Here's one instance among many (from this article):
Because let me tell you, if we lose this election, you’re going to have three, four or maybe even five justices (appointed by Democrats) and this country will never, ever recover. It will take centuries to recover.
He says it over and over -- three or four or five judges will be appointed to the Supreme Court by the next President, and we'd better make sure that it's us rather than them who's doing the appointing.
Notice that the context of Trump's warning is always what would happen if the Democrats, i.e. Hillary, were to win. He's not addressing what would or would not happen if he were President.
So how does he get "three or four or five"?
The first is obviously Scalia's successor.
And both Ginsburg and Breyer are getting very long in the tooth, are liberals, were appointed by Hillary's husband, and would probably be OK with retiring while Hillary was President, so that they could be assured of their replacements being hardcore liberals. But getting them to retire is not a guaranteed thing, so this is probably who Trump has in mind when he says "or four or five".
Who are the other two, then? They would fall under what Trump believes is a certain minimum of three (in addition to Scalia's successor). They would have to come as a pair, otherwise Trump would have said "two or three or four or five".
Certainly it would not be the conservatives, since Hillary would not be able to persuade them to retire, and they're not elderly enough for that to be a possibility in the first place. Only Kennedy is old, and nothing links him in a pair with another Justice that would remove both of them together.
That leaves only the liberal appointees, Sotomayor and Kagan, who are linked by having been appointed by Obama. Yet they are not elderly, so they would not be retiring out of senescence.
So would they be removed because they were appointed by an illegitimate President, who was not a natural-born citizen? (Either removed outright or persuaded into early retirement so they can save face.)
When I've read this topic discussed on other sites, the person is usually ecstatic about a would-be President Trump himself proving finally that Obama was not qualified to be President because of his birth status (perhaps using Presidential authority to unseal records), then using that to say YOU'RE FIRED to both of his Supreme Court appointees, and putting two staunch conservatives in their place.
However, Trump has always brought this matter up in the context of "what if Hillary were to win?" He was on the inside of the Establishment for decades, and has many confidantes who are high-ups on the politicians' side (Christie, Giuliani). He keeps issuing the same warning with the same numbers. And if he's choosing that topic as the one to warn or threaten the GOP leaders with, he must be more certain of that than any other threat he could make.
In short, it sounds like Trump knows that Hillary is planning, if she were President, to unseal the relevant records, prove Obama was not qualified for President, hence his choices are null and void, including his Supreme Court appointments. That explains why Trump lumps them in as an inseparable pair, who along with Scalia's successor, would make up a guaranteed minimum of three new appointments under a Hillary administration. The part about "or four or five" refers to the possibility of Hillary persuading Ginsburg and Breyer to retire for the greater liberal good.
Remember that it was Hillary's camp -- not Republicans -- who first brought up the birther and Muslim issues about Obama back in 2008, when he began muscling his way past her royal highness in the primaries. The Clinton camp and the Obama camp have bitterly hated each other ever since. Obama may allow Hillary to be indicted for her email server crimes, and on the campaign trail Bill Clinton has recently started to talk smack about the "awful legacy of the past eight years".
There's no love lost between the two sides, so Hillary's motivation for proving Obama illegitimate is partly revenge for her losing the nomination in 2008. She will get to erase his legacy, and put in her own two liberal Justices who will preside for generations to come.
But also remember that we're talking about one of the most corrupt politicians in world history, so there's going to be that motivation as well. How much do you have to donate to the Clinton Foundation to secure your choice of appointee to the Supreme Court? The appointees themselves would not have enough money to bribe their way in. I mean, if you're a billionaire liberal conspirator like George Soros, what would it be worth to you for Hillary to guarantee your choice of Supreme Court appointment -- two of them, in fact?
That would be in addition to the Scalia replacement, which would only be motivated by corruption and not revenge against Obama. Ditto for the possible replacements of Ginsburg and Breyer. Hillary and Soros, or whoever, give the sitting Justices what they want in order to retire (money, positions, donations to their choice of organization, etc.), and then Hillary collects from Soros to replace them with judges of his choice.
So for both revenge and big bucks, Hillary would prove Obama was illegitimate to begin with. Trump knows this -- and because he keeps using it as a warning to the Republican leaders, they must know it too. For all we laypeople know, it may be the biggest open secret in Washington. Maybe that's why Obama hasn't categorically cleared Hillary of any wrong-doing -- if he feels like she'd get revenge and erase his legacy, he'll just prevent her from getting elected by having her prosecuted while running her campaign.
Still, Trump seems so sure that these "three or four or five" Justices would be appointed no matter which Democrat won, that Hillary must be planning to prove Obama illegitimate no matter what happens to her own campaign. Worst comes to worst, Obama prosecutes her and torpedoes her chances, the Democrats put in Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren or whoever, and should that Democrat win, Hillary pulls the trigger on the birther issue, and the non-Hillary Democrat President gets another two Justices to appoint.
That suggests that Hillary may already have damning evidence, which she would not need to be President in order to produce. Even sidelined by prosecution, she could still prove her case and erase Obama's legacy out of revenge -- although in that case, she would not get to also enjoy the corruption funds from Soros to appoint the replacements. But if Obama sinks her career, pure cold revenge would be enough of a motive.
I never paid much attention to the Obama birther issue, but it is starting to look more and more real every day now. And whether it's Hillary or Trump who becomes the next President, either way we'll finally have the matter settled in favor of the birthers. We don't need to know what the precise technical evidence might be -- it's enough for us to see Trump repeatedly warning the Republican Establishment by referring to what everyone assumes will be Hillary's "three or four or five" appointments, which can only be achieved if she gets to void Obama's choices automatically.
The good news is that Trump himself will get to make the same number of replacements if he wins, using the same evidence that Hillary knows about, so we'll get even more conservatives onto the Court than if he were only replacing Scalia.
Like I said, it's not the lack of paranoia or conspiracy theories that caused the X-Files reboot to fail. :)
ReplyDeleteHey, AG, I've been hearing some number crunching from the politicos that I have to confess has me a little worried. From what I read, Trump would have to beat Hillary in white blue-collar voters at around 65% to 35% to win the necessary states in the Rust Belt, because of white demographic decline. How accurate do you figure this is? Are the media just spinning yet another anti-Trump angle, or is there genuinely something to it? How likely is it, you think, that Trump can stump the wicked witch?
ReplyDeleteInteresting, but why wouldn't Hillary have used this back in 2008? Do you think she had only suspicions then, but actually found something concrete in the time since then?
ReplyDeletenot sure why they allow Cruz to run for President...he was not born in the United States and was a natural born Canadian citizen...
ReplyDeleteTrump will beat Hillary , because he will get 15% of the Black vote in PA, Ohio, Florida and this will help him win the important swing states.
JV - it's not "paranoia" or a "conspiracy" at this point. A substantial number of American's realize that a full globalist take-over began in earnest in the 90's and by now is dominant. The X-files and 90's libertarians/Boomers got it wrong though. It's not the collective power of Washington that's the problem (though Boomers poisoned by 70's cynicism will never grasp that); rather, it's the hubris and greed of a malevolent handful of Western elites who's INDIVIDUAL ambitions have destroyed the commons.
ReplyDeleteIn the current transition, Trump is exhorting people to start fighting back. For the survival and basic dignity of regular Americans. We're not fighting for the right of traitors, aliens, and parasites to feed off an ever weakening America. Or to sit on you're ass and moralize and play nice as cynical Jews, blacks, Asians, feminists, Muslims, and useful idiot gentile white liberals rub salt in the deep wounds of the white lower classes.
The last 25+ years have been an insult to American white masculinity and pride. Nothing lasts forever though.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/can-ted-cruz-pass-trump/
This goes through many of the remaining states procedures and "likely" outcomes. It's useful in terms of how it delineates the remaining states (are they proportional/what kind of threshold do you need, do they go by congressional district etc.) He also points out how many unbound vs. unbound delegates a state has.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html
This is still a good, concise reference of state rules. But it doesn't deal with unbound vs. bound delegates.
A professor says he's got a model that's been accurate for countless elections. Check out http://fortune.com/2016/02/26/stony-brook-professor-trump/
He's putting Trump's chances in the gen. election at 97%+.
I've always taken the "3,4, or 5" judges as Trump being hyperbolic, always inflating numbers. I find the birther thing being held as a card to be played by the Clintons very tantalizing, but I'm just not sure about the primary motivation: revenge for defeating her in '08. Bill Clinton lost a race in Arkansas and I don't recall hearing about out-of-the-norm retribution when he was subsequently successful. I'm not sure I'm familiar with any kind of revenge being exacted over a previous loss.
ReplyDeleteIt is patently obvious that there is a lot we don't know about Obama and the Clintons...
Why did Bill Clinton unleash his corker about Obama today? And the timing of it seems odd, but not too odd, when held against the election calendar. She mostly has the nomination wrapped up, but it's not a done deal... Whatever it was, seems he felt it couldn't wait any longer.
And why isn't Obama doing his fellow Democrat a solid and making the email thing go away? Possible he doesn't have a choice? He hates her? Hates her because there is something to your Birther/delegitimize theory??? Obama seems so incredibly cool, fearless, about everything: the Dem race, Clintons, the email investigation... the only thing that's getting a rise out of him lately is the rise of Trump, but he's hardly at the five alarm fire stage.
But he's engendering much, very much, emotion for the Clintons...
"From what I read, Trump would have to beat Hillary in white blue-collar voters at around 65% to 35% to win the necessary states in the Rust Belt, because of white demographic decline."
ReplyDeleteSounds bogus, for two reasons.
1. There's no demographic decline in the Rust Belt -- some, but not like the rest of the country, where Republicans would have to rely on a large non-white vote, like California.
State, % Non-Hispanic white in 2012
WI, 83
MN, 82
IN, 81
OH, 81
PA, 79
MI, 76
Once all the good jobs got sucked out of the region, somehow the immigrants didn't feel like this was the place to re-locate to. Ditto New England.
Only downside is that our non-whites actually vote -- they're black, not Mexican -- but not in massive numbers.
The only heavily non-white state in the region, also having a large size of Mexicans, is Illinois.
If a Republican strategist were smart -- they are not -- they would've focused on winning the Rust Belt, since they wouldn't have to broaden their electorate racially. They instead chose the biggest loser strategy possible -- writing off the Rust Belt and targeting the Sun Belt, where they're not only going to get the Mexicans to actually vote, but vote Republican. Brilliant. Genius.
2. It's all about turnout, not the share of some group that matters. If we get blue-collar whites to turn out in yuge numbers, that dwarfs all the hand-wringing upper-middle-class poofs, and dwarfs the black Boomer women who will vote as a bloc for Hillary.
ReplyDeleteSo far turnout for Republicans is up 30-50-70-100%, while it's down 20-30-40% for Democrats.
If we get more people to turn out for us, we win and Hillary loses. It makes no difference what share of which pie we won in order to do that.
When you hear about winning more of some pie, they never talk about the size of the pie -- they assume it's going to be more or less constant from last time. The only question, in that case, is which side gets how big of a share of the pie?
But if we make the blue-collar white pie gigantic this time around, we can win a little over half, and that'll lock it up for us.
Or people who normally don't vote -- around half of the population. They're going to come out in droves, and it's going to be for Trump. That could be blue-collar whites, but really any disaffected group. That all increases the size of the pie, and we're going to get a disproportionate share of it, off-setting the tiny pies that Hillary would win -- gays, black Boomer women, etc.
They always talk about these groups as though they were equal in size. But they're not. The groups who Trump appeals to are the majority, unlike Hillary, and for that matter unlike McCain and Romney -- who only appealed to rich whites and apocalyptic cult followers.
"but why wouldn't Hillary have used this back in 2008?"
ReplyDeleteMaybe there's something more concrete, or maybe she felt she wouldn't have the connections or power as a mere Senator to unseal the records, or the time and resources to chase them down -- she was more concerned about the campaign under way.
"not sure why they allow Cruz to run for President...he was not born in the United States and was a natural born Canadian citizen..."
