Lion of the Blogosphere

Trump to provide list of top Supreme Court picks

As reported in the news, “Donald J. Trump on Sunday promised to make public this week a list of five to 10 judges he would nominate to the Supreme Court, seeking to ease concerns among conservatives that he would appoint liberal justices if he is elected president.”

This is a very smart strategy for Trump. Cruz has been attacking him for his supposed liberal Supreme Court picks. It’s very important for Trump to frame things as “support Trump, get him into the Oval Office, and get these conservative guys on the Supreme Court, or let Hillary become president and get extreme liberal justices.”

Nothing scares conservatives more than the notion of extreme liberals replacing conservatives on the Supreme Court, and rightfully so. With the Scalia vacancy, we are on the verge of a radical shift of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. If anything can rally reluctant conservatives into supporting Trump, it’s the Supreme Court issue.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 21, 2016 at 11:08 am

Posted in Law, Politics

78 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Will he name Cruz?

    ShepinDXB

    March 21, 2016 at 11:28 am

  2. This is a clever stunt, but it’s based on the premise that Trump is an honest man who keeps his promises.

    That is an enormous stretch.

    Hellhouse

    March 21, 2016 at 12:08 pm

    • Examples of Trump not keeping his word???

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 21, 2016 at 12:10 pm

      • How about… “If You’re Not a Millionaire by December 2008, You Didn’t Attend My Foreclosure Workshop!”

        http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/become-a-millionaire-in-a-year-trump-promised-in-an-ad-for-t#.ri2xw21Ke

        Hellhouse

        March 21, 2016 at 4:12 pm

      • How about… “If You’re Not a Millionaire by December 2008, You Didn’t Attend My Foreclosure Workshop!”

        I would venture that >99.99% of Americans who weren’t millionaires by December 2008 didn’t attend his foreclosure workshop.

        Dave Pinsen

        March 21, 2016 at 6:16 pm

      • Didn’t he make some crazy promise about having found “big, big” news about Obama’s birth certificate from his crack team of Hawaiian investigators?

        Ceria6

        March 21, 2016 at 8:37 pm

      • http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-wannabe-president-investigators-hawaii-obama-citizenship-article-1.114417

        “Donald Trump – who has been screaming from the rooftops that he doubts President Obama was born in the U.S. – sent a team of investigators to the commander-in-chief’s home state of Hawaii to get answers.

        ‘I have people that have been studying it and they cannot believe what they’re finding,’ the would-be presidential candidate told NBC’s ‘Today.’

        ‘You have people now out there searching – I mean, in Hawaii?’ asked host Meredith Vieira.

        ‘Absolutely,’ Trump replied. ‘And they cannot believe what they’re finding.'”

        Hellhouse

        March 22, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    • It’s a clever stunt to win the election. What has keeping promises to do with that?

      Greg Pandatshang

      March 21, 2016 at 12:39 pm

  3. No “list” can change the fact that all Trump would be doing is simply making promises – promises he can easily break later on when president. I can see him nominating a David Souter type and saying that he’s been told anyone further to the right won’t be confirmed by the Senate, that he has to compromise or the Court seat will be vacant indefinitely, that social conservatives should accept the Souter-type nominee because, after all, he’s more conservative than whoever Hillary would have selected.

    Lion, you are mistaken if you think that so many Republican primary voters have refused to support Trump (even those like me who are against illegal immigration) because they haven’t had anyone yet point out that seeing Hillary elected means a more liberal SCOTUS. They already know this. What they’re afraid of in a Trump nomination isn’t losing the election, but seeing the Republican party and the conservative movement change forever because of throwing away the social issue. Losing the conservative movement is far scarier than losing the Court. At least with Hillary as president I keep my movement. I don’t like the fact that these are my choices, but that doesn’t mean I should stick my head in the sand and argue that 2 and 2 equal 5. In a bad situation, limiting your loses is the best option. If there’s anyone who should be able to understand and accept this reality it’s social conservatives.

    Sorry. Lion. No sale.

    Maryk

    March 21, 2016 at 12:08 pm

    • Lion is an ally of the Revolution and therefore is not interested in your vote. He understand that the TruCons are a counter revolutionary force who must be defeated, not co-opted.

      Of course, Lion himself is also afoul of Party doctrine in several instances, but his status as blogger and intellectual forerunner of the Revolution allows him to get away with such heresies… for now, that is.

      Otis the Sweaty

      March 21, 2016 at 12:35 pm

      • That’s it. I’m sold. I’m voting write-in, Otis the Sweaty for president!

