(07-01-2016, 02:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump finally has an opinion on the Supreme Court's abortion ruling, and it is satisfyingly stupid
By Hunter (Daily Kos)
Thursday Jun 30, 2016 · 12:18 PM PDT
MONESSEN, PA - JUNE 28: Presumptive Republican candidate for President Donald Trump speaks to guests during a policy speech during a campaign stop at Alumisource on June 28, 2016 in Monessen, Pennsylvania. Trump continued to attack Hillary Clinton while delivering an economic policy speech targeting globalization and free trade.
(Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)
Gonna be a while before I get tired of this picture.
It took three days to ferment, but Donald Trump finally has come to an opinion on the Supreme Court's ruling this week that nixed Texas' onerous restrictions on abortion clinics. And as is expected, when Donald Trump is forced to weigh in on subject not directly related to which things are classy and which are not, it is a stupid response worded stupidly.
“Now if we had—Scalia was living, or if Scalia was replaced by me, you wouldn’t have had that, OK? It would’ve been the opposite,” Trump said of the ruling, which struck down a restrictive Texas abortion law.
The ruling was 5-3. If Scalia had been alive it would have been 5-4. The only way a Donald Trump appointment would have made a difference here is if Donald Trump declared that Donald Trump-nominated Supreme Court justices got three votes per case while everybody else still only got one. Which is something Donald Trump would probably do.
Radio host Mike Gallagher apparently wanted to make quite sure he got Trump on the record on this one, and so followed up: So under a Donald Trump presidency, "you wouldn't see a majority ruling like the one we had with the Texas abortion law this week." Right?
"No, I—you wouldn't see that. And—and people understand that. And, now you know, when you appoint judges sometimes, they change their minds. Because you had that in the case of Obamacare with John Roberts. I mean, who would've thought that couldn't happened?"
So to sum up, Donald Trump's opinion on the Supreme Court ruling—and mind you, there was nothing in this entire exchange to suggest that Donald Trump knows what the ruling was, or what it was about, or even the slightest bit of information beyond the vague understanding that conservatives didn't like it—is that it would have happened differently under President Trump because magic, and if it didn't happen differently it wouldn't be his fault because you can't trust them darn judges anyway.
You could have asked him to voice an opinion on any other Supreme Court ruling, including ones you just made up to see if he was paying attention, and I'd wager the response would be the exact same generic words arranged in the exact same generic way. What did you think of the court's decision in Godzilla v. Larry’s Diner & Rib Shack et al, Mr. Trump?
"If Scalia was replaced by me, you wouldn't have had that, OK? It would have been the opposite. But when you appoint judges, sometimes they change their minds..."
![[Image: GettyImages-543430998.jpg?1467151159]](http://images.dailykos.com/images/268286/story_image/GettyImages-543430998.jpg?1467151159)
Demagogue Don forgets that (1) Barack Obama was elected fair and square -- twice, (2) that the President nominates justices to the US Supreme Court, and (ideally) the Senate has hearings on those to confirm or reject appointees -- for incompetence, extremism, ill preparation, corruption, and cronyism, but not for partisan advantage, (3) that the Senate by playing games with the President on an appointment to the Supreme Court may ensure that Donald Trump not only is not elected President, but also that the Republicans lose the Senate*, (4) Supreme Court decisions are capricious, but usually well thought-out, (5) that the President has no influence on any single decision, (6) the significance of stare decisis , and (7) that elections have consequences.
Abortion rights aren't going to disappear; decisions made by the Supreme Court are final -- at least until they are redefined on some bigger principle or by a Constitutional amendment. I fail to understand why a 5-3 split is any more decisive than a 5-4 split.
Barack Obama has no obligation to name a 'conservative' Justice to replace Antonin Scalia any more than that George H W Bush had an obligation to replace retiring Justice Thurgood Marshall with a liberal. (P.S. -- does anyone here think that Barack Obama might be an eventual Justice on the Supreme Court?)
This illustrates the importance of a President having experience as a Governor or Senator -- and even Eisenhower understood how the judicial process operates (and he went along with it like a good senior officer). Donald Trump knows less about the Presidency and the US government than the typical law student. Or maybe I.
*The gamble that Donald Trump will be President and that the US Senate will remain in Republican hands is a very poor bet, a high-stakes bet with little gain.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.