In a recent post at Conservative Treehouse, outlining how Cruz was an Establishment ringer from the get-go, they point to his non-NBC status as part of the larger pattern. He was only meant to pander to the apocalyptic cultists and make them feel included, while getting fewer delegates than Jeb, to whom he would give them, after the Canadian citizenship came up.
It ensured that he would never be a real challenger or insurgent, only an apparent but neutered one. Let the cultists vent, but not end up affecting the choice of Jeb.
"I've always taken the "3,4, or 5" judges as Trump being hyperbolic, always inflating numbers."
ReplyDeleteThat was my hunch too, but it's too easy for people to shoot him down on that. Like, with the Muslims celebrating in NJ after 9/11, was it dozens, hundreds, or thousands? Who cares, it was a lot.
But if he exaggerates about three or four or five Supreme Court Justices being replaced, there's only eight he can be talking about. So it'd be simple to ask: "Huh? Sounds like a lot. Other than the one going to replace Scalia, who are the other two, three, or four that you have in mind?"
Only Ginsburg and Breyer are elderly and easily persuaded by Hillary. Kennedy is old too, but not an ace up Hillary's sleeve.
Certainly the conservatives aren't retiring since none is elderly, and they wouldn't bend to Hillary.
It's too specific of a claim to make about SC Justices, not something vague like the order of magnitude of Muslim celebrators in NJ after 9/11. There's no wiggle room for BS-ing.
As for revenge, the Clinton and Obama camps bitterly despise each other, mostly over the 2008 primary battle. At one point Hillary exploded in public right in Obama's face.
ReplyDeleteShe felt she was the rightful heir, next in line, and here this insurgent nobody comes along and cuts in line!
And he thought, "Well who died and made you queen?"
They aren't letting bygones be bygones because of elite hyper-competitiveness. There's no more team spirit among the elites. The Republican elites may be more fractured (Tea Party), but the Dems are deeply divided too.
"it's not the lack of paranoia or conspiracy theories that caused the X-Files reboot to fail"
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a conspiracy theory, which is a detailed set of claims.
I specifically said I have no idea what the technical details of the evidence are, regarding his birth and the registration of his birth.
I'm simply making a deduction from how seriously the major players appear to be discussing the appointment of "three or four or five" SC Justices if Hillary became President.
As someone else commented, the most probable explanation of Trump's claim of "three or four or five" justices is his near constant tendency to inflate, well, everything, but numbers especially. His wealth, the number of attendees at his rallies, and this. It's not really a big deal, but it's a FAR more likely explanation for his statement than some shadowy birther reason.
ReplyDeleteRe-read: wealth, rally attendance, etc., has plenty of wiggle-room to BS.
ReplyDeleteThere are exactly 8 SC Justices. If he's only BS-ing that between 40-60% of them might be replaced in the next four years, it's trivial to call him out on it, asking specifically which 3 / 4 / 5, and why.
The first is obvious, a further one could die or retire, and so could one more. Where are #4 and #5 coming from? They're not elderly, and not persuaded by a Democrat President. Or they're the ones appointed by Obama.
The wiggle room or ratios don't matter, he exaggerates all the time, why not with justices? I don't even think he does it with forethought, it's just part of his personality. Like a pathological liar's first impulse is to lie, so goes a pathological exaggerator. I don't call him a liar even though he's spouted an inordinate number, even for a politician, of untruths during his campaign. I just think he has a deep insecurity and needs to exaggerate just about everything.
ReplyDeleteSize does matter. In the limit, he's talking about a single thing, and can be challenged with no wiggle room. If he says a particular Justice will be replaced, there's no room for BS-ing. If he says 3,4,5 out of 8, there's no room for BS-ing.
ReplyDeleteAsk yourself why no one has challenged him on that claim, despite making it for months and months now -- whereas they sperged out big-league over his claim about how much he's really worth, how much he really inherited, how many NJ Muslims really celebrated after 9/11, how many people really attend his rallies, etc.