        Greg Pandatshang

        March 21, 2016 at 1:17 pm

      • Otis, you’re playing armchair warrior here. There is no “revolution.” There’s only a Rockefeller Republican posing as a conservative Nationalist because this is the angle that he thinks will get him elected. How else could he distinguish himself from the other candidates, all of whom have political experience, a more consistent philosophy, and (maybe apart from Ted Cruz) a more palatable personality? You are likely to be severely disappointed in a Trump presidency.

        Also, Lion needs people like me. He’s wrong if he thinks that the number of famous conservatives opposing Trump is not a reflection of much of the Republican base. It is. The base has just never been split like this before. He keeps insisting there are tons of rust-belt “Reagan Democrats” who will make up for the loss of much of the Republican base in November. But this is a very risky strategy that hasn’t been tried before. In general, when the base is sharply divided you lose the election in November. Also, he’s showing his age a bit ! I’m not sure there are so many “Reagan Democrats” or “New Deal Democrats who want closed borders” left. My guess is that most of these people are dead. It’s been a long time since the 1980’s.

        Maryk

        March 21, 2016 at 1:55 pm

      • But there is a revolution. A revolution of white American, racial consciousness, of which Trump is merely the catalyst.

        The Trump phenomena has gone so far that it no longer matters if he wins the Presidency, or even the nomination. In fact, it might be better if he *doesn’t* win the Presidency or if the GOPe robs him of the nomination.

        Look at what Trump has done: he vocalized white racial angst and put it in the public sphere. He has destroyed American Conservatism. He has legitimatized political violence.

        These things were all going to happen without Trump, but Trump sped up the process.

        And as to the subject of your TruCon ideology, it is no longer relevant. Why? *Because there are not enough white people*! If America’s demographics were what they were in 1970, Ted Cruz would currently be on track to defeat Hillary in all 50 states.

        Can’t you see that it is mass immigration that destroyed your movement? All Trump did was put it out of it’s misery.

        All hail Trump! Our Savior from the forces of Liberalism and Globalism!

        Otis the Sweaty

        March 21, 2016 at 2:30 pm

      • ” Also, he’s showing his age a bit ! I’m not sure there are so many “Reagan Democrats” or “New Deal Democrats who want closed borders” left. My guess is that most of these people are dead. It’s been a long time since the 1980’s.”

        There are a lot of blue collar types who favor decent social welfare previsions but want closed borders and don’t like globalized trade/off-shoring. They just have zero political representation.

        chairman

        March 21, 2016 at 2:55 pm

      • “He has destroyed American Conservatism”?

        Jesus Otis, what are you smoking? The presidency is ONE office. Plenty of fine TrueCons running for the House, Senate, governor, state legislature… conservatism is in a dominant position in the majority of elected offices across the country and is likely to remain in its dominant position after this year’s election.

        All of American politics is not embodied by the White House.

        Hellhouse

        March 21, 2016 at 4:15 pm

    • Personally, what I want is for Trump to win the nomination and then lose the general election. And then for the Republican Party to restructure itself around the Trump movement, which would necessitate both parties to realign themselves. Trump himself I trust not a whit. I’d rather they nominate someone I actually want to be president, but such a person is not running or is getting zero attention if they are running. My hope is that Trump 2016 will be like Goldwater 1964 … except that Goldwater was a principled and reliable man, but principles don’t really matter a lot if you don’t win the election and have to actually govern.

      However, if what you want is a party that emphasises old-school social conversvatism (pro-life, etc.) then it’s natural for you to not want the realignment that I’m talking about, which would tend to sideline that type of conservatism.

      Greg Pandatshang

      March 21, 2016 at 12:46 pm

      • Not gonna happen. If Trump loses, the GOP will crow “see we were right all along, and you must get on board with our open borders pro-Hispanic pro-immigrant agenda.” The only way the GOP will be restructured is if TRUMP WINS and restructures it.

        Tarl

        March 21, 2016 at 2:12 pm

      • My impression of Trump is that he has little interest in building a political organisation beyond the minimum necessary to serve his personal advancement. A President Sanders would be all about organising for a post-Sanders future; Trump, I anticipate, would be the opposite of that, more of a distraction than a positive force. I don’t have a crystal ball, so I could be wrong – I hope to be wrong.

        Greg Pandatshang

        March 21, 2016 at 2:49 pm

      • My impression of Trump is that he has little interest in building a political organisation beyond the minimum necessary to serve his personal advancement.

        Trump doesn’t care about political movements. He cares about results, about Making America Great Again. He knows if his Presidency is successful then others will build up a political infrastructure around his movement to continue it forward after him. That part of it is not his problem.

