One of the most frequent excuses offered up to us current and former Bernie supporters has been "But the Supreme Court!" Shouldn't this mean just as much to Trump supporters?

It isn't hard to find evidence that this is in fact an issue for certain Republicans:

Some Republicans have argued that conservatives [sceptical] of Donald Trump should vote for him anyway, if only to prevent Hillary Clinton from nominating liberals to the Supreme Court.

Allow me to float a few names past your liberal eyes:

• Richard Epstein, a Hoover Institution Fellow and professor at both New York University School of Law and the University of Chicago Law School.
• Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.
• Retired Temple University Law School Professor David Post
• Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University

They all had a rather emphatic response to a position exhibited by Prominent theology professor Wayne Grudem, of the Phoenix Seminary in Arizona, who wrote:

...a Clinton presidency would lead to an America that would "no longer be ruled by the people and their elected representatives, but by unelected, unaccountable, activist judges who would dictate from the bench about whatever they were pleased to decree."

Sounds more like Bush v. Gore and Citizens United to me, but this post isn't about what I think. It's about why "many of the country's top right-leaning legal scholars ― the people who understand the importance of the Supreme Court more than anyone ― just don't find that argument compelling."

Richard Epstein:

"The only glimmer of hope in the Trump fiasco" is the list of 11 judges the candidate put forward as suitable Supreme Court nominees...But that is based "on the questionable assumption that a man of his mercurial temperament and intellectual ignorance will keep to his word," he said.

Seems to me like we have this problem with Hillary, don't we?

Ilya Shapiro:

"The Supreme Court -and judicial appointments more broadly-is probably the single best reason to vote for Trump...But even then, there's a lot of uncertainty. How hard would Trump push to get a nominee confirmed? What would he do if his first choice were rejected? Would he make a 'fabulous deal' to trade judicial appointments for other priorities?....how would a president who knows nothing about the Constitution and thinks that judges 'sign bills' fare?"

David Post:

The next president might end up only filling a single seat on the court, Post said. "The idea that it makes sense to trade a single justice for all of Trump's terrible baggage ― his bullying, his ignorance, his appalling tendency to shoot his mouth off without thinking, and all the rest of it ― strikes me as thoroughly preposterous," he added.

Post gives a lot of power to Senate Democrats led by the likes of corporatists Harry Reid (who is retiring at long last) and Wall Street errand boy Chuck Schumer. These two are among those we should blame for Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, among others. Somehow, the makeup of SCOTUS wasn't all that important to them then, was it? They will essentially confirm anyone the GOP puts in front of them, as long as they aren't overt and unrepentant fascists like Robert Bork.

Ilya Somin:

"Trump has a terrible record on constitutional issues...He seeks to gut freedom of speech and constitutional property rights, and undermine constitutional constraints on executive power even more than Bush and Obama have...Such a party is likely to do far more to undermine the Constitution than even a Hillary Clinton victory."

IF Democrats take the Senate, as even Mitch McConnell is admitting could happen,

And IF Senate Democrats remember who their party traditionally has stood for for at least 84 years,

And IF Senate Democrats grew spines to replace the pressured mush that holds them up,

THEN what is to prevent Democrats from NOT allowing the GOP to decide who gets to become Supreme Court Justices?

Every complaint raised by these eminent conservatives can also be laid at the feet of the corrupt Hillary Clinton, who never met a bribery dollar she didn't covet. There is no reason to think that she will walk her talk, that she will actually represent the majority of Americans, and won't be bought to stuff the Court with corporatist hacks.

So come up with a better reason for me to vote for Hillary than SCOTUS. After reading what these conservatives had to say about SCOTUS, I'm not too worried about what happens there. The current Justices aren't in a big hurry to create vacancies, and I can live with a 4-4 rulling on most issues.

Flame away, Hillbots!