We are eight weeks away from an election that could grant Hillary Clinton a mandate to achieve her life’s ambition of transforming our liberal, democratic republic into an authoritarian, centrally-planned state. And Dorothy Rabinowitz (see Wall Street Journal, 9/29/16) is still sniffling about the stylistic and temperamental shortcomings of Mr. Trump. Ms. Rabinowitz might have been more persuasive had she addressed the differences between the candidates on substantive matters, but the more-important point is that this election is about just one issue: control of the Supreme Court.
- It is certain that Ms. Clinton would fill the Scalia seat, as well as any other seats that became vacant during her reign (e.g., Ginsburg’s), with people who share her view that the U. S. Constitution is an obsolete nuisance that can and should be brushed aside to make way for presidential Executive Orders and federal regulations. It is also clear that a Clinton-style Supreme Court would give the White House the functional equivalent of the power of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.
- We cannot be certain that Mr. Trump is more respectful of the truth than is Ms. Clinton, but we do have his pledge to fill Supreme Court vacancies with responsible lawyers and jurists who do not share Ms. Clinton’s vision of turning our legislative and judicial branches into window-dressing. He has given us a list of possible nominees, and the list is impressive and convincing.
Ms. Rabinowitz indicates that Ms. Clinton, though burdened by certain “proclivities” (like, lying?), is “experienced, forward-looking, indomitably determined, and eminently sane.” She neglects to mention that Ms. Clinton is a big-government/static-economy socialist, but, picky picky.
The central point is that Trump, despite his flaws, would give us an independent Supreme Court and Clinton would not. The only other core-issue, the elephant in the room, is that the fastidious right is nearly as concerned as the left over placing Donald Trump’s finger on the Nuclear Button. This fear, more than quibbles about policy or doubts about his character and personality, lies at the core of Trump-aversion syndrome. Rabinowitz et al seem to fear that Trump might blow up the world if some nation insulted his wife or questioned his net worth. Understood, but would you reject someone who might push the button at an inappropriate time, who might decline to go through the charade of assembling 30- member Coalitions of The Willing, and instead elect someone who has shown that she would never push the button, no matter how grave the danger we faced, someone with a lifetime resume’ of finding reasons NOT to take appropriate military action, whether in Benghazi or generally in the Middle East? Do you, like Ms. Clinton, fear battle more than you fear loss of your independence?
We get it, that historians might not forgive you purist republicans for voting for Trump. But remember, you scarcely lifted a finger to support the losers he dispatched so readily in the primaries. So, get over it: hold your nose, compromise your intellectual purity, and save your country. Forget policy and personality. This election is about the survival of our constitutional system of checks and balances. At this point, only the judiciary, only a Supreme Court not dominated by the left, can prevent keep this “progressive” coup from becoming permanent. Remember, it is almost impossible to revert from the statist model back to the free-markets/free-people model. Think Venezuela. Think western Europe. Sitting out this election while pledging to nominate a better candidate in 2020 would be unrealistic and reckless. We might not even be holding elections by then.