trump on who would make a good Justice are of the utmost importance.  If Mr. Trump wishes to appoint judges like his pro-abortion sister, we might as well just let Hillary be at the helm when the ship goes down.

But it's just possible that Mr. Trump is wiser, and cagier, than some give him credit for.  His campaign released a short list of potential nominees, and - well, let's see what the Left had to say about them:

The list shows—maybe even more effectively than the dissents in Hobby Lobby—why women’s reproductive freedom is in real peril, because it shows Trump’s eagerness to seat justices who will do away with the right to choose.

It's hard to know whether media leftists are simply taking the opportunity to bash a Republican with anything to hand regardless of the truth, or if they're genuinely worried, but this sort of fiery response from them can't be anything but a good sign.

Indeed, the fiercely Never-Trumpian National Review seemed to find a strange new respect for him on perusing his list:

First, his list of potential nominees did not all receive their law degrees in Cambridge, Mass., or New Haven, Conn.

Second, Trump did not limit his search to the usual inside-the-beltway favorites.

Third, for the first time in a generation, not a single judge from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — often called the second-highest court in the land — made the Supreme Court shortlist.

Fourth, this geographic diversity also instills a respect for the principles of federalism: Not all of the answers to our problems will come from the seat of the central government, many will come from the “laboratories of Democracy” in the several states.

What are they getting at?  Really, they are making one simple but essential point: there is more to the United States than Harvard and Yale!  In fact, the New Yorker to the contrary, there is more to America than New York City no matter how worthwhile New York values may or may not be.  Nothing against the Big Apple, but why is it appropriate for four of the justices - half, in fact - to hail from that one single metropolis?

William F. Buckley once famously said he'd rather be governed by the first two thousand people in the Boston telephone directory than by the two thousand people on the faculty of Harvard University.  In effect, though, we've accomplished most of that, with all our current justices being the products of the Harvard faculty with some assistance from their compatriots at Yale.  And we see the dire consequences.

Which is why it's so encouraging that Trump's list features mostly people who studied elsewhere.  Even more, he didn't just look at other famous non-Harvard law schools like Duke and Georgetown, but considered candidates who hail from the University of Kansas.

Consider the difference in perspective that these denizens of flyover country would bring to the court!  A midwestern prairie judge would be even more of an outsider than The Donald himself, which is just what the Court needs.

Aside from their personal views which would naturally be more conservative, though, picking candidates from all across the fruited plain underscores the forgotten principle of Federalism.  The United States is not supposed to be a unitary government ruled from one single imperial city as was England and the entire British Empire at the time of the Revolution.

In America, power is supposed to be widely distributed: to states, to cities, to towns, to counties, and wherever possible, to the people themselves.  Our Founders fully expected the different states to have quite different styles and laws, only requiring them to honor the principle of representative government.  The Constitution is a list of a very few powers the federal government has and states that it does not have any other powers - those powers "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Originally the Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the states at all - Massachusetts enforced Puritan Congregationalism by force of law from the days of the Pilgrims right up through 1834, and Connecticut did the same for nearly as long.  We wouldn't care to return to formally established state churches even at the state level, but today we are suffering under a nationally imposed religion of aggressively secular humanism unyieldingly opposed to any vestiges of religious-based morality or sanity.

Having a Supreme Court composed of justices who understand very different parts of our vast country will lead to decisions which allow more latitude for the states to go their separate ways.

In our opinion, only this can prevent the eventual Second Civil War and dissolution of the United States that we see on the horizon.  Who knows: Donald Trump might actually become another President who Saved the Union!

Okay, probably not.  But in this election, even the wildly unlikely has a habit of becoming reality.

Petrarch is a contributing editor for Scragged.  Read other articles by Petrarch or other articles on Partisanship.
Reader Comments

The left made a serious mistake by not having Ginsberg retire. Had she retired in time, Obama could have replaced her with a younger someone with another 30+ years of life. Now it is too late. Trump will fill the empty seat and in a year or two replace a renown liberal with a true conservative changing the balance of the court for years to come.