        Andrew E.

        March 21, 2016 at 4:52 pm

      • I’m coming around to this idea. It might actually be even better if the GOPe somehow steals the nomination and runs a Paul Ryan type in the general. The backlash would be intense, the GOPe candidate would lose badly as blue-collar whites stay home on election night, and the anger against the establishment would fuel the long-term realignment of the party.

        Anon

        March 21, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    • “What they’re afraid of in a Trump nomination isn’t losing the election”

      Clearly not, because they are working overtime to lose it.

      “but seeing the Republican party and the conservative movement change forever because of throwing away the social issue.”

      Kindly tout up the “social issue” victories the Republican party and Conservatism, Inc. have won for you in the past several decades. Gay marriage? Abortion? Pornography? Really, name ONE.

      “Losing the conservative movement is far scarier than losing the Court.”

      Without the court, any “conservative” legislation that gets passed will be quickly invalidated. You forget that the Liberal justices don’t give one tiny damn about the Constitution. They care ONLY for pushing their agenda and if they get the court then all hope is lost.

      “At least with Hillary as president I keep my movement.”

      Well, you’ve had it up to now. Fat lot of good it’s done you. So instead you and your fellow TruCons are going to sabotage the only candidate who has any chance of fixing REAL problems that can still be fixed — immigration, trade — and instead focus on winning battles you lost forty years ago. Great strategy.

      And you really ought to wake up to the fact that neither the GOPe or Conservatism, Inc. gives a hoot about your precious social issues. They just use them to suck money and votes out of the rubes, who get NOTHING in return, while they get on with their real job, which is being the fake opposition to the Progressive globalists.

      peterike

      March 21, 2016 at 12:51 pm

      • MEH 0910

        March 21, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    • “Losing the conservative movement is far scarier than losing the Court. At least with Hillary as president I keep my movement.”

      You weren’t worried about losing the movement in 2012 with Romney?

      Mike Street Station

      March 21, 2016 at 1:20 pm

      • I had some concerns about Romney. His record as Governor of Massachusetts showed that he’d make compromises with the cultural Left. But then he’s also a decent family man and a member of the Mormon church with a good standing in the church that he’d lose if he became a socially liberal president. I think as president he’d be more of a social conservative because it would be in his best interests – he’d be catering to a different constituency. No, I’m not happy about a candidate being opportunistic, I’d rather have a “truecon.” But then I’m not going to lose sleep over Romney having lied to the liberal voters in Massachusetts. Also, I was appalled at the ant-Mormon bigotry I saw from evangelicals in 2008. Mormons are white Christian conservatives with large families, respect for capitalism, and Republican voting habits. They are our natural allies and shouldn’t be driven away regardless of what they believe about “magic underwear.” The same people telling me I should overlook Trump’s two divorces and years of decadence were telling me that the weirdness of Mormon theology (unknown to most Americans and of interest to few people outside of Mormon circles) should rule out Mitt as president. Truly perplexing.

        Maryk

        March 21, 2016 at 2:14 pm

      • My point was that politically, Trump and Romney are nearly identical.

        Mike Street Station

        March 21, 2016 at 3:13 pm

      • Do you live in a blue state or red state, Tarl? Red state Republicans have provided perfectly fine government in Texas, South Carolina, Florida, Utah, and elsewhere. They have steady job / GDP growth, low taxes, low crime, and a very high standard of living.

        Hellhouse

        March 21, 2016 at 4:19 pm

      • “My point was that politically, Trump and Romney are nearly identical.”

        No, Mike, they aren’t. Romney has a political record, Trump doesn’t because he’s never been a politician. Romney has a real religion – and a good reputation within it. Trump has nothing but talk of Christians not being “respected” because fewer people feel comfortable saying “Merry Christmas.” Trump’s “conservatism” was fabricated ten minutes ago. There are college students who’ve spent more years as a conservative than Trump. This is a man close to 70 years old.

        Maryk

        March 21, 2016 at 4:59 pm

      • “Real religion” or magic underwear and the belief that the angel Moroni gave Joseph Smith the literal word of God (who was once a man living on the planet Kolob)?

        Trump is a conservative non-practicing Presbyterian.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 21, 2016 at 5:21 pm

    • Losing the conservative movement is far scarier than losing the Court.

      Fuck the conservative movement. I say that as someone who has been a conservative for 40 years. The conservative movement is DEAD and has been DEAD for decades. The conservative movement – as exemplified by the vermin at NRO and Weekly Standard – are not only no longer conservative (and have not been since at least 1992) but have not conserved anything worth conserving. They are nothing but apologists for the GOPe. As such, they must be destroyed just like the GOPe must be destroyed.

