Trumpkins’ Supreme Court excuse crumbles

[DonViejo]

By Jennifer Rubin September 22 at 12:45 PM

Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective. Follow @JRubinBlogger

Republicans straining to justify support for Donald Trump cling to the notion that the Supreme Court is a good enough reason. Along with many other conservatives, we have previously explored some reasons why it is not — e.g., the ship has sailed on gay marriage and abortion; national security overrides judicial concerns; Justice Anthony Kennedy would still be there for a fifth vote against conservatives. Yesterday, Trump added two powerful grounds for abandoning the hoax that he will deliver a strong conservative court.

First, while apparently attempting outreach to African Americans — more realistically, trying to appeal to white audiences who harbor African American stereotypes — he declared that he would support a nationwide stop-and-frisk policy. Think about that, conservative admirers of the 10th Amendment. It’s not up to the president in our constitutional system to tell local police what they should and should not do. That should tell you something about Trump’s pathetic ignorance about our Constitution. (It ranks up there with saying his sister the judge “signs” bills.) Moreover, the practice has already been declared unconstitutional by a federal court in Trump’s own state. Surely he has heard about it?

It’s a tad embarrassing when the socialist mayor of New York has a better grasp of the law than the GOP presidential nominee. (Bill de Blasio said Trump’s proposal was “appalling” and declared, “he’s either ignorant about the history of the city or he’s lying about it.”) In addition to de Blasio’s suggestions, it may be that Trump intends to ignore the court ruling, or alternatively, force opponents to file suit when he tries implementing stop-and-frisk everywhere else. Maybe all of these explanations apply. In any case, it makes Trump apologists who spout “But the Supreme Court!” argument look ridiculous. (It is noteworthy that he backtracked this morning saying he was talking about Chicago. He wasn’t, but in any event he’s still proposing the president micromange local police forces in ways that have been ruled discriminatory.)

All of that would be bad enough. However, Trump also let on that he is going to add names to that supposedly inviolate list of potential Supreme Court nominees — none of them he could name without a teleprompter, no doubt — thrust under his nose by well-meaning conservatives. He declared that he would pick from a list of 20 names — not the 11 he previously listed. Well, he did previously suggest that he might appoint political backer and high-tech mogul Peter Thiel. (Liberals would be happy with him, I suppose, since he is an ardent defender of gay rights.) Trump could have forgotten the number of judges on the list (11? 20? whatever?). If so, it tells you something about how important this is to him.

###

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/09/22/trumpkins-supreme-court-excuse-crumbles/?utm_term=.a47c948a834f&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1

[Hortensis]

1. The funders of the Heritage Foundation are NOT

"well meaning conservatives." Bet they were feeling a little grim hearing about Thiel and the 20.

But they know Trump'd just need to be played and landed when a vacancy opened up and then just long enough to "pence" him into naming their chosen nominee. Don Jr. would be a very important man to keep in good with, and vice versa.