"Trump the Establishment" is now on sale! Click to order.

And the Kindle version is here.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Trump's high court choice shuts up the National Review

President Trump just kept his word. Again. He said he would select a candidate worthy of Antonin Scalia's seat. Trump did. He's not a politician talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Many of his critics need to wipe the smug off their faces.

He proved them wrong. Again.

Conservatives may be forgiven for attacking and opposing Trump in the Republican nomination process.

But National Review and others threw away their Reagan Fan Club cards last fall.

Remember this?
The Supreme Court Is Not a Sufficient Reason to Vote for Trump
That was not a headline in Daily Kos or Huffington Post or Salon or Vox or even the Washington Post.

That was National Review!

From the story:
Weighed in balance, Donald Trump could be more of a threat to the Constitution than a Hillary Clinton-appointed Supreme Court liberal majority.
What?

What?
The prospect of a Supreme Court defined by Hillary Clinton is grim, and conservatives are right to be concerned. But while the Supreme Court may be the last compelling reason to vote for Donald Trump, it’s hardly a sufficient reason to vote for him.
Start with the short-term. 
The immediate cause of the Supreme Court frenzy is the vacancy left by Antonin Scalia’s death, which Hillary Clinton would surely fill with a staunchly liberal justice, shifting the center-of-gravity of the Court leftward. This would, indeed, be a loss. And Trump might, indeed, appoint someone better. Might. His list of potential Supreme Court nominees, released under duress in May, is promising, if hardly foolproof. But it is also provisional.
Those are the words of a magazine gone bonkers -- nuts -- crazy.

In other words, liberal.

Thank God 63 million of us ignored National Review and elected Trump and kept the Supreme Court conservative.

Three words: Justice Sally Yates.

The magazine was willing allow liberals to control the court for the next thirty years just to thwart Trump -- and regain control of a defeated party in tatters.

By the way, what happened to that "reality show" announcement we were promised, New York magazine?

Go back to who, what, where and when!

Oh and PJ Media has "5 Things You Should Know About Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch."

Details, details, details, details, details.

You like details? OK, F.H. Buckley has a great rundown on Gorsuch, as well.

@@@

Please read "Trump the Press," in which I skewer media experts who wrongly predicted Trump would lose the Republican nomination. "Trump the Press" is available as a paperback, and on Kindle.

It covers the nomination process only. The general election is covered in a sequel, "Trump the Establishment," which will be published in paperback on February 7.

For autographed copies of either book, email me at DonSurber@GMail.com

Be deplorable. Follow me on Twitter.

32 comments:

  1. Even better, he's only 49.

    Liable to be there for a long, loooong time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Trump's got the Loyal Gorsuch.

    The National Revue (sic) has got the Royal Nonesuch.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good Pick.

    Oh, and Sally Yates should be disbarred.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chuckie's tears and a lucrative gig at MSNBC or CNN.

      Delete
  4. Now if McConnell has the guts to "go nuclear" if necessary.....

    ReplyDelete
  5. How much longer can Ruth Bad Ginsburg hold on? I feel another vacancy coming on. Donald should keep his list handy. Progressive judges of the past have made the Court too damned powerful, but as long as we're stuck with that, I say Donald should pick as many Scalia-thinking clones as possible. But I'd like to see more geographical and educational diversity in his next pick. A handicapped, transgendered gay Chinese jurist educated at the University of Mississippi law school would be an even better. choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now if he just delivered judgements in a Bobcat Goldthwaite voice, I could really get onboard with that.

      Delete
    2. "Progressive judges of the past have made the Court too damned powerful ..."?
      How?
      As recent as 2009, the Court was 7 R-appointees to 2-D appointees. Scalia sided with marriage equality. I hope Dems approve this guy ... Ivy League education - born and raised in Denver (where weed is king); clerked for SC (insider) and has history of arguing against Executive overreach.

      Delete
    3. @Anon: Take your blinders off. You are thinking about the court in YOUR lifetime. I'm thinking about history all the way back to 1803, the court of Chief Justice John Marshall, and Marbury v Madison.

      The fact that you would list the alleged political leanings of the Justices proves my point. If those leanings are important, then the Court is too powerful and has too much sway over our lives. A situation where 9 unelected people get to determine important issues like the legality of abortion-on-demand is not what the Founding Fathers expected. There's a reason why the courts are established in Article III and not Article I of the Constitution. The order of the articles in which the structure of the government is ordained is in the order of their expected pre-eminence: Congress the direct representatives of the people first, the Executive branch doing the bidding of Congress next, and the courts (including SCOTUS) to handle legal disputes between states and individuals last.

      Delete
  6. Gorsuch sounds like an outstanding candidate. The Dems will be outraged. Bummer for them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just keep listening to Genesis's Mama these past few days, I know, it's a weird song, but when Phil busts HA HA HA, I want to transmit it to every Prog in the country. WE WON. YOU LOST. Deal with it, bitches.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I roll over to NRO every once in a while to see what nits they're picking with what Trump has done as of late. It's sad because there are some guys I really enjoyed reading over there. You listening, Jonah.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It took a while to embrace Pres Trump's candidacy. But I am so glad that I did. I have not been disappointed, not at all.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Winning never gets old. 2 weeks in and so much fun.

    Let's hope we keep on winning for 8 more years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See this: http://disobedientmedia.com/trump-files-with-fec-for-2020-election-bid-outmaneuvers-nonprofit-organizations/

      Delete
    2. See this: http://disobedientmedia.com/trump-files-with-fec-for-2020-election-bid-outmaneuvers-nonprofit-organizations/

      Delete
  11. Trump has made a career of picking excellent people. It's what a good executive does.

    Honestly, I'm gobsmacked that so many people on OUR side have bought into the left's "Trump is stupid" propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Justice Gorsuch looked a bit nervous last night but that is to be expected. President Trump's introduction, however, was absolutely, positively Presidential. I was impressed by his sincerity and decorum. - Elric

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Honest and humble people often look a little nervous in those types of high-pressure settings.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, and it was great to see him putting his arm around his wife. Almost like, you're my rock. Very human. I'm all in for this guy even though I would have gone for Pryor.

      Delete
  13. you still got the elitist snobs at Cato, Reason, Kochs who hate Trump, claim he's no friend of libertarians. There's now a gulf in the libertarian movement between working class libertarians and the Koch-funded snobs.

    ReplyDelete
  14. NRO.
    And Levin, Pavlich, Shapiro, Beck, Bozell etc. of the still not come-to-Jesus #nevertrumpers. The rest I won't waist keystrokes on. That wagon won't come back either.

    Red-Shirted goods folks.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This excellent post brings to mind Sundance's post at the Treehouse. Enjoy it here:

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/02/01/sorry-nevertrumpers-but-you-dont-get-to-dismount-your-high-horse-today/

    ReplyDelete
  16. Let's just hope he doesn't contract the Washington DC disease like John Roberts.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Didn't really shut them up: Jonah is ragging on Steve Bannon today.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If they have to go nuclear on Gorsuch, Pryor is a shoe in next. The dems have shot themselves in the foot, the knee, the groin, the stomach and next time in the heart. They don't learn.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Really freak out establishment. Pick a CEO of a successful, or anyone else who's been successful in life WHO ISN'T A LAWYER. Nothing in the Constitution requires judges of any sort to be lawyers.

    ReplyDelete