      A “conservative” movement that favors open borders, free trade, and wars in the Middle East is not conservative, and is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

      At least with Hillary as president I keep my movement.

      Yeah, that’s great. You realize part of the “movement’s” raison d’etre is totally ineffective fake opposition to Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton? The “movement” — like the GOPe — pretends to oppose them, and when the Democrats win the “movement” (like the GOPe) says “oh so sorry, we tried, but give us more money, more votes, and more support anyway.”

      The “movement” is part of Failure Theater:

      http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2015/03/06/gop-failure-theater/

      If you want ACTUAL SUCCESS rather than Failure Theater, you have to pull the plug on the “conservative movement” as well as the GOPe.

      Tarl

      March 21, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    • Maryk,

      Lose the “movement?” There is no movement. Conservatism as a movement has been an abject failure when it came to seizing the government and actually implementing government policy. Look at Paul Ryan giving Obama everything he wants and then making excuses for it.

      Either movement conservatives are stupid or compromised, or they’ve been effectively infiltrated by leftists for the last 20 years.

      A lot of house cleaning needs to be done.

      map

      March 21, 2016 at 4:22 pm

      • I agree. But I don’t see how burning down the house constitutes cleaning the house. I will admit, though, that the conservative movement needs to do some serious soul-searching about it’s relationship to the American people. They will have to make some changes in how they operate. This will be true no matter what the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

        Maryk

        March 21, 2016 at 5:20 pm

      • Maryk,

        But you’re not burning down the house. You are simply evicting the occupants. The worst that can happen is they punch a few holes in the wall or pour cement down the pipes, all of which can be fixed.

        Meanwhile, those same occupants you insist on staying are getting drunk and playing with matches. That’s what’s causing the problems to begin with.

        map

        March 21, 2016 at 8:47 pm

    • Lion did you see this
      http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-republicans-did-15-years-ago-to-help-create-donald-trump-today/ar-BBqJ8ds?li=BBnb7Kz

      I’d almost forgotten about that trade deal. I remember the WTO riots in Seattle and back then they were dissed as radical anarchists…now I kinda see their point.

      Mrs Stitch

      March 21, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    • MaryK wrote:

      “What they’re afraid of in a Trump nomination isn’t losing the election, but seeing the Republican party and the conservative movement change forever because of throwing away the social issue.”

      Do you mean gay “marriage” and abortion?

      Consider the Florida Abortion Amendment 6 of 2012 (would have prohibited public funds for abortion): Defeated 55%-45%. Consider the Mississippi Life Begins at Fertilization Amendment (2011): Defeated 58% to 42%. Mississippi and Florida are deeply socially conservative states. If abortion is not a winning issue in those places, it is not a winning issue anywhere. Millions of people say they are pro-life, but actually don’t want abortion made illegal when given the choice point-blank.

      As for gay “marriage”, most people in America are sick of arguing for the past 15 years on it. It is nonsense, but there is no possible path to overturn it. Scalia and a ‘conservative majority’ on the Supreme Court couldn’t stop up. Now he’s dead. You, MaryK, are in denial.

      In other social areas (view toward Islam, view toward crime and policing, support of the military) Trump is socially conservative.

      Dan

      March 21, 2016 at 5:20 pm

      • “Millions of people say they are pro-life, but actually don’t want abortion made illegal when given the choice point-blank.”

        Once people get used to a freedom, they don’t want to give it up.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 21, 2016 at 5:23 pm

      • Dan, I have stated many times that abortion is not the reason I’m a social conservative. And although I still oppose gay marriage, I understand that the issue has already been settled. I am talking about liberals and their penchant for social engineering. Whenever I oppose it I get told by libertarians and others that I’m “extreme” for defending values that were so mainstream until yesterday morning that no one even thought they needed to be defended. I’m told that I shouldn’t attempt “social engineering from the right” People don’t seem to understand that the cultural Left won’t quit. It’s conception of life is so bizarre that it keeps finding new “victims” everywhere and promoting values and policies that make it impossible for normal life to continue for millions of people. The cultural Right is needed to defend morality, religious liberty, and personal responsibility. Without this the Left reaches further and further. Get ready for incest, polygamous marriages, the end of homeschooling (and eventually the strangulation of all private schools that are not liberal – since they violate someone’s “rights.”) Why do many Republicans keep thinking social liberalism is limited to abortion and gay marriage? I only wish it were. Example: I was reading a gay website a few years ago and when the subject came up of religious schools not wanting to hire teachers who were openly homosexual one poster commented “Why are religious schools even allowed? Don’t they violate children’s religious freedom?” I kid you not.

