I support neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump for the presidency. Still, I do understand several reasons to vote for Trump, including, most obviously, “he’s not a Clinton.”
The most persuasive strategic reason given for voting for the man, however, and the one that has most purchase with me, is that he would appoint better Supreme Court justices than would Mrs. Clinton.
Note: if the Democrats gain hold of the U.S. Senate, an elected Donald Trump would “negotiate.” And the next set of Supremes might be quite bad.
But is all this irrelevant? It does not look like Trump will be elected, so any vote thrown at him will be just as “wasted” as a vote for Johnson, Stein, or Mickey Mouse.
More importantly, if Hillary wins, no biggie on the Supreme Court front IF (a big “if”?) the Republicans maintain congressional dominance.
Why?
Our Senators are not required to vote for any of a president’s appointees. But, alas, that is not what Democrats are saying now! Forget such self-serving nonsense. The Constitution does not specify the number of justices on the Supreme Court. It is nine now, sure, but the Highest court in the land was first manned by five justices, then seven.
So, after the election, unpack the court.* Back down to seven, at least.
And then let’s talk terms for the currently “serving for life” justices, and term limits.
In any case, the best case for Trump isn’t so much a case for him, as a plan of action no matter who is elected.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
*This notion is more doable, I think, than Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s infamous court packing scheme, in which he threatened to put more justices in to over-rule those justices who thought his “New Deal” program unconstitutional. Congress, not required to vote in any proposed Supreme Court candidate, could balk at all and then, by law, reduce the number, even removing one justice from office if need be.
Questions Answered:
Does the best reason to vote for Donald Trump really hold water?
Does the Constitution specify the number of justices that should be on the Court?
Is Congress really at the mercy of any bully who occupies the Oval Office?
The Next Question:
Will voting for someone other than Trump be more of a “wasted vote” than voting for Trump himself, if, as polls indicate, he loses?
4 replies on “The Best Case for Trump Isn’t”
In the firmly blue and red states (all but a handful of the states), the sensible vote is neither Donald nor Hillary. Neither deserves your vote. Stop fretting about it.
The outcome is decided in such states, so you are free to vote third party (as I will, voting for Johnson in California), or not casting a PRESIDENTIAL choice at all.
But regardless of your choice, be sure to VOTE. Down ticket choices — candidates and sometimes propositions — are what’s crucial in this election.
RIchard,
Thank you for the timely reminder.
The correct objection to Trump is that he does not have a well-developed political philosophy and has not thought though many of the issues. He’s in the poition of concerned citizen who doesn’t like what’s going on, but doesn’t have clear ideas. For example, we have seen his position on immigration change from “deport them all” to the standard Republican idea of sealing the borders and then figuring out what to do with resident illegals. As a business person, he is acutely aware of problems like over regulation and forbidding energy development. So the risk with Trump is whether he will get advisers and think things through to reasonable solutions. Successful business people know that bad deals have to written off, and something lese has to tried to fix failures. Ideologues and authoritarians never change course. That’s the deal with Obama and Hillary: success is expanding government and rest are details. The idea that moral superiority is maintained by voters refusing to get involved and waiting for an ideal candidate to magically emerge in the distant future is delusional.
I have to wonder, how many Republicans have the guts to unpack to court? Maybe Ted Cruz and a few others. But, when Pres. Hillary finds a way to cut the flow of pork to their home states, most will cave under unrelenting pressure from the mainstream press labeling them as obstructionists.