Monday, October 10, 2016

Lost In Debate: Whither Goes The Supreme Court

Understandably lost in the muck and mire of the second debate -- in which Trump claimed his sexual predatory comments were not worse than Isis beheadings and became the first presidential candidate in modern history to threaten to jail his political opponent -- were the responses to a question about the current vacancy on the United States Supreme Court:  "What would you prioritize as the most important aspect of selecting a Supreme Court justice?"

Clinton responded that she wanted "to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience," that she wanted "to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark, unaccountable money out of our politics," and wanted "the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country, that we don't always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise." She said she wanted "a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose" and "that will stick with marriage equality."  She also said she wanted "a Supreme Court that doesn't always side with corporate interests" and the wealthy. 

Trump claimed he would look "to appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice Scalia" and noted that he has put forth a list of 20 prospective justices who he claimed to be "highly respected, highly thought of, and actually very beautifully reviewed by just about everybody."  And he stressed that he would appoint justices who will respect "the Second Amendment, which is totally under siege by people like Hillary Clinton."

As I wrote here (Justice Scalia Has Left The Building), Antonin Scalia, may he rest in peace, was an arrogant, partisan hack whose decisions were completely result-oriented, masked in a flawed legal theory.  The last thing this country needs is another Scalia to cement the right wing majority on the Court for generations.  And as for the 20 (mostly) white men who are on Trump's A-list, John Yoo, now a law professor and formerly the notorious author of the notorious torture memo for the Bush White House, tellingly approves, calling it an "all-star list of conservative jurisprudence."  According to NPR's Nina Totenberg, they are "bedrock conservatives, many with records hostile to abortion rights, same-sex marriage and federal regulations." Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice described them as "ultraconservatives who espouse a backward view of the law [with] track records [that] suggest they would endanger the cherished rights and freedoms of Americans."

If any redeemable, non-deplorable American still needs a reason to vote for Clinton, there you go.


Post a Comment