Donald Trump has released his list of choices for U.S. supreme Court should he be elected. Or has he?
Trump’s press release from his campaign website reads: “May 18, 2016 – Today Donald J. Trump released the much-anticipated list of people he would consider as potential replacements for Justice Scalia at the United States Supreme Court. This list was compiled, first and foremost, based on constitutional principles, with input from highly respected conservatives and Republican Party leadership.”
If one were to read this press release, one would assume, if Trump is elected, he will nominate one of these 11 to replace Justice Scalia. This is the implication as it is written.
If you just happened to instead be listening to conservative Trump Talk Radio, save for Glenn Beck and Mark Levin, it would be the only conclusion you could come to. This is the list, which was crafted by The Donald and we can all rest easy now that he has released such a list of constitutional jurists. This proves he is serious about restoring constitutional principles back to the high court. So there – all you haters!
But that’s not what the press release says. It does NOT say that from these 11, I will choose one. What it does say is that Trump “would consider as potential replacements,” which equally means he may not choose from this list, thereby making the list a complete waste of everyone’s time – oh, and a head fake to conservatives to bring them aboard the progressive Monty Hall express. For those too young to know who Monty Hall was – he hosted a popular TV game showed titled, “Let’s Make a Deal.” Carol Merrill – show the audience which justice is behind door number 3!
Dr. Charles Krauthammer was evidently pleased by Trump’s selections. “Now you get a list of 11 who are quite sterling, three of them clerked for Justice Thomas, two of them for Justice Scalia, the six federal judges all appointed by George W., which means they are conservative and they are relatively young. So this is a future-looking list,” Krauthammer said.
So does this mean conservative stalwarts like the doctor are jumping on the Trump bandwagon? I don’t know, but it appears this list has gone a long way toward quelling some fears concerning The Donald. It sounds to me that Charles is beginning to warm to the Trumpster.
Yet I still have not heard mention of the Trump campaign’s purposeful word game use of “potential” and “would consider.” They forgot to also add, may, maybe, might and could. Is it just me? Is no one concerned with these less than declarative statements?
These are the types of Svengali tactics that people are falling for and worry me most. And evidently, people – really smart conservatives, who one would think could read between the lines, are definitely falling for it.
The saddest thing may be that I’ll bet he didn’t write it, nor had virtually any input on it. Trump or someone on his staff decided he needed to throw a bone to the “Right Wing,” so they (not him) came up with a list of solid conservative candidates.
Of course there is no way for me to prove he had no input, but there is a way for someone else. If someone were to just ask him what he likes most of any of the candidates – pick one – it won’t matter. Take Mike Lee’s brother for one. “Mr. Trump – what opinions or philosophy prompted you to add Thomas Lee to your list of potentials?”
I can unconditionally guarantee – double your money-back, that Trump has not a clue about Thomas Lee’s philosophy, a single Utah court ruling of his, or even who Thomas Lee is, despite the entire list of candidates being posted on DonaldJTrump.com. And “I think he’d be great – he’s a solid conservative,” is not an answer, but that’s what we’d get and many would accept it.
Believe me – I’m hope I’m wrong – wrong about all my misgivings regarding The Donald. It would be wonderful if he does everything (well – not everything) he has promised. But so far I see no evidence of it. And this press release with it’s parsing of words doesn’t help.Tags: 2016 election Donald Trump Supreme Court
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.