LEGAL EXPERTS OPINE ON SCOTUS AND TRUMP

[Draggingtree]

Patterico :

8/2/2016

Legal Experts Opine On SCOTUS And Trump

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:29 am

[guest post by Dana]

 

Over at Reason, some noteworthy “libertarian and conservative legal experts” weigh in on whether the Supreme Court is a good enough reason to vote for Trump.

 

Orrin Kerr sums up the results:

 

Five of the 10 answers were some form of “no.” Most of these responses argued that while Trump’s judicial nominees might be marginally better than Hillary Clinton’s, that possible benefit is outweighed by the damage Trump would do as head of the executive branch. (Jonathan Adler, Alan Gura, Orin Kerr, Roger Pilon and Timothy Sandefur)

 

Two of the answers were some form of “maybe.” Generally, they argued that Trump’s judicial nominees would be better than Clinton’s and that reasonable people will disagree on whether other concerns about Trump outweigh that. (Randy Barnett and Michael Rappaport)

 

Finally, three of the answers were some form of “yes.” Generally, they argued that Trump’s judicial nominees clearly would be better than Clinton’s. These answers did not take a clear position on whether people should vote for Trump,

[Valin]

@Draggingtree

 

Two of the answers were some form of “maybe.” Generally, they argued that Trump’s judicial nominees would be better than Clinton’s and that reasonable people will disagree on whether other concerns about Trump outweigh that. (Randy Barnett and Michael Rappaport)

Finally, three of the answers were some form of “yes.” Generally, they argued that Trump’s judicial nominees clearly would be better than Clinton’s. These answers did not take a clear position on whether people should vote for Trump, but instead responded only to the question of whether Supreme Court appointments provide a good reason to do so. (David Kopel, Glenn Reynolds and Carrie Severino)

The problem many of us have is will he (nominate Conservative/Center-Right) justices to the courts? Nothing in history gives us an answer. Its a leap of faith.

 

In a separate column titled “It’s the Supreme Court, Stupid,” Hugh Hewitt also claims that because of the Court, voters should support Trump:

 

Now I am a big fan of Hugh Hewitt but IMO the real reason Hugh says these kind of things is Trump now has an R after his name. Normally I would not have a problem with this (Hey I supported John McCain for gods sake!) but with Trump.....?

 

I could see him nominating someone to the court....a 3 days later calling that person A Loser, who nobody pays attention to or likes.

[Draggingtree]

@Draggingtree

 

 

Two of the answers were some form of “maybe.” Generally, they argued that Trump’s judicial nominees would be better than Clinton’s and that reasonable people will disagree on whether other concerns about Trump outweigh that. (Randy Barnett and Michael Rappaport)

 

Finally, three of the answers were some form of “yes.” Generally, they argued that Trump’s judicial nominees clearly would be better than Clinton’s. These answers did not take a clear position on whether people should vote for Trump, but instead responded only to the question of whether Supreme Court appointments provide a good reason to do so. (David Kopel, Glenn Reynolds and Carrie Severino)

 

 

The problem many of us have is will he (nominate Conservative/Center-Right) justices to the courts? Nothing in history gives us an answer. Its a leap of faith.

 

 

In a separate column titled “It’s the Supreme Court, Stupid,” Hugh Hewitt also claims that because of the Court, voters should support Trump:

 

Now I am a big fan of Hugh Hewitt but IMO the real reason Hugh says these kind of things is Trump now has an R after his name. Normally I would not have a problem with this (Hey I supported John McCain for gods sake!) but with Trump.....?

 

I could see him nominating someone to the court....a 3 days later calling that person A Loser, who nobody pays attention to or likes.

then would you take a chance with hillary

[Valin]

@Draggingtree

Charles Cooke/Hugh Hewitt

HH: And so with that in the balance, how does one remain a NeverTrumper?

 

CCWC: As I say, it’s something I’m struggling with. I think at the same time, the Court is not the only institution in American life, and as a conservative, I am protective of institutions. Donald Trump seems to me to be erratic. He doesn’t seem to be especially conservative. He doesn’t seem to have a strong temperament. Now if it is the case, and of course, it’s an if. I’m not a seer, but if he were to damage the Republican Party to such an extent that it were to be in the wilderness at the presidential, the Congressional, gubernatorial and state levels, or at least if it were to be relegated to minority status, it is possible that just as much damage, if not more, would be done to the country over the next 20 years as then by the Court flipping to 5-4 and possibly 6-3. I’m not going to give you a glib answer or pretend that I know what’s going to happen, but I am struggling with that balance.

 

HH: And my response to that is, and think on this, Charles, I’d love to hear your response. The Supreme Court is the headwaters of the rule of law and of constitutionalism. Poison it, and you poison it all. The Republican Party is downstream from the headwaters of the rule of law. You could actually destroy the Republican Party, but if the Constitution were there, another Constitution party would arise. But if you destroy the Constitution through a 6-3, and I do mean destroy the Constitution, I’m trying to impress upon NeverTrumpers, and it might be because I’ve been teaching Con Law for 20 years, but you’re a student of the law even though you’re Oxford educated. You understand this. It’s over once they get their hooks in it.

 

CCWC: That’s a respectable argument. I think the presidency is also an important institution, and not just generally, but specifically on the question of the rule of law. As we’ve seen with President Obama, presidents that view the duty to enforce the law as being optional do not just immediate, but long term damage. And I see nothing in Donald Trump that would reverse Obama’s course in this area. And I must say, I also see nothing in Donald Trump that would appoint justices that would be harsh on him and his agenda and his conception of power. Now again, that, I can’t promise. I can’t know either way. But Donald Trump seems to take vengeance against anybody who so much as slights him. Look yesterday at his attitude toward Paul Ryan, John McCain. He uses the word disloyal routinely. If President Obama thinks the Court should be a rubber stamp for his agenda, what evidence do we have that Donald Trump will not as well?

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I'm voting for him, but that is not the same as saying I support him. Reason being at the end of the day we are talking about Donald Trump! I believe it doesn't really matter who wins, Hillary or Donald We Are Screwed.