May 25, 2016 10:30 PM

Trump appointing "true conservatives".... Ha! The fantasy continues. Trump doesn't know what the term means, but go on, put your fingers in your ears and believe what you want.

(He's already made his first cabinet appointment. Did you read about that one? ..."True conservative")

May 25, 2016 11:38 PM

This line:

"Nobody knows whether [Trump] means what he says, not even he himself"


May 25, 2016 11:43 PM

Over the years we have come to realize that the Mean Mr. Grinch is none other that our beloved Ifon. His heart is colder than ice, he believes nothing good and everything is Bah humbug to him. It matters not what Trump or any other person does, Mr. Grinch will ever be unhappy. So lets wish him a very unhappy day so maybe he can smile.

May 26, 2016 12:55 AM

No, it matters VERY MUCH what Trump does - that's the whole point. Stop being obtuse and live in reality.

Again, did you see Trump's first appointment after winning the nomination?

I'll place this link right here for you...

After Cruz and Kasich dropped out, that was the first person he went to.

So is this the type of "true conservative" you were talking about?

"Matters not what Trump does" huh? Classic projection from his sycophants.

May 26, 2016 7:49 AM

Well no it doesn't matter except to the Grinch. The good book refers to being rewarded based on the sum of our actions, not on just any one action. Grinch here is like a pit bull that latches on to your arm and just won't let go. So it doesn't matter what someone does, if there is one or eve a few things you have done wrong, you are "evil" in the Grinch's eyes and he will never let go. I am beginning to meet several of these unbalanced (lacking judgment) people in the world, and just learning to ignore them. They get your interest at first with their loud pronouncements, but then you learn that they are just mental cases with poor judgment. Goodbye Grinch. Hope you get well one day.

May 26, 2016 12:05 PM

Once again, nothing but a bunch of drivel and ad hominem.

Sparky, any thoughts about Trump appointing a liberal Dem as his finance chair (who most likely will also be in his cabinet)?

Any interest in looking Trump's record?

You're so unable to debate Trump objectively, it's downright laughable.

May 26, 2016 12:08 PM

Mr Grinch, it is not possible to debate anything rational with you. You also resemble the Queen of Hearts. If anyone did anything she didn't like, her judgment was immediately "off with their heads". With no logic other than a one time association, you are indeed yelling off with their heads. Anyone with some shred of knowledge knows that Cruz worked for Bush, that thousands of others have at one time worked for people adjudged bad without themselves being tainted. You are in serious need of self meditation for many years in a padded room. If you are all that this blog site can offer for serious thinking, I think I will find some slightly more rational on the John Birch Society blog, but I don't go there either.

May 26, 2016 1:42 PM

To be rational, one must avoid name calling, distractions, rabbit trails and >>focus<<.

Again, is Trump's finance chair the type of true conservative you're referring to?

May 26, 2016 1:45 PM

So Mr. Trump has hired a Democrat as his finance chair?

To me that looks like good management practice. The job of a finance chair is to **bring in money**. It's not to set policy. And if this guy can bring in more money from Democrats, what's not to like?

Now, if Donald is listening to him opine on, say, immigration policy, then there's a problem. But it is a management best-practice to put people in roles where their skills are in constant use and their weaknesses aren't relevant.

Probably the best example of this was Lincoln's cabinet, which largely hated each other and contained a few real nuts. But most of them were excellent at the specific cabinet job to which they were assigned, and as long as Lincoln kept them off each other's throats, his administration worked extremely successfully under very adverse circumstances.

If Trump is attempting something along the same lines, as it looks like he may be doing, I become even more optimistic for his chances of making a good President.

May 26, 2016 5:19 PM

Petrarch, excellent spin as usual, but you're avoiding the obvious. Finance chairs in campaigns often go on to take cabinet positions or sub-positions. You can keep spinning for now, but very soon, your support of this man is going to lead to very real policy decisions. At that point, it won't be a game anymore.

May 26, 2016 7:12 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...