[TeflonDon]

This is just a rant. I was just thinking that everyone has been beating up on the "Establishment" for not fighting for our rights. Whether that's true or not, you have to at least give them credit for fighting and holding off on allowing Obama to nominate late Jusdtice Scalia's replacement. I and many others thought that obstruction would backfire by costing Republicans the Senate and alowing Hilary to nominate someone much worse than Obama's antugun appointee Merrick Garland. They didn't "compromise" or "give in" and it all worked out in gun owner's favor depending on who Trump nominates.

 

[rcsoftexas]

Great point! They still have some making up to do. But it is definitely a good point.

 

[QKShooter]

I think that Trump will absolutely nominate a qualified Constitutional scholar.
There will be a great Justice replacing a great Justice.
I don't get a bad feeling about that at all.

 

[NoDeer]

Not sure what else Trump will do, but I believe that he will appoint a conservative judge for the SCOTUS. Hopefully he will have the chance to appoint several more.

 

[Nmuskier]

What are you guys doing pontificating at 0:30? :smile:

I like the outcome, but i don't think the republican brand had 2A protection in mind for that strategy. i'd be more inclined to believe that they just wanted more justices sympathetic, or owing homage to a republican president.

i don't see the republican party as a conservative movement. they have a few conservative members who end up being chastised by the progressive media (dnc campaign corporation). then the Rep party feels pressured to agree with the socialists and denounces conservative ideas as "extreme". Ideas like national sovereignty.

So, i view the SCOTUS nomination as a political power move, not one over ideals. the dems want power via socialism. the reps want to be in power. if they have to compromise and let a littlr socialism n to appease the masses, then so be it. I take note that no matter how much they fight each other, they always agree on fixing the game so that they are the only 2 players. opposite sides of the same coin.

 

[SIGP250]

This is just a rant. I was just thinking that everyone has been beating up on the "Establishment" for not fighting for our rights. Whether that's true or not, you have to at least give them credit for fighting and holding off on allowing Obama to nominate late Jusdtice Scalia's replacement. I and many others thought that obstruction would backfire by costing Republicans the Senate and alowing Hilary to nominate someone much worse than Obama's antugun appointee Merrick Garland. They didn't "compromise" or "give in" and it all worked out in gun owner's favor depending on who Trump nominates.

Most of the "establishment" on both sides of the aisle didn't think Trump had ANY chance of winning. Most "establishment" Brits never believed that a vote to exit the European Union would succeed. They just didn't see the handwriting on the wall.

In our recent election, the DNC saw well in advance that Bernie supporters would have a significant impact on their base but failed to respond. On the other side, the establishment completely bailed on Trump hoping to save themselves down ticket, in some cases actually endorsing the opposition.

Trump made it clear in one of his early policy speeches and made it part of his platform to insure not only the Republican establishment but all voters that he would nominate only conservative judges who supported our Constitution and the Second Amendment. The nominees he listed were well received by the Republican party but they still didn't back him for President.

The plan had HRC won would most certainly have been to proceed immediately with Garland. Any of HRC's nominee's would be even more liberal and of course anti-gun. Anyone who thought Mitch McConnell would have tried to hold out from hearings for her entire term are very naive, ignorant or stupid.

We voted for Change. The establishment GOP rode on Trump's coat tails. End of Rant.

 

[dangerranger]

I think the anti establishment sentiment is toward both the Dem's and Rep's! The point is neither had our[ the middle class american's] best interest at heart! That's why people like the Bush family are not supporting him. If Trump is successful He will have taken away their power too! He is very much the second model of the Tea Party! Not quite as conservative but with a broader appeal. DR

 

[Phaedrus]

Trump never really made any policy speeches, just jumbled rants about how he'd do terrific stuff. I half expect him to empty several insane asylums to fill his cabinet but hopefully he will pick some qualified justices (well, one at least). I can't remember who was on his list of proposed candidates but I do remember that they looked pretty experienced. It will be fascinating watching him deal with the House and Senate. He has a lot of enemies there but now that he's won they'll need each other. Probably they will expect him to rubber-stamp a lot of stuff but he was a fairly liberal Democrat for most of his adult life. He has made encouraging comments about the 2nd Amendment and was a proponent of marriage equality long before HilClin and Obama "evolved on the issue".

Should be an interesting few years.opcorn:

 

[cjohnson44546]

Trump never really made any policy speeches, just jumbled rants about how he'd do terrific stuff. I half expect him to empty several insane asylums to fill his cabinet but hopefully he will pick some qualified justices (well, one at least). I can't remember who was on his list of proposed candidates but I do remember that they looked pretty experienced. It will be fascinating watching him deal with the House and Senate. He has a lot of enemies there but now that he's won they'll need each other. Probably they will expect him to rubber-stamp a lot of stuff but he was a fairly liberal Democrat for most of his adult life. He has made encouraging comments about the 2nd Amendment and was a proponent of marriage equality long before HilClin and Obama "evolved on the issue".

Should be an interesting few years.opcorn:

You didn't listen to many of his speeches then... he made a lot of policy speeches, and got into specifics. You must have stopped listening to him after the primaries.

 

[Havok]

I just hope that whoever he nominates sticks to the constitution. And that includes putting the brakes on some of the things ue supports.

 

[Rock and Glock]

A Cloture Vote still requires 60 Senators. That means some Independents and Democrats are required. I think that insures some quality Nominees.

 

[GraySkies]

Trump never really made any policy speeches, just jumbled rants about how he'd do terrific stuff.

he was a fairly liberal Democrat for most of his adult life.

and was a proponent of marriage equality long before HilClin and Obama "evolved on the issue".

Should be an interesting few years.opcorn:

Wow, Phaedrus. That makes twice today that I have agreed with something you said. A new record for me. Must be something I ate. :tongue:

I am watching with great interest to see what Trump does on the court nomination. I am glad Mrs. Clinton didn't win, but I didn't vote for Mr. Trump and I don't trust him any further than I could throw him. The 60 minutes interview has me actively worried that a large segment of the American population has been majorly duped.

I hope he nominates a constitutional originalist to the court, or even a constructionist would suffice if they are cut from the same cloth as Justice Scalia, but there is NO WAY TO PREDICT what the man will ACTUALLY DO when the time comes. That is why I wanted someone with PRINCIPLES to be the nominee, so there would be some way of predicting how they will vote on crucial issues. In Trumps case there are none, and there is no way to predict.

I hope I end up pleasantly surprised, but I will remain a skeptic until he has proven himself in at least a few of my core principle issues. If, in the end, he actually represents me, I will get on board and support him for reelection. That very much remains to be seen, though.