        Maryk

        March 21, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    • Muh movement huh?

      You sound like an ideologue and Trump is winning because false conservatism isn’t doing shit for regular people. Your conservatism is like a liberals environmentalism, a way to social signal and get good feels.

      Anonymous bro

      March 21, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    • Maryk, first of all, you mustn’t vote for the escapee from the House of Wax. Second, with respect to voting for Hillary: Better to slide her a fat envelope across the table, she’ll do whatever you want. No, just stay home that day and make gnocchi for your friends instead.

      TRUMP 2016.

      Glengarry

      March 21, 2016 at 8:36 pm

  4. I don’t even understand the need. Is there any doubt that Trump would pick right of center judges? And Hillary would not pick any? The Wall Street Journal crowd has gone crazy, calling Trump a “leftist.” Good grief.

    Mike Street Station

    March 21, 2016 at 12:25 pm

  5. I think naming potential SCOTUS nominees is a double-edged sword. While it may allay some fears it won’t satiate TruCons. And it will give the left something to attack him with. There’ no way a nominee can satisfy both sides. Even if they’re flawless nominees that would get unanimous confirmation, they’ll still be smeared to undermine Trump during the election.

    destructure

    March 21, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    • Trump isn’t trying trying to satisfy both sides. Haven’t you been paying attention? 47% of people only vote DNC no matter what. Trump is trying to convince the 47% that always vote GOP he’s not going to betray them like McCain, Bush 1/2, Boehner, etc.

      He should put Cruz on this list btw….Or Ann Coulter!

      DSGNTD_PLYR

      March 21, 2016 at 1:40 pm

      • According to Gallup, 43% are political independents. Polls also show that up to 20% of Democrats could be persuaded to vote Trump over Hillary. He’s going to need them to win. Especially since TruCon fanatics will never support him.

        destructure

        March 21, 2016 at 3:28 pm

  6. Has Cruz said who he would pick? Is there going to be some sort of “whose proposed candidates are more conservative” competition here?

    As for this “not mattering because he can break his promise” talk from some commenters, WRONG. It is important to get the promises on the record and as specific as possible (names, not just “I will nominate conservatives”) because that makes it harder to “govern liberally” after the election. It gives the voters (and conservatives in Congress) a way to hold his feet in the fire after he takes office.

    Tarl

    March 21, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    • There is no way to hold Trump’s feet to the fire. We can’t impeach him because he appoints moderate or liberals justices. All we could do is deny him re-election. And at age 74 he might not even want to run again. He might prefer 4 years of his own brand of Republicanism to 8 years of our brand. I agree that there is no way to be 100% certain who ANY future president will pick for the Court. But you have to admit that Cruz has a record we can judge him by. And the odds are far better with Cruz.

      Maryk

      March 21, 2016 at 2:21 pm

      • Cruz is the more reliable conservative, but he’s never ever going to be President. And that’s part of the problem. We are long past the time when a conservative like that could be elected President. The demographic changes the Democrats have been working on have been successful.

        Mike Street Station

        March 21, 2016 at 3:11 pm

      • Cruz is the more reliable Christian Evangelical, which means you are more likely to get open borders, mass immigration and offshore outsourcing from him than anyone else.

        map

        March 21, 2016 at 4:38 pm

  7. There are almost as many people who will base their vote for President on the potential Supreme Court selections as they will on the Vice President selection!

    If I was advising Trump I would advise against doing this. It is obvious pandering that makes him look un-presidential, since this is something that has not been asked of any other plausible presidential candidate. And the names themselves could be picked apart and cost votes. The only upside is that most people won’t even notice this, but that means it also won’t help.

    From a good government perspective, it would be great if the public would know the Cabinet or executive department head selections of a major party nominee before voting. Parliamentary systems have shadow cabinets. But there is no tradition of a presidential candidate announcing his intended Cabinet during the campaign, and for the first one doing so it would look weak and presumptuous. Ronald Reagan took alot of damage just by announcing his VP pick too early in 1976. So no one will do this, though I suspect it would wind up like the nineteenth century tradition of presidential candidates not touring and speaking on their own behalf, once its broken it would be a standard part of election campaigns.

    But in this context, announcing judicial picks is a terrible idea. There is also the fact that constitutionally, the Senate has an equal say, which people keep forgetting.

    Ed

    March 21, 2016 at 3:05 pm

  8. I have a contrarian theory about why Trump seems to be drawing the most oily politicians — Huckabee, Christie, Carson, etc — to his side. It’s not because he’s super principled, it’s because he is supremely unprincipled.

