Would Trump Nominate Ted Cruz To Fill Scalia’s Supreme Court Seat?

Future Supreme Court Justice?

Trump Cruz Debate

With the election of Donald Trump and Republicans maintaining control of the Senate, we can now say for sure that Merrick Garland will not become a Supreme Court Justice and that the strategy that Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans decided on in the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia to refuse to consider any nomination until a new President was elected has worked As a result, the current Supreme Court Justice will be selected by a Republican President and, most likely, approved by a Republican Senate. It’s only natural then that, in addition to all the speculation about who will fill Cabinet positions and top White House positions such as Chief of Staff, there’s already early speculation about potential Trump Supreme Court appointments. Earlier in the campaign, Trump had submitted a list of conservative Judges that he said he would consider for a Supreme Court vacancy, a list that came most from groups such as the Heritage Foundation and other sources. In September, the Trump campaign released a second list of potential SCOTUS appointments that included Utah Senator Mike Lee. Lee, however, quickly shot down the idea of accepting an appointment to the high court and, it turns out that he voted for Independent Evan McMullin for President so he’s likely not on the good side of anyone in the Trump Administration right now. This leaves the identity of Trump’s first Supreme Court nomination, which one imagines will come early in the Administration, up in the air. Well, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham of all people is suggesting another name, Texas Senator and former Presidential candidate Ted Cruz:

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a former presidential primary foe of Ted Cruz who once joked about the Texas senator’s murder, now says he should be considered for a seat on the nation’s highest court.

“I would put Ted Cruz on that list. I would suggest that President Trump look within the Senate,” Graham told reporters at a Veterans Day event in Greenville, South Carolina. “There is some talent there. There is no stronger constitutional conservative than Ted Cruz.”

The floating of Cruz, who once served as a Supreme Court clerk, seems to complete Graham’s evolution when it comes to the firebrand senator who has irked many Senate Republicans.

“If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you,” Graham joked in February.

Graham does have something of a history of joking around when it comes to Cruz, as his comment from February shows, but the idea of putting Cruz on the high court is one that has been suggested in recent days by other pundits and one which might have a certain amount of political logic from the point of view of Trump and his advisers. As the Presidential campaign showed us, Ted Cruz has had no problem at at all with being a thorn in the sides of political rivals and there is likely some concern among Trump loyalists that Cruz could seek to rebuild his conservative bona fides by being a thorn in the side of a Trump Administration that on many issues ranging from infrastructure spending to the Affordable Care Act may be interested in taking what might be considered a less than conservative. Additionally, it would largely eliminate the potential, as unlikely as it might seem at the moment, that Cruz might try to challenge Trump for the Republican nomination in 2020. From Cruz’s perspective, there’s the fact that his Presidential campaign has damaged to some extent his political image back home in Texas and that he could face a well-funded challenge from someone backed by former Governor Rick Perry and others who have come to view Cruz as problematic for Texas Republicans going forward. Finally, there’s the well-known fact that Cruz has few friends in the Senate even among its more conservative members due to his frequent attempts to use Senate rules and procedures to advance his own political interests over the long-term interests of Senate Republicans. Putting him on the high court would be a convenient way to take care of all those problems at once.

There’s no question that a Justice Ted Cruz would be among the Supreme Court’s most conservative members, but with the election result being what it was the reality of the situation is that whomever gets appointed to fill Scalia’s seat is going to be a conservative of one variety or another in any case. As far as experience goes, there’s little question that Cruz has the legal experience necessary to serve on the nation’s highest Court, and his appointment would please many conservative organizations just as much as it would cause Democrats to cringe. Democrats could, of course, attempt to use the filibuster to try to block such a nomination, but it’s far less likely that they’d use it to block a member of the Senate, and if they did then there’d be nothing stopping Senate Republicans from following in the footsteps laid by Harry Reid back in November 2013 and eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations just as it has been eliminated for Cabinet and other Executive Branch appointments, Ambassadorships, and Judicial nominations below the Supreme Court level. Especially if it meant getting rid of Ted Cruz for the foreseeable future.

 

FILED UNDER: Donald Trump, Law and the Courts, Politicians, US Politics, ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. SenyorDave says:

    Any POC or gay who voted for Trump will soon get to see the cause and effect of their vote as Trump fills open seats with ultra far right conservatives. By the time he’s done we’ll be looking at a court that would be proud to uphold the Dred Scott decision if they had the opportunity.

  2. James Joyner says:

    The most awesome thing Trump could do in this regard is to announce that Merrick Garland ought be confirmed forthwith and that, if he isn’t, he intends to re-nominate him January 21st. Absent that, I have no real problem with Cruz’ appointment. He’s surely qualified and would likely be a decent Justice.

    Then again, SCOTUS nominations are still subject to filibuster. Getting any nominee through will be challenging in the current environment.

  3. Dave Schuler says:

    That’s a frightening prospect.

    To the best of my knowledge the last non-judge to have been appointed to the Supreme Court was Earl Warren. He was arguably the most popular politician in the United States at the time. The first time he was elected governor of California he ran as the candidate of both the Democratic and Republican parties.

    Cruz is no Earl Warren.

  4. Dave Schuler says:

    @James Joyner:

    Cruz is lacking in judicial temperament. As I said in my first comment, he’d be a frightening choice.

  5. Slugger says:

    Reason for Trump to put Cruz on court: get rid of potential thorn in side. However, there are few reasons to think that Trump has any fear of establishment Republicans; he kicked their behinds in the primaries and rubbed their noses in it with his comments re McCain’s hero status, Cruz’ father involvement in JFK murder, etc. I seem to recall that many of Nixon’s actions disappointed conventional Republicans. At that time I thought that since the party was in no position to fight their own guy making amends with the other guys was the perfect Machiavellian response. Trump and I are the same age, and he might have been just as cynical as I was in 1969.
    My answer to Cruz for Court is it depends on how much Trump fears the Christian dominationist wing of the GOP.

  6. CSK says:

    Everybody in the senate would love to get rid of Cruz. But the Democrats don’t want him on the court, for understandable reasons, and the Republicans don’t want to lose a senator who’s at least theoretically on their side–even one they loathe. Although I suppose any replacement senator from Texas, whether elected or appointed by Abbott (I don’t know how they do it there) would be a Republican.

  7. gVOR08 says:

    Would Trump Nominate Ted Cruz To Fill Scalia’s Supreme Court Seat?

    Yes. If he can’t find someone worse.

  8. Pch101 says:

    Having Cruz on the Supreme Court would serve as a reliable proxy for Scalia while getting him out of the hair of establishment Republicans who would love him to be gone. Two birds, one stone.

  9. Jenos The Deplorable says:

    @Dave Schuler: To the best of my knowledge the last non-judge to have been appointed to the Supreme Court was Earl Warren.

    I was going to bring up Clarence Thomas, but a quick check showed he’d been a judge for seven months before his nomination.

    And there’s no requirement that a Justice even be a lawyer, let alone be a judge.

    On the down side, Cruz is a graduate of Harvard Law School, so there’s at least one strike against him. But I think I can overlook that.

  10. Jenos The Deplorable says:

    @James Joyner: The most awesