The Supreme Court Explains Why You Should Vote for Trump

The last four presidential elections have matched establishment Republicans against increasingly progressive Democrats. Election 2016 was supposed to continue the pattern, but Donald J. Trump upset the apple cart. A few establishment Republicans led by Mitt Romney, along with staunch conservatives like Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, have serious issues with Trump’s demeanor, his policies, and his rhetoric. They also believe he will be defeated in November. They might be right, but running a third party candidate or somehow sabotaging Trump’s nomination or even encouraging potential voters to stay home will result in a progressive Democratic victory in November.

For starters, four more years of increasing progressive policies and spending will damage our country possibly beyond to point of no return. Balance that against the chance that Trump might cause more problems than a Clinton or Sanders. (Although it is hard to imagine how anything he could do would be worse than what our current President has done.) If your ship is sinking complaining that the lifeboat might not float seems a pretty short sighted point of view.

And then there is the question of the Supreme Court. With the recent death of Antonin Scalia the next president will nominate at least one justice. A progressive president will nominate someone like Kagan or Sotomayor tipping the frequent 5 – 4 decisions toward progressive outcomes. Plus, three justices are old. Justice Breyer will be 78 in August, Justice Kennedy will turn 80 in July, and Justice Ginsburg is already 83. Any of them could either die or choose to resign for health reasons. Breyer and Ginsburg are both liberal and a President Clinton would replace them with two other, probably much younger, liberals. Kennedy has been a swing vote on many issues, but he would certainly be replaced with a committed liberal making the court consist of 6 progressive liberals and only two strict constructionists since Chief Justice, Roberts, given questionable decisions, can’t be counted on consistently.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Eagle Rising updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

On Wednesday Trump released a list of eleven potential Supreme Court nominations. All of them have solid strict constructionist records. Any of them would followed the Constitution more closely than a Democrat nominee. Voters who have doubts about Donald Trump must recognize that giving progressives four more years to implement their policies is bad enough, but enabling a liberal President to create a progressive court for the next 15 to 20 years would be a disaster. For instance, Democrats in Colorado are trying to pass a law that would hold manufacturers of firearms, as well as gun sellers, and gun owners responsible for crimes committed with those guns. Sure, you could own a firearm, but you’d have to make it yourself, because gun manufacturers would be out of business. Also, consider the idea of government IRA’s called MyRAs. John E. Girouard, a financial advisor for over 30 years, wrote about it in Forbes/Investing. Basically he explained how bad the program would be for investors, by limiting their potential earnings.

Right now it’s voluntary, but what if a progressive administration decided to make it mandatory?

You want to bet that a progressive Court would find nothing wrong with that? We already have to buy health insurance, after all. The same kind of thing would happen anytime a progressive issue was brought before the Court. In addition it is likely that no executive order of a progressive President would ever be found unconstitutional.

Full disclosure, Donald Trump was not my first, second, or even third choice for the Republican nomination. That doesn’t matter. He’s going to be the nominee. I wasn’t entirely happy with the establishment choices for the Republican Party, but I voted for them because I believed the Democrat choice would be worse. It’s more than a little ironic that there are some establishment Republicans who feel they can’t do the same for Trump. In the final analysis voters have to balance not only whether they feel Trump would be better than Clinton or Sanders. They also must absolutely recognize that danger of giving progressives control of the Judiciary branch of government.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

About the author

Nicholas Wishek

Nicholas Wishek. Retired teacher. 40 years classroom experience. Served in California National Guard 6 years. BA in history, MA in education. Married 35 years. Two sons. Many columns published in OC Register 2009-2014.

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.

Send this to a friend