They challenge all the claims that are difficult to argue against, where it's clear the exact number doesn't matter down to the one's place. Yet they say absolutely nothing about the easiest of his claims to challenge, on a numerical basis.
And that holds for all reporters, talking heads, experts, etc.
Conclusion: they utterly avoid challenging the apparently easiest-to-challenge claim because they know there's something to it.
"Ask yourself why no one has challenged him on that claim, despite making it for months and months now -- whereas they sperged out big-league over his claim about how much he's really worth, how much he really inherited, how many NJ Muslims really celebrated after 9/11, how many people really attend his rallies, etc."
ReplyDeleteI think because those are all verifiable numbers in the past and present, while his "three or four or five" justices claim is a prediction. I would like it if a reporter asked him which justices he thinks might retire over the next 4-8 years. He may answer that directly or he may not, but it would be interesting to hear his answer either way.
I just read his actual quote:
ReplyDelete"Because let me tell you, if we lose this election, you’re going to have three, four or maybe even five justices (appointed by Democrats) and this country will never, ever recover. It will take centuries to recover.”
It's a pretty obvious and common campaign scare tactic, and is full of hyberbole, and not just about the number of justices. "...this country will never, ever recover. It will take centuries to recover." Ha. Typical apocalyptic political bullshit mean not just to disagree with the other side of the aisle, but to discredit and demonize them. It's pathetic, but increasingly common, among the right and left, admittedly.
If Obama was indeed born in Kenya, he seems to have the same situation as Cruz: born outside of the United States to one American citizen parent.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the oddly suspect bipartisian agreement that Cruz is eligible may have that motive in account. (Unless the democrats and the liberal media are just sandbagging the birther stuff in case Cruz wins the nomination.)
Liberals would challenge the "never recover" part of his claim -- why doesn't anyone challenge the 3/4/5 out of 8 Justices being replaced in the next administration?
ReplyDeleteSaying it's a past vs. future thing just pushes it back a level -- why doesn't Trump make such clearly defined and seemingly easily falsifiable quant statements about anything else? He hasn't been promising "5 or 6 or 7 percent GDP growth," or "We'll take out ISIS in four months, or maybe three or two," or "If the GOP steals the nomination, there will be thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of people rioting."
Unlike all other predictions he's made, this one is quantitative, fairly precise, and stated with absolute certainty.
He knows something that we don't know.
You're quite the literalist.
ReplyDeleteOnly when he's made it clear to take him literally.
ReplyDeleteCourt packing, deaths, and John Roberts.
ReplyDelete1. Court packing: Trump could begin a sop to social conservatives by increasing the number of justices and adding more socons. The left would HOWL and scream, but there is nothing unconstitutional about it; the number of Supreme Court Justices is arbitrary. It's a perfectly bold and Trumpish move, and he might need to if the left starts filing law suits to prevent deporting illegal immigrants (although Trump would probably just deport them and not pause to deal with legalities).
2. Deaths: many of these folks are old enough to die of "natural causes." If needed. After all, Scalia was found with a pillow OVER his head...
3. John Roberts: John Roberts's decision on Obamacare was the product of bribery or blackmail---or a very weak man crumbling under the pressure. It made no sense given his judicial philosophy. Trump could already know the goods on why Roberts sold out the Constitution, and whichever one it was, he'd use it to force Roberts to resign ("for health reasons").
Steve Sailer has remarked that the president Trump reminds him most of in a way is actually FDR: a bold actor who didn't care about the policy details, but always thought about original-but-seemingly-crass was of doing things. FDR ran for 3rd and 4th terms when the long tradition was to stop at 2. He threatened court packing. He put most of the federal administrative apparatus in place without waiting for consensus. He antagonized Germany and Japan to get us into WW2.
Trump is cut from the same cloth.
If true, this would be the most sensational news in almost fifteen years.
ReplyDeleteI am family certain that the Clinton's have the real goods on Obama: where he was really born; who his biological mother really is; etc. That is why Obama is doing what he can to keep Hillary from facing the music. However, if Hillary ends up being indicted ... or even going to prison ... I expect the Clintons will spill the beans. If they live long enough.
ReplyDelete