Trump’s top five picks for Supreme Court


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

Link here. The author argues, that though some of these individuals have made decisions that some conservatives dislike, their general philosophical and analytical approach to their court decisions make them all strong conservative picks.

I’ve spent the better part of a week researching many of their writings and talking to stalwart constitutionalist leaders about them. All of them are clearly textualist-originalists to a degree Chief Justice Roberts never appeared to be, even when many on the right were applauding Roberts’ 2006 nomination due to his clear sense of one sort of judicial “restraint” and generally conservative political leanings.

Sure, these judges may reach differing conclusions from each other in particular cases, but these will likely be with the infrequency and integrity of, say, the occasional differences between Justice Clarence Thomas and the late Justice Antonin Scalia. What’s important is that each one of them is clear and forthright in applying the same basic method of analyzing each case — namely, by hewing closely to the facts at hand, and carefully considering those facts in light of the exact language of the statutes and/or Constitution (whichever applies) relevant to that case.

All of them do so while clearly operating from a legal-philosophical framework/understanding very much in line with the philosophies so well explained in the seminal Federalist Papers that explained how and why our Constitution was designed as it was.

If that honest decision-making process sometimes leads to individual case results that do not comport to the policy preferences of a subset of conservatives, so be it. The real safeguard for our liberties lies in that analytical process undertaken by those well steeped in a Federalist-paper worldview. The reality is that in the vast majority of cases, the right constitutional approach will lend aid to the right policy results, because the Constitution and conservative policies both tend toward limited government, maximum liberty under straightforward law, and a respect for the realms in which traditional institutions of family and faith are honored and cherished. For every policy disappointment that might result from such an approach to constitutional jurisprudence, surely 15 or 20 policy triumphs will occur. [emphasis in original]

While I agree with the author in general, his discussion of one particular candidate, Thomas Hardiman, did nothing for me. Based on what I read, Hardiman is now my least favored choice among the names Trump is considering.

Regardless, read it all. The article indicates once again that while Trump might have once been a liberal Democrat, his leanings now are increasingly in a conservative direction.

Share

11 comments

  • Cotour

    Listening to the news on the radio and the announcer says “Today president Trump………bla, bla bla what ever it does not matter”. The fact that he did not say “president Clinton… bla, bla, bla” warms my heart and literally brings a smile to my face.

    Life is good, there is once again hope in America and also the world.

  • wayne

    Cotour-
    Yes, infinitely pleased Obama is gone & HRC will never be president.

    The Portland Police respond as protesters blocked traffic
    https://youtu.be/NusnC-xYkR0
    (0:50)

  • Cotour

    Now that is the proper way to deal with anarchists, on the ground and then cuffs, no BS. We make a distinction between anarchists and the havoc that they intend and just and righteous first amendment protesting and the exercise of First Amendment rights.

  • Edward

    Cotour wrote: “Life is good, there is once again hope in America and also the world.

    This seems to depend upon who you are. If you are Michelle Obama, hope was lost even under her husband’s watch:
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/michelle-obama-home-oprah-interview/

    Some people are frightened of liberty and freedom. The thought that we have to make our own decisions about our lives rather than an elite ruling class making these decisions for us frightens those who fear that they may make the wrong decisions. This could be because they have been told by the elite that “When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong. Every single time.”
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0435651/quotes?item=qt2280985

    Some people just do not feel that they are grown up enough to make their own life-altering decisions and need to be babysat by the elites who are old enough to make these decisions for all of us.

    In fact, what was it that Michelle Obama said in the CNN article, above?
    ‘I feel Barack has been that for the nation in ways that people will come to appreciate. Having a grown-up in the White House who can say to you in times of crisis and turmoil, “Hey, it’s going to be okay. Let’s remember the good things that we have,”‘ she said.

    Thus, they think that it is only when we “have a grown-up in the White House” that there is hope for the rest of us. Of course, “grown-up” is a code word for elitist. Democrats know all about code words, having invented them for their political purposes.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0MESB6VZM4 (9-minutes, Bill Whittle: “The Problem with Elitism”)

    As for grown-ups, Trump is quite a bit older and far more grown-up than either Obama, so it is clear that she was talking of her husband as the one who had failed to inspire hope, despite his campaign slogan. She may be as concerned as I am that Trump is too much of a liberal Democrat (like her husband) and will also rule the country rather than run the country.

    The lack of hope that came from her husband’s administration was due to his philosophy of leading from behind. Any leader will tell you that the only way to lead is to be in the lead. This is why so many countries turned to Russia’s Putin for leadership rather than turning to America’s Obama. Putin knows where the leader belongs and how to lead.

    As for Trump, we will have to see whether he thinks of himself as an elite or as one of We the People.

    As for life being good, I will wait until the tyranny that government may require us to do, say, or think anything it chooses, not that we choose, is over before I will say that life is good again.

    wayne,
    It looks like Portland’s police department is well led. They know what they are doing and do not put up with lawlessness. The appreciative citizenry cheered, applauded, and thanked the police and were complaining at the disrupters (“two wrongs don’t make a right, guys”).

    I hope the judge throws the book at them.

  • Cotour

    The new head dude on his new plane.

    https://youtu.be/Myq4uEn4kF0

  • wodun

    The article indicates once again that while Trump might have once been a liberal Democrat, his leanings now are increasingly in a conservative direction.

    I don’t know if he is but he certainly knows how to dance with his date.

    @Edward The lack of hope that came from her husband’s administration was due to his philosophy of leading from behind.

    That was one of the most stunning public admissions that Obama was a terrible President during the last 8 years. Leading from the front is deeply ingrained in our culture from the lessons of history and the fact that it is how good leaders operate. The media championing the position of leading from behind shows just how corrupt they are.

    The Portland cops didn’t used to act like this. Just recently they were quite permissive in letting people riot.

  • wayne

    Edward/wodun-
    good stuff.

    Portland Police have a mixed record on “riots” and crowd-control.
    -Have friends in Tigard who work in downtown PDX. Apparently for this particular situation, rioters targeted the buses during business hours, and nobody wanted to put up with that for too long.

  • Cotour

    Trumps got to be lovin this!

    https://youtu.be/cKR8HXseBVY

    I think I saw him smirk :)

  • Cotour

    Trumps got to be lovin this!

    https://youtu.be/cKR8HXseBVY

    I think I saw him smirk :)

  • Alex

    AMERICANS! WE LOVE DONALD TRUMP!!!!
    European liberal elite crap tumbles in reaction to Trump’s action.
    We are enjoying every seconds of leftist’s suffering!

  • Edward

    Alex wrote: “AMERICANS! WE LOVE DONALD TRUMP!!!!

    To paraphrase Sally Fields: They like us, right now, the rest of the world really likes us, again!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *