I think it would be better if Trump won in 2020, give me counter arguments

JSRG said:

What forum rules would be violated?


I don't think it's horrible--it's great that Roe v. Wade, which I consider either the worst or second-worst Supreme Court decision (Dred Scott is the other candidate) was overturned. I'll always give Trump some credit for that. Actually, he had some pretty good Supreme Court picks, in contrast to how bad his choices for the executive office itself often were--my guess is that when you have people who actually do know what they're doing giving you a list to choose from, anyone can make pretty smart choices, even Trump.

That said, this (like most other things I can praise Trump for) is something that I feel any of the other Republican nominees would have done. In contrast, the things that one could say were "distinctively Trump" were almost all negative.

But let's return to the question here. You cite the appointing of judges. That certainly would be an argument as to why it was good Trump won in 2016 (despite my considerable issues with him, I do think, especially in retrospect, that he was a far better choice than Hillary). But that is not an argument at all as to why it would be better if he won in 2020, as everything relevant to what you refer to was already accomplished in his first term.

So the one thing you've cited so far as an argument is not, in fact, an argument as to why things would have been better had Trump won in 2020. It's just an argument for why it was good Trump won in 2016.

Click to expand...

good scotus picks?

he picked the 2 least qualified justices in our history. one had only been a judge for 3 years, and the other cried like a baby and ranted about beer at his interview. you could find better justices in law school frat houses. gorsuch was the only "adult" Trump got on the court.

Vylo said:

good scotus picks?

he picked the 2 least qualified justices in our history. one had only been a judge for 3 years

Click to expand...

Three years is more than some.


It's knowledge of the Constitution and US laws that are the most important qualifications. There's no need to have been a judge.

perplexed said:

I think it would be better if Trump won in 2020, give me counter arguments

Click to expand...

I think it would be even worse if Trump had won in 2020.

perplexed said:

I cannot give my opinions without violating forum rules so I need others to get the ball rolling.

I don't see how conservative judges that let states decide issues like abortion is a horrible outcome.

Click to expand...

Maybe you're in the wrong forum if you are. unable to express your opinions according the site guidelines.

perplexed said:

I think it would be better if Trump won in 2020, give me counter arguments

Click to expand...

I don’t think it would be better if Trump won in 2020.

How’s that for a counter?

Yttrium said:

Three years is more than some.

FindLaw Supreme Court Center: Supreme Court: Justices Without Prior Judicial Experience - FindLaw

Find a local lawyer and free legal information at FindLaw.com

supreme.findlaw.com

It's knowledge of the Constitution and US laws that are the most important qualifications. There's no need to have been a judge.

Click to expand...

It isn't a requirement (there are shockingly few actual requirements to be on SCOTUS) but we are talking qualifications, of which being a judge is considered a pretty important one. Granted she's better than some of the lower judges Trump nominated, some of which had basically no legal experience at all.

Vylo said:

It isn't a requirement (there are shockingly few actual requirements to be on SCOTUS) but we are talking qualifications, of which being a judge is considered a pretty important one.

Click to expand...

So you consider Elena Kagan to be unqualified?

Yttrium said:

So you consider Elena Kagan to be unqualified?

Click to expand...

Kagan has a more extensive resume. Barrett has one short stint as a judge and the rest of the time spent being a clerk and then a teacher. Kagan was solicitor general and the dean of harvard law school.

We had an election about that issue.

The voters decided that they did not prefer Trump and his followers.

This was even though Biden had a 42% approval rate, and 80% of the people thought that we were going the wrong direction.

perplexed said:

I think it would be better if Trump won in 2020, give me counter arguments

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that in 2020, Republicans some Senate seats. The Democrats lost some House seats, but still had a majority. Congress was even more divided. What would Trump have been able to do about inflation, or any pressing issue? Unless he was willing to compromise, we'd have 2 years of stagnation. How would that be better?

And has been noted, Donald Trump doesn't just admire Putin, he practically him. He called him a genius, and savvy, for trying to annex Ukraine. I suppose dictators and demagogues think alike.

Vylo said:

good scotus picks?

Click to expand...

I will be blunt: I think Roe v. Wade was such an egregiously, obviously, and blatantly wrong decision (I would say that the much-criticized Plessy v. Ferguson, which for the record I do not support, had much better legal basis than Roe v. Wade did) that anyone who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade is almost inherently a better SCOTUS pick than anyone who did not.

That said, I am fully aware that many, presumably including yourself, would strongly disagree with that criteria. Still, despite your apparently low opinion of his SCOTUS picks, surely you would at least acknowledge that compared to those who Trump chose for positions in the executive office, they were superior.

Vylo said:

he picked the 2 least qualified justices in our history.

Click to expand...

As Yttrium already pointed out, there have certainly been justices that were never judges, which was apparently a major point of criteria for you. However, in the case of Kagan, you tried to defend it by saying she had a notable resume, referring to her being solicitor general and dean of a law school. At this point, however, it is harder to weigh in on whether she is more "qualified" than someone like Barrett, as we are comparing different things that are harder to quantify.

But we run into a larger problem: There are justices who had zero judicial experience; namely, people who weren't even lawyers. Such as Joseph Story, for example, who ended up being a fairly influential justice. By what definition of 'qualified' are you using that would make him more qualified than any of Trump's picks?

Someone might say "well, those justices were appointed quite a while ago, things are different now." But you didn't say "in recent history". You said "in our history". It seems a ridiculous statement.

Vylo said:

one had only been a judge for 3 years,

Click to expand...

As has been noted, that's three more years than Kagan had.

Vylo said:

and the other cried like a baby and ranted about beer at his interview.

Click to expand...

While I did not care for some of Kavanaugh's behavior in his confirmation hearing, one should note he was being attacked rather relentlessly.

But more importantly, what in the world does this have to do with judicial qualifications? At most it would indicate he has a bad temperament (though I have not heard of any complaints of such since, indicating that was not typical for him), but would not seem to indicate much in terms of how qualified someone is for the actual job of a SCOTUS justice.