The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the Supreme Court. The Constitution states, “The President … shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law…” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2).
The President “shall nominate” and “appoint” with the Consent” of the Senate. The importance of nominating and appointing new Justices cannot be overstated. If Hillary Clinton becomes the next President of the United States, she will nominate liberal people to become Justices. Donald Trump already has a list of 21 individuals that he has promised to choose from if he becomes President.
John G. Malcolm wrote an article titled “A Conservative Take on Trump’s New Supreme Court Nominee List” for The Daily Signal. He writes, “As was the case with his original list [of 11 people], the men and women who have been added appear to be eminently qualified to sit on the high court. Nine of these individuals … clerked for Supreme Court justices, and several others held distinguished clerkships as well.
“Many of them have taught or continue to teach at prestigious law schools, [one] is a sitting U.S. senator, and [one] served four terms in the House of Representatives. While several served as state or federal prosecutors, at least one … served as a federal public defender.
“One thing that is particularly striking about the Trump list is the geographic diversity and non-federal judicial experience of many of the identified individuals. As Scalia noted in his dissenting opinion in the same-sex marriage case, the current composition of the Supreme Court hardly reflects `a cross-section of America.’ …
“Nine of the people on the Trump list, on the other hand, are sitting state supreme court justices from eight different states across the country. Two of them … sat as state court judges before becoming federal judges…. [One sits on the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which would likely give her a different perspective from most other federal judges.
“Individuals with experience on state courts are less likely to have a jaundiced view of the competency of state court judges, who are sometimes treated like the figurative poor step-child by the federal judiciary….”
Should you still be undecided how you will vote in November, please take some time to read Malcolm’s entire article. He gives some very good reasons why we need to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House.