UTCVol
Soon.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2008
- Messages
- 15,646
- Likes
- 3,884
This is anathema to Trump and most of his supporters.
How can a guy who calls Iraq the biggest foreign policy mistake in US history represent the GOP establishment?
You're making the same mistake others are. Against Hillary having the opportunity to select 2, 3 or even 4 SCOTUS members is a true nightmare that could undue any legislation a future congress and POTUS might pass. Pass what you want and SCOTUS rules against it for 30 maybe more years and what do you have? This is bigger than many realize.
First, I don't have any faith that Trump would appoint liberty-minded judges. We still have no idea what this guy's true beliefs are on almost any subject of importance. I hope he does actually care about small government, but nothing he says has given me that impression.
I'm going to spitball a bit here. If the Trump presidency doesn't go well (and I see no reason to believe it will), the Dems swoop in and save the day. The only reason he even has a prayer this year is because he's facing a pathological liar and criminal, and the Dems won't be as dumb as the GOP was this primary cycle in 2020 and elect someone even more unlikeable. This definitely swings the Senate back to the Dems if it wasn't already there, and probably the House as well. Even if we do believe a justice or two dies (no way anyone willingly retires during a Trump presidency) and Trump appoints conservative judges, the Dems are now set up to take control of the court for the foreseeable future because they have a stranglehold on every branch of government. At this point the GOP is stuck if Trump's policies become party dogma, because there's no way they can win national elections in a nation with rapidly shifting demographics. Even if they disavow Trump it could take a while to rehabilitate the party's image.
Contrast this to Hillary flailing around in office for four years and the GOP probably winning the presidency in 2020 as long as they nominate someone competent. Which scenario is worse long-term? The only downside I can see to the latter is the thought of Hillary replacing Scalia, RBG, and Breyer with younger progressives - and that admittedly is a massive, massive point against my argument IF Trump actually got to appoint justices and if they were actually conservative.
There's a strong possibility Thomas retires as well. That's 4 to SCOTUS for the next POTUS. We may not know what Trump will do, we know damned well what Hillary will do. Trump put out a list of possible appointees that is pretty solid.
If Hillary wins it won't matter what the Congress and POTUS does. If the SCOTUS is overwhelming liberal they will overturn any good piece of legislation passed and signed into law for the next 30 plus years. That's the absolute worst scenario IMO. And the likes of George Will don't give a $hit as long as THEY maintain their position. If one doesn't kiss the ring of the establishment they will be vilified by the establishment. Look back to 76 and even 80. Will went after Reagan in both of those elections. Now that POS talks like he and Reagan were buds.
That's nuts. Why would you want to cede control of the executive branch for any reason? The thought of her making agency appointments and executive orders is sickening.Contrast this to Hillary flailing around in office for four years and the GOP probably winning the presidency in 2020 as long as they nominate someone competent. Which scenario is worse long-term? The only downside I can see to the latter is the thought of Hillary replacing Scalia, RBG, and Breyer with younger progressives - and that admittedly is a massive, massive point against my argument IF Trump actually got to appoint justices and if they were actually conservative.
That's nuts. Why would you want to cede control of the executive branch for any reason? The thought of her making agency appointments and executive orders is sickening.
The thought of either of them making agency appointments and executive orders is sickening. Even more sickening is the idea of the Dems having a mandate in all governmental branches for the foreseeable future after President Trump gets resoundingly booted out of office.
I'm not suggesting they throw the election, nor should they. It seems like Trump is doing a good job of that in his own. I just think the long-term consequences of a Trump presidency would be absolutely catastrophic to the party.
I'm basing it on the entirety of his life being about satiating his own greed.
Clinton naming 3 or 4 SCOTUS would be catastrophic for the nation.
And agency appointments get changed and orders overturned by Congress. SCOTUS rulings are law and can only be overturned by future SCOTUS which could take more than 3 decades if ever at all. That's the difference and is the real issue here.
And I fully agree with that. Scalia's death made the SCOTUS an issue of paramount importance, moreso than it already was. Under my scenario (and it probably is far-fetched) Trump maybe gets two SCOTUS appointments if another justice kicks the bucket. After that, the Dems pick up the scraps and we arrive at the same results. The only way I can see it being a net positive is if all three of RBG, Kennedy, and Breyer kick the bucket during Trump's four years and he is able to appoint relatively young conservative justices (there could very well be a Dem wave in the 2018 midterm, making that a bit more difficult - especially when they follow the GOP's lead and refuse to hold hearings during the last year). That could buy enough time for the party to recover from Trump before the court becomes a huge issue again. However, that's a mighty big "if". No one wants to cede Clinton three justice appointments, but I can't help but think it could be a lot worse.
I honestly see no good way out of this quandary unless Trump proves to not be irreversibly damaging to the GOP. I hope he isn't, but he hasn't given me much faith.
So a guy who worked to get Reagan elected and served in the Reagan admin is a fraud. The guy who worked to "cleanse" the GOP of Reagan is good to go?
Sir you couldn't be more off the mark.
Not everything positively associated with Reagan is good, and not everything negatively associated with Reagan is bad. The hero worship is incredible until you bring up immigration. Or how Reagan would have treated the Middle East. Levin's position is the opposite of Reagan. Reagan pulled out after Beirut.
Not everything positively associated with Reagan is good, and not everything negatively associated with Reagan is bad. The hero worship is incredible until you bring up immigration. Or how Reagan would have treated the Middle East. Levin's position is the opposite of Reagan. Reagan pulled out after Beirut.
Reagan ' s success was in staring down the Soviets, and in that he gets a lot of credit.
After that, though, it's just making the GOP feel like they washed away a little of the stain of Nixon.