Hugh Hewitt: "The Supreme Court is in the balance"
He appeared on MSNBC and, after criticizing Trump, he concluded that he will vote for him for the reason, above.
Quite right, Hugh (for a change). The Supreme Court is in the balance.
So yes, many here want to continue with the revolution, voting for a third party candidate, etc. We've had similar discussions here before and, in too many cases, the responses here were something like "I don't care." Under no circumstances will a person vote for Clinton.
So, at least for now, can you put aside Wall St., trade agreement, the emails and other "horror" stories about her and can you just concentrate on the Supreme Court?
There will be at least two, and perhaps four vacancies. The next president will change the Supreme Court for generations. Isn't this what is really important?
If you are not sure whether rulings by the Supreme Court made any differences to you, personally, think about all the recent rulings: the ones determining that all marriages are legal; that the ACA is legal. Think about Loving v. Virginia from 1967 that legalized inter racial marriage. Thing about Roe v. Wade, about Lawrence V. Texas from 2003, that struck down sodomy laws; think about Griswold v. Connecticut from 1965 that established the right to privacy, including the right for unmarried couples to use contraceptives; also Eisenstdat v. Baird from 1972.
So you want a revolution. You want to turn Washington upside down. Do what the teaparty did. Start working to elect like mind individuals, perhaps run for office yourself. And, I suppose, you could prevent a Democratic majority from accomplishing anything - just like the teabaggers have been doing. But, at least, let Clinton nominate the next two or three justices.
Deal?
= new reply since forum marked as read
