"By their support for Trump they’ve demonstrated they are beyond shame — and reason."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Trumpkins’ Supreme Court excuse crumbles
By Jennifer Rubin, September 22, 2016

Republicans straining to justify support for Donald Trump cling to the notion that the Supreme Court is a good enough reason. Along with many other conservatives, we have previously explored some reasons why it is not — e.g., the ship has sailed on gay marriage and abortion; national security overrides judicial concerns; Justice Anthony Kennedy would still be there for a fifth vote against conservatives. Yesterday, Trump added two powerful grounds for abandoning the hoax that he will deliver a strong conservative court.

First, while apparently attempting outreach to African Americans — more realistically, trying to appeal to white audiences who harbor African American stereotypes — he declared that he would support a nationwide stop-and-frisk policy. Think about that, conservative admirers of the 10th Amendment. It’s not up to the president in our constitutional system to tell local police what they should and should not do. That should tell you something about Trump’s pathetic ignorance about our Constitution. (It ranks up there with saying his sister the judge “signs” bills.) Moreover, the practice has already been declared unconstitutional by a federal court in Trump’s own state. Surely he has heard about it?

It’s a tad embarrassing when the socialist mayor of New York has a better grasp of the law than the GOP presidential nominee. (Bill de Blasio said Trump’s proposal was “appalling” and declared, “he’s either ignorant about the history of the city or he’s lying about it.”)

In addition to de Blasio’s suggestions, it may be that Trump intends to ignore the court ruling, or alternatively, force opponents to file suit when he tries implementing stop-and-frisk everywhere else. Maybe all of these explanations apply. In any case, it makes Trump apologists who spout “But the Supreme Court!” argument look ridiculous. (It is noteworthy that he backtracked this morning saying he was talking about Chicago. He wasn’t, but in any event he’s still proposing the president microman[a]ge local police forces in ways that have been ruled discriminatory.)

All of that would be bad enough. However, Trump also let on that he is going to add names to that supposedly inviolate list of potential Supreme Court nominees — none of them he could name without a teleprompter, no doubt — thrust under his nose by well-meaning conservatives. He declared that he would pick from a list of 20 names — not the 11 he previously listed. Well, he did previously suggest that he might appoint political backer and high-tech mogul Peter Thiel. (Liberals would be happy with him, I suppose, since he is an ardent defender of gay rights.) Trump could have forgotten the number of judges on the list (11? 20? whatever?). If so, it tells you something about how important this is to him.

One is tempted to shake the Trumpkin self-deluders by the lapels and cry, “You’ve been scammed!” It would, unfortunately, do no good. It is hard to imagine even they, who claim to care about the court, actually believe Trump would appoint judges (not only to the Supreme Court but at the district and circuit court levels) to their liking on anything like a consistent basis. It would no doubt take a nanosecond for him to “trade” a Supreme Court justice for Democratic support for some other priority that is also an anathema to conservatives (e.g. federal child care, tariff legislation).

Let’s get real here. Pro-Trump leaders of conservative groups (including evangelicals) and conservative pundits using the Supreme Court to justify their support for a candidate entirely ignorant of and dismissive of legal restraints are kidding themselves and misleading others. They should be honest: They are supporting Trump out of blind party loyalty, careerism (including keeping conservative audiences from shrinking even further than they have), irrational moral equivalence between Trump and Hillary Clinton or because they actually like one or more of his policies (e.g., rounding up 11 million immigrants). Should they be ashamed? By their support for Trump they’ve demonstrated they are beyond shame — and reason.
...................................................................................................................................................................