This will sound like a broken record to anyone who has read my previous posts about why I'll vote for Trump. I'm a one issue voter -- future Supreme Court nominees.
There's a lot at stake here: It's the U.S. Constitution. The First and Second Amendments are acknowledged targets of Hillary Clinton. And the conventional wisdom is that her nominees will be far left of center.
Even the adherents to the "Living Constitution" theory would have to acknowledge that many Americans own guns and would keep them even after a law ruling them unlawful. And the "Living Constitution" should protect that right since the so called living constitution is supposed to fit existing attitudes.
But a far left justice would be worse as the existing attitude he/she would want to enshrine in the law of the land would mirror leftist ideology.
Anyway, Tim Carney casts a vote against Trump in The 'but judges!' argument for Trump, and why it fails. He makes a valid point that Trump can't really be trusted to do anything he says whether about judges or anything else. But after calling Trump a con man and us his latest mark if we believe his promise about conservative judges, he does say this:
After examination, the "judges" argument is eroded down to this thin reed: It's possible Trump will nominate conservative judges, while it's certain Clinton will not.
Yeah, it's "possible." Thanks for that, Tim. Yet a possibility beats a certainty, especially if that's all we've got.