The sinking fantasy that Trump would defend the Constitution - By George Will
By George F. Will Opinion writer August 5 at 7:09 PM
Like shipwrecked mariners clinging to a floating mast, many Republicans rationalize supporting Donald Trump because of “the court.” This two-word incantation means: Because we care so much for the Constitution, it is supremely important to entrust to Trump the making of Supreme Court nominations. Well.
In a Republican candidates debate, Trump complained that Ted Cruz had criticized Trump’s sister, a federal judge. Trump said: “He’s been criticizing my sister for signing a certain bill. You know who else signed that bill? Justice Samuel Alito, a very conservative member of the Supreme Court, with my sister, signed that bill.” Trump, the supposed savior of the Supreme Court, thinks federal judges sign bills.
The mast-clingers say: Well, sure, he knows nothing about U.S. government, including the Constitution, which he vows to defend all the way to “Article XII.” He will, however, choose wise advisers and humbly defer to them.
This does not quite seem like him, but the mast-clingers say: Don’t worry, he already has compiled a list of admirable potential nominees, and, stickler that he is for consistency and predictability, he will stick to this script written by strangers. This, too, does not quite seem like Trump, but the mast-clingers say: Don’t worry, he has said enough to reveal what his “instincts” are. Indeed he has.
-snip-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-sinking-fantasy-that-trump-would-defend-the-constitution/2016/08/05/04b42f1e-5a6c-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1
= new reply since forum marked as read
News to me and takes me by surprise.
Seems like she fell far away from the tree and deserves some credit for her decisions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryanne_Trump_Barry
(1) It is the party's registered voters who pick the candidate they want for president. Trump was picked by the voters, not the RNC, who I'm sure would have much rather a more qualified candidate. Which leads us right into...
(2) As Hillary herself said, she's good at the "service," and not so good at the "public." An advisor who is hugely qualified might be hired as an advisor even if he's not all that likable.... But POTUS? Nope. The man/woman who would be president has to be able to get crowds cheering his/her name, wearing his/her face on a teeshirt, wanting to shake his/her hand. Putting it another way, Cheney would not have won POTUS like G.W. Bush did.
This would be why a political party wouldn't run the advisors. But we're talking mostly about voters who want Trump in the White House. They think the advisors can keep things afloat while he learns the job on the job. And they're okay with this because they think he'll bring in a fresh perspective. Like in the movies: outsider with crazy ideas takes a traditional job in a stubborn town (for example: See "Legally Blonde 2"
. He makes mistakes, but advisors help him learn the ropes. Using out-of-the-box thinking, he has surprising successes, which finally convert the stubborn locals into doing things differently. Movie ends with everyone on board with our outsider, and the world being a more efficient, better and happier place.
This scenario can happen--though almost never like in the movies But a young Steve Jobs shaking up the computer industry by taking some maverick chances is a bit different from Trump shaking up the executive branch. The worst young Jobs could do was hurt company finances and get fired. But Trump could destroy our whole economy or start WWIII. If he wants to experiment with government, let him start locally. And small. Not nationally/globally.
