Never Trump Court

I have always been on board with the Never Trump movement. Most of us have been. It doesn't seem to be winning or losing any people, so, it's a pretty solid group. One issue those who want us to violate our conscience and vote against every principle that they themselves preached only two years ago hang above our heads is that of the Supreme Court. If Hillary is elected, we have no chance of getting a justice that will favor anything we stand for. We have a chance if Trump is elected. This is a horrible argument. 

Think of it like a game of Russian Roulette. If you choose the gun Hillary hands you, you know that it is completely loaded. If you choose the gun Trump hands you, there is a chance that it isn't completely loaded. The better choice is Trump. Or maybe it is more like numbers. If Hillary is elected, there is a 0% chance that we will have favorable justices. If Trump is elected, there is a >0% chance we will have a favorable justice. So, Trump is the better choice. 

But this is an incomplete picture. The worse case scenario in the game of Russian Roulette is death by gunshot to the head. And whether or not the bullet came from Hillary or Trump, it doesn't matter. Each death is equal. But not all bad justices are equal. Some are worse than others. So, it may be that something worse than death is at the barrel of the gun, in both cases. Looked at in the numbers variant, a justice that isn't favorable to conservatives is a 0%. But not all justices are at an equal 0%. If we want to do a point system, Scalia is like a 100, Thomas a 99, Kennedy a -5, and Ginsberg a -95. How far down the scale do we risk with Trump? We don't know, because that agnosticism is what fuels the argument from those who oppose Never Trump in saying we have to vote for the mere chance. 

In other words, it is certainly possible that Trump may be even worse than Clinton in his nominees. Sure, we MIGHT have a chance that we get a conservative justice with Trump, but that sword cuts both ways. It would also be possible that we MIGHT get a justice worse than what Hillary would appoint. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Milo

Image
So I decided to go see Milo Yiannopoulos at UCSB yesterday. I was really hesitant to do so, and decided not to go, but a few of my friends wanted to go, and they're all losers who don't drive, so, I had to take everyone. I didn't know much about Milo, and I still don't, but I did learn some things. In some of the more, ahem, colorfully conservative pages of facebook that I follow, Milo has been something of an iconoclast, destroying the feminist narratives left and right. But I also know that he is an active homosexual and he is a rabid Trump supporter (even calling him "Daddy"). So, for those reasons, I was never interested in what he had to say. He was, to take a phrase from Lenin, a useful idiot. That was my impression. But I was wrong. A few days before the event, I had read somewhere on these pages I follow but wont name, that Milo believed himself to be a Christian, and a Catholic at that. I dismissed this immediately, and my opinion of him stoppe...
Read more

What Does The Bible Say About Birth Control?

From the early church up to 1930, virtually every church believed contraception was a sin. That fact alone should have us induce that contraception is in fact a sin. Yet, there are many Christians today, even in my own congregation, that will never entertain the possibility of contraception being a sin.
Read more

Is Canon 28 Binding?

In my previous post , I discussed Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (you'll find the full text of the canon there). But I should have put an asterisk on the conversation because Canon 28 isn't properly part of the council. You'll remember from an earlier post , that what makes a council ecumenical is ratification from the Roman Pontiff. Canons are part of councils. And naturally, canons also have to be ratified. However, Canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo (Roman Pontiff at the time). So Canon 28 isn't part of the council and thus isn't binding.  If you are Orthodox, this may sound too convenient. I've already suggested why Roman Ratification is the correct theory in the previous link. However, I want to add two things. First, even Saints in the East agree with the Roman position, and second, a case can be made for Canon 28 not being problematic for Catholicism.  First, there are the sayings of Pope St. Gelasius (about 490 AD), and Pope St. Gelasius is...
Read more