Profile image
By Moonbattery (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Originalists Against Trump

Wednesday, October 19, 2016 5:57
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

Some who climb aboard the Trump Train bark about the Supreme Court as if it is a trump card that will silence opposition and excuse their betrayal of conservativism. This willfully naive idiocy does not fly with Originalists Against Trump:

The Originalists Against Trump effort threatens to undercut one of Trump’s chief arguments for disaffected Republican voters, namely that support for Trump is inextricably tied to filling the Supreme Court vacancy with a nominee in the tradition of Justice Antonin Scalia. The group cites Trump’s “character, judgment and temperament” as among its reasons for opposing his candidacy.

Originalism, a judicial philosophy popularized by Scalia and beloved by conservatives, holds that the Constitution has a static meaning. The adherents to originalism stand in stark opposition to the left-leaning proponents of a “living Constitution,” whose meaning may change based on new historical circumstances.

Incidentally, Trump denounced Antonin Scalia for opposing Affirmation Action.

Law professor Stephen Sachs of Duke University told the Washington Examiner via email that he and William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor, drafted the statement for the movement.

From the statement:

“Many Americans still support Trump in the belief that he will protect the Constitution. We understand that belief, but we do not share it. Trump’s long record of statements and conduct, in his campaign and in his business career, have shown him indifferent or hostile to the Constitution’s basic features — including a government of limited powers, an independent judiciary, religious liberty, freedom of speech and due process of law.”

Regardless of the phony lists he puts forth to placate the gullible, the authors do not trust Trump to nominate qualified judicial candidates, or to respect constitutional limits on his power.

Why would they? This is a guy who proclaimed during a primary debate that he intended to issue explicitly unlawful orders to torture and murder. It would foolish in the extreme to expect him to suddenly develop respect for limited government after being handed vast power.

His kooky and cognitively challenged national spokesperson Katrina Pierson provides an indication of the caliber of the candidates he would nominate. Obsequious subservience and a willingness to rubberstamp his power grabs will be the only relevant qualifications.

Whichever authoritarian wins next month, the Constitution is in for a continued rough ride. But it has lasted this long. If enough people hold true to conservative principles, it will last another generation.

Trump is as certain as Clinton to apply lighter fluid.

On a tip from Torcer.


We encourage you to Share our Reports, Analyses, Breaking News and Videos. Simply Click your Favorite Social Media Button and Share.

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Top Global


Top Alternative




Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.