Back during the 2016 election I wrote that "If you found a dead rat in the gutter, stuffed it into a dirty wet sock, and managed to get it onto the ballot opposite Hillary Clinton, I'd vote for it." Mrs. Clinton was simply an unacceptable candidate. No matter how bad President Dead Rat might have been, he or she still would have been better than Hillary. The reason was simple, and was born of one, singular, issue. Hillary Clinton could not be allowed to taint the Supreme Court for what will probably be at least two generations.
Fortunately, we didn't need the dead rat. Hillary lost - badly - to someone who promises to nominate exactly the kind of pro-Constituion Justice we need.
Now, everyone is waiting for President Trump to make his SCOTUS pick. The speculation about who he might select has been wide-ranging and, aside from the list of judges he offered during the campaign, he's remained tight-lipped on the subject. Take a deep breath because, to paraphrase the Rocky Horror Picture Show, he's about to end your antici- ....pation.
He tweeted the following this morning:
I will be making my Supreme Court pick on Thursday of next week.Thank you!
Given that the President has been keeping his campaign promises, the nominee should be a staunch constitutional conservative who will shore up 2nd Amendment protections.
Last night, CBS's Major Garrett reported the following:
The choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia is down to two names -- Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch and U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, according to two sources close to the selection process.
Gorsuch has a slight edge -- CBS News’ Jan Crawford reported that Gorsuch was the front-runner over the weekend.
But as Mr. Trump narrows the field, “many voices” are “making calls” on Hardiman’s behalf, and he cannot be ruled out, one source said. Hardiman has to be considered a serious contender, just on the heels of Gorsuch.
Support Canada Free Press
Mr. Trump's pick is guaranteed a tough confirmation battle, since Democrats are eager to throw a hissy fit over Merrick Garland. They've made it very clear that there is, basically, no one Trump could choose that they could support. Expect to hear the terms "illegitimate" and "stolen seat" tossed around like balloons at a 5-year-old's birthday party.
If that's the fight Democrats want, they're free to initiate it. But, given their recent fortunes, I wouldn't bet against Trump.
Whatever happens for the next for years, as long as we get one or two strict constructionists on the bench, the Trump presidency will have been a success.
