I am reblogging this piece here because it is wrong-headed and as it originally appeared it didn’t allow for comments. I shall ignore the majority of the article, which appeared to be carefully reasoned and is correct in many ways in order to focus on the heart of the message: a Democrat must not win this election because that person will select the ninth Supreme Court justice and swing the court to the left.
The problem with this argument is that it cuts both ways: if a Republican were to be elected that person would nominate Supreme Court justice who would swing the court to the right. But, as history has shown, in many cases the judges are independent of political forces and vote their conscience: politics does not always rule the Court.
In the case of Donald Trump we have no idea whatever whom he would choose and the gamble would be unwise, to say the least. The choice of a Supreme Court justice is central to this election and we need to have someone making the nomination who understands what the republic stands for and how wise judges are to be selected. It should not be left to the whimsy of a rattle-brained narcissist.
This article is written to convince you, the reader, that the Democratic candidate MUST NOT WIN the 2016 election for President of the United States of America.
It does not matter whether you are a Democrat or Republican, Libertarian or Bernie supporter, never-Trumper or a stay at home protest voter. It doesn’t matter who the Democratic candidate is, whether Hillary Clinton or some replacement if she somehow does not finish the race. The bottom line is the Democratic candidate MUST NOT WIN.
The United States is NOT a democracy. It is a representative republic. The people do not vote on each law at the national level. They do not write laws directly. The people elect representatives and the chief executive to do that work and handle the day-to-day operation of the Federal government. The elected officials are replaced or continue then at the will of the people at each…
View original post 1,762 more words
Hugh, conservative columnist David Brooks said it best on his PBS Neeshour recap with Mark Shields on Friday. Forsaking civility and decency for the sake of a US Supreme Court nominee is a horrible trade. Trump would goes against everything that religious texts say is the way we should behave and that would impact our democracy far more than what people would realize as perceived gains in a Supreme Court. Thanks for reposting this. Keith
I thought it worth a comment. There are so many things wrong with it! Among other things the author refers to the constitution as a “branch” of the republic — along with the executive, legislative, and judicial!
There is much that the writer of that post fails to understand about our government and how it functions. And he certainly fails to understand that the framers of the Constitution designed it in such a way that it could grow as the country itself grew. It is not a document set in stone, but rather one that was always intended to evolve as the nation itself evolved.
That’s the key: they never intended it to be carved in stone. It is a document that requires revisiting from time to time — the framers could not have been expected to foresee everything (corporate powers, PACs, and automatic weapons, for example)
Exactly! I sometimes think about writing a story about one or more of the framers coming back to earth in this century, and how they would react to what they would see. The world evolves … look at the issue of slavery, for example … the Constitution has had to be amended more than once on that issue alone!
If you write that story I promise to read it!!