    Every politician’s secret fantasy is to treat voters like complete morons, lie openly to them, use vulgar language, ignorant conspiracy theories, and fearmongering demagoguery. Trump’s made that acceptable, which excites the snake-oil set.

    Hellhouse

    March 21, 2016 at 4:26 pm

    • Every politician’s secret fantasy is to treat voters like complete morons, lie openly to them, use vulgar language, ignorant conspiracy theories, and fearmongering demagoguery.

      Obama did all that. But in his case it’s “acceptable” because he’s black, a Democrat, and enjoys the abject, slavish adoration of the media and the Washington elite.

      Tarl

      March 21, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    • “Huckabee, Christie, Carson” — what this men all have in common is that they are willing to confront the left and be politically incorrect.

      Dan

      March 21, 2016 at 5:34 pm

      • No what they have in common is they are ignorant, pathological opportunists, just like Trump.

        Sonic

        March 21, 2016 at 11:12 pm

    • No Christie, Huckabee, Carson etc. see a winner and want part of the winner’s table. In what way is say, Marco Rubio less “oily” than Huckabee. Rubio it might be recalled, campaigned for the Senate as a stalwart opponent of amnesty and then turned around and embraced it wholeheartedly as the driving force of the Gang of 8. Kasich is full cuck, wanting Amnesty within days of being elected. Cruz, in what way is Ted Cruz far less oily than Chris Christie?

      Christie etc. just don’t have the donor cash coming and want to be part of the winners circle. Simple as that. You have to ask yourself what they see in Trump to take the risk to tick off the donors in exchange for being part of a winner.

      whiskeysplace

      March 22, 2016 at 12:28 am

  9. The crossover voters Trump is getting from the Dems and as independents aren’t ideological, otherwise they wouldn’t be crossovers. They won’t care much about Trump’s list of judges as long as Trump himself remains non-ideological in his campaigning and keeps hammering the issues all Americans care about: trade, immigration, no more foreign wars/nation building.

    This move continues Trump’s effort of putting forth one of the most transparent political campaigns in modern times.

    Andrew E.

    March 21, 2016 at 4:45 pm

  10. I think Scott Adams mentioned that the Supreme Court issue is going to favor Hillary as it takes attention away from her failings with the Arab Spring, the email thing, Bill Clinton’s dodgy past etc.

    Julian

    March 21, 2016 at 4:48 pm

  11. I wonder if Trump will get his nominees’ permission first before he floats their names?

    Mark Caplan

    March 21, 2016 at 4:50 pm

  12. A question: In 2008 we had both Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo running for president (if I remember correctly.) Both of these men got exactly nowhere. But both were anti-immigration and opposed free trade. So where were all these angry blue-collar whites then? This was a year when almost everyone had the internet or knew someone who did. Why didn’t these angry voters look up which candidates shared their views and back either of these candidates? I don’t disagree with Trump on either issue. But it’s clear that his obnoxious personality and vulgarity are partly why so many listen to him and support him. Hunter and Tancredo were too civilized for Joe six-pack apparently. So much for their fear of losing their country. While everyone here on LOTB is a serious thinker, it’s clear that nothing stopped a Nationalist candidate years ago except the fact that the will wasn’t there. Why should we assume Trump’s supporters like him for the right reason?

    Also, does Trump ever call for sacrifice? Real leaders inspire people to sacrifice for the national good. Trump doesn’t do this. And we can see why. He’d lose his Joe Sixpacks in a heartbeat if he called for them to change some of their self-destructive ways. Can you imagine Trump telling some of his white working-class young male supporters to stop fathering children out of wedlock? Why not? Ending all immigration won’t do us much good if we end up being a big white ghetto.

    Maryk

    March 21, 2016 at 5:13 pm

    • “A question: In 2008 we had both Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo running for president (if I remember correctly.) Both of these men got exactly nowhere. But both were anti-immigration and opposed free trade. So where were all these angry blue-collar whites then? This was a year when almost everyone had the internet or knew someone who did. Why didn’t these angry voters look up which candidates shared their views and back either of these candidates?”

      Good question but a simple answer. Tancredo (I don’t even remember Hunter running) was a nobody who had no money and no one heard his platform. When Trump announced, his speech was carried live by all the cable news networks and on radio. More people heard that speech live than ever heard the name Tancredo. Trump was already a celebrity and he parlayed that into news attention. So he was able to put his platform across and everyone heard it. And he has the funds to continue with his message, since it’s one that NO donor would ever fund. So it’s a simple combo of big name and money. Tancredo didn’t have either and he would never have the money. No one would have ever funded such a campaign.

