WhatFinger


We don't need Justices who share her attitude toward the law

No, Hillary, the Supreme Court should not be against the wealthy



You probably didn’t hear much about it because all the media wanted to talk about was bad hombres and Donald Trump “not accepting the result” of the election, whatever that means. But during the third and final debate last week, Hillary Clinton made an astounding statement about the U.S. Supreme Court. After Trump reiterated his position that his court appointments would interpret the Constitution as the founders intended, Hillary replied as follows: “The Supreme Court should be on the side of the American people, not on the side of the wealthy and the powerful.” Now I’m sure that a lot of people were nodding their heads when she said this. Of course! Who wouldn’t want to be on the side of “the people” instead of the wealthy and powerful?
Except that this is not what the Supreme Court is supposed to do at all. I realize it’s no major revelation that Hillary is a little shaky on the whole idea of following the law, but a court is not supposed to be inherently on the side of anyone vs. anyone else. The court is supposed to be on the side of the law – plain and simple, whatever it says, regardless of who wins and who loses. While the media were hyperventilating over Donald Trump’s refusal to promise them he would accept the election results – as if an election loser has to “accept” the result for it to be final – they were completely missing the much more dangerous statement that Hillary Clinton made. She does not want the Supreme Court to be a neutral arbiter. She doesn’t want it to follow the law. She wants a Supreme Court that’s biased in favor of some people and against other people. Now you might ask: What’s wrong with favoring the people over the wealthy and the powerful? Nothing whatsoever if you’re a lawmaker. And nothing whatsoever if you’re talking about making the rules so that people of wealth, privilege and connections don’t work the system to get favors and breaks other people can’t get. (Like the Clintons do constantly.) But that’s not the job of a judge. A judge might get a case in which a common salt-of-the-earth person ran afoul of the law, and a wealthy person was injured and has a right to relief. The judge’s job is to rule according to what the law says, not to ignore the law because he feels badly for the common, salt-of-the-earth person. If that’s how we treat the law, we have no law. We just have the whims of people asked to make decisions.

Support Canada Free Press


And if Hillary Clinton is allowed to appoint Supreme Court Justices, this is exactly what we will get. We’ll get people who don’t try to determine what the law says, but rather who try to twist the law to justify pre-conceived outcomes they’ve already chosen based on who benefits and who doesn’t. And if that’s how our Supreme Court operates, then we have no law. We only have the agenda of the people who sit on it. Of course, we already know that Hillary Clinton doesn’t respect the law and operates as though she is exempt from it. And for all intents and purposes, she is exempt from it. The FBI and the Justice Department made that clear. So if this is the kind of person we put in control of the Executive Branch of the government – which is supposed to enforce the law – why should we expect anything different from the people she appoints to the Supreme Court. The only law will be Hillary’s agenda. Actual statutes be damned. At least the wealthy can get favors from Hillary by writing fat checks to the Clinton Foundation. You regular people? You’ll have no idea what the law actually is, but don’t worry. Hillary says her court will be on your side. Trust her.


View Comments

Herman Cain -- Bio and Archives

Herman Cain’s column is distributed by CainTV, which can be found at Herman Cain


Sponsored