A recurring theme by many of my fellow Conservatives who have resigned themselves to voting for Donald Trump–besides the “at least he’s not Hillary” line–is that the Supreme Court is hanging in the balance. With one vacancy already waiting to be filled following the death of Antonin Scalia, they argue that this and all future vacancies will only be properly filled by a President Trump.
As I have written in the past, there is absolutely zero, zip, zilch, nada reason to believe that he will nominate a strict constitutionalist; particularly when you consider his current attitude when it comes to the First and Second Amendments.
Yeah, I know he released a list of potential nominees not too long ago when he was trying to bribe Conservatives to join his campaign, but even before the ink was dry he was walking it back. And even if he did nominate an acceptable candidate, the probability of facing a Democrat Senate led by new Majority Leader Chuck Schumer–thanks to down ticket losses–makes any such nominee most likely dead on arrival.
But let’s get back to the premise that he will save the court.
By default, those who buy this argument are saying that Trump is the man who will steer America back in the direction of her constitutional roots, an argument I unhesitatingly reject. How can playing a game created by the two-party establishment, with rules designed to ensure the establishment always wins, be the answer to beating the two-party establishment?
The threats America faces today–socialism, tyranny, loss of liberty–are the direct result of playing the establishment game, and it is how America ended up with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as our choices for president.
We can do better! We MUST do better!
One possibility to making things better is the idea of changing the rules at the convention to allow delegates to vote according to their conscience, freeing them to vote for anyone they choose–even on the first ballot.
Yeah, I can hear it now… “changing the rules would be unfair and deprive the will of the people.”
Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Each convention begins by using the rules from the previous convention, but the rules committee meets before the start of the convention and they can modify existing rules before the convention begins. Any changes that make it out of committee are then presented to the entire delegation where a majority would have to approve the change. Most of the time the rules are left unchanged, but this is standard operating procedure and rules can be changed at any convention.
And then we have this from a March interview with Enid Mickelsen, Utah Republican National Committeewoman and the newly appointed chairwoman of the rules committee:
[E]xisting nomination rules — including those that bind delegates to vote on the first ballot according to the results of their state primaries and caucuses, as well as those governing nominating a candidate not already in the race — can all be changed.”
Mickelsen went on to say that it’s the delegates, not the party or the candidates, who control the nominating process.
Thomas Jefferson once said:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Maybe before we go to that kind of extreme, we could try a rules change instead. What do you say?
Originally posted on The Strident Conservative
David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative, your source for opinion that’s politically-incorrect and always “right.” His articles can also be found on RedState.com.
His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.