      Mike Street Station

      March 21, 2016 at 5:37 pm

      • That’s just my point. They heard of him because he was a celebrity and had money to fund his own campaign. But they would have heard of Hunter or Tancredo if they’d simply looked at the websites of each candidate running for president. That they didn’t indicates that they weren’t desperate for a nationalist program. Politics for them is entertainment. Hunter and Tancredo would have come across as policy wonks. What do we do if in a few years someone else with another political platform entertains them?

        Maryk

        March 21, 2016 at 9:18 pm

      • “But they would have heard of Hunter or Tancredo if they’d simply looked at the websites of each candidate running for president.”

        If it were that simple, we wouldn’t need any media at all, no TV News, no radio, no newspapers.

        Mike Street Station

        March 21, 2016 at 10:53 pm

      • Maryk,

        You are seriously underestimating the media influence. TV is still a massive medium. For all the talk of Fox News one forgets that Fox’s numbers are generated over an entire day. CBS/ABC/NBC easily pull 20-30 million people on their news segments at 10 Central.

        Trump is able to penetrate this iron curtain in a way Tancredo could not.

        Look, Maryk, there is no downside to a Trump presidency. If he reverses himself on all of his positions, then we will just get a standard RepubliCrat candidate. Those are already running in the race.

        Trump is a wildcard, but he is already a huge improvement over the other candidates simply because we know what the other candidates are going to do.

        map

        March 23, 2016 at 1:36 am

    • “Can you imagine Trump telling some of his white working-class young male supporters to stop fathering children out of wedlock?”

      Women control access.

      destructure

      March 21, 2016 at 8:53 pm

      • BS. A lot of men are perfectly willing to father children with a girlfriend. A man can use condoms. If the woman says no to this, a man should assume she wants to get pregnant. It is not etched in stone that men have to act like horndogs. Are people human or not? I’m not saying no one should be having sex outside of marriage. Only that both genders need to be responsible about it. Throughout most of history there has been stigma on bearing children outside of marriage. Our ancestors didn’t need to “grow.” It’s the freedom-obsessed American zombies of the late 20th and early 21st centuries who need to grow and realize that not everyone before them was stupid and only practiced self-restraint because they believed in eternal damnation. Traditions became traditions for a reason.

        Maryk

        March 21, 2016 at 9:33 pm

    • Lol are you the female version of Kevin Williamson?

      Trump gets attention because he knows how to play the media. There is no American nation anymore it’s just a state now. Why would I sacrifice for NAMs? Come on get real already, if you wanted an aspirational forward looking America then you should have kept her white. That’s the fundamental flaw of your movement conservatism.

      Anonymous bro

      March 22, 2016 at 4:46 am

      • Who said anything about NAMS? I was talking about white American’s own behavior toward itself and (mainly) other white Americans. And Trump gets attention because his shtick is something people find enjoyable. If the audience would simply boo him when he says insulting and vulgar things and scream out “stick to the issues” he could get his nationalist point across without as much criticism from the media. That Trump is not forced to behave better is partly the fault of his audience.

        Maryk

        March 22, 2016 at 9:27 am

  13. #1 – J. Michael Luttig

    Rifleman

    March 21, 2016 at 5:51 pm

  14. It’s a national scandal that Supreme Court Justices are routinely in their late 70’s, 80’s. People don’t have enough energy and mental horsepower at such advanced ages. In the past Justices would die at early ages. We need staggered term lengths.

    Steven J.

    March 21, 2016 at 6:23 pm

    • That would require an Constitutional Amendment which is not going to happen.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 21, 2016 at 6:41 pm

      • Couldn’t congress change laws so that the justices are forced to write more of their own decisions and rely less on clerks?

        Lloyd Llewellyn

        March 22, 2016 at 2:42 pm

  15. Possibly great news for Trump. A vicious, blood-curdling anti-Muslim article in the Daily Mail portraying Islam in all its barbaric depravity merely summarizes a harrowing documentary that will be broadcast tomorrow in the UK titled SAUDI ARABIA UNCOVERED.

    Astoundingly, PBS will broadcast the documentary next week in the U.S. on Frontline. It’s hard to believe ultra-politically correct, pro-Muslim PBS won’t back down and bury the video once the Council on American-Islamic Relations (a.k.a. Death to America, Ltd.) gets wind of its contents.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3502079/Saudi-Arabia-s-kingdom-savagery-DOES-Britain-cosy-butchers.html

    Mark Caplan

    March 21, 2016 at 7:01 pm

    • I don’t like the heading of the article. The problem is not having good relations with Muslim countries, but letting Muslims to immigrate to the West. The documentary won’t advocate this. It’s a step in the wrong direction.

      Yakov

      March 22, 2016 at 6:10 pm

  16. With the Scalia vacancy, we are on the verge of a radical shift of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. If anything can rally reluctant conservatives into supporting Trump, it’s the Supreme Court issue.

    And Jim DeMint is advising him on which judges deserve consideration.

    Like his solicitation for advice about immigration from Sessions, Trump is signalling he will delegate policy to his conservative advisers in the same way he delegates business matters to his senior business partners.

    Conservatives can look on this as proof he will broadly work with them on major policy decisions even if he doesn’t privately believe in major conservative stances towards abortion restrictions, free market health care, etc.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    March 21, 2016 at 8:03 pm

    • TUJ, I don’t understand your last paragraph. What do you mean he will “broadly” work with them? How are we supposed to know on what issues he will take the “broad” conservative view or his “private” liberal view? I can’t see why people believe you can elect someone and he will do what YOU want, not what HE wants. The whole purpose of getting elected is to use power to accomplish what you want. No one gains power and then hands it over to someone else. Interestingly, we also heard this same claim 8 years ago about Giuliani – i.e. he’s not a social conservative but he won’t “get in their way” or “bother them” too much. The idea is that a candidate can someone satisfy you politically without joining you ideologically. The only difference between Giuliani and Trump on social issues is that Trump is willing to put on an act.

      Maryk

      March 22, 2016 at 9:56 am

    • I can’t see why people believe you can elect someone and he will do what YOU want, not what HE wants.

      Because he will still need their support in office. To do things like get reelected, pass legislation, and turnout for midterms.

      And at least he doesn’t have a proven track record of ignoring important voter concerns like foamboy Rubio.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      March 22, 2016 at 5:23 pm

  17. Trump hit a homer in front of the Hebrew crowd this afternoon.

    K.l. Asher

    March 21, 2016 at 8:12 pm

  18. MaryK and her “conservative movement” is a joke. The Civil Rights movement was a real movement that accomplished some serious shit and benefited it’s advocates (mostly unjustly).

    The conservative movement maybe kinda sorta can be credited with effectively fighting the Soviet Union. But it has NEVER done anything positive for actual Americans on the ground. Not on the culture/social issues, not on wages and affordable family formation, not on globalism, not on immigration. . .NOTHING.

    Again, the “conservative movement” is the movement that never moves. It’s just “conservatism Inc.” a glorified mailer service and controlled opposition. To be a conservative is to be a cuckold.

    fakeemail

    March 21, 2016 at 8:21 pm

  19. Trump on police racism, in his interview with the Washington Post:

    HIATT: Well, forget Freddie Gray, but in general, do you believe there are disparities in law enforcement?

    TRUMP: I’ve read where there are and I’ve read where there aren’t. I mean, I’ve read both. And, you know, I have no opinion on that. Because frankly, what I’m saying is you know we have to create incentives for people to go back and to reinvigorate the areas and to put people to work. And you know we have lost million and millions of jobs to China and other countries. And they’ve been taken out of this country, and when I say millions, you know it’s, it’s tremendous. I’ve seen 5 million jobs, I’ve seen numbers that range from 6 million to, to smaller numbers. But it’s many millions of jobs, and it’s to countries all over. Mexico is really becoming the new China. And I have great issue with that. Because you know I use in speeches sometimes Ford or sometimes I use Carrier – it’s all the same: Ford, Carrier, Nabisco, so many of the companies — they’re moving to Mexico now. And you know we shouldn’t be allowing that to happen. And tremendous unemployment, tremendous. They’re allowing tremendous people that have worked for the companies for a long time, they’re allowing, if they want to move around and they want to work on incentives within the United States, that’s one thing, but when they take these companies out of the United States. Other countries are outsmarting us by giving them advantages, you know, like in the case of Mexico. In the case of many other countries. Like Ireland is, you’re losing Pfizer to Ireland, a great pharmaceutical company that with many, many jobs and it’s going to move to Ireland.

    Crow

    March 21, 2016 at 8:21 pm

  20. There will be a Third Party candidate and Hillary wins by a landslide. It’s time this party joins together and supports it as ONE! A House Divided Does Not Stand.

    Baldassano Benjamin

    March 21, 2016 at 10:51 pm

  21. I hope his judges make more sense than his gong show team of foreign policy all-stars:
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/donald-trump-foreign-policy-advisers-221058

    Bebe

    March 21, 2016 at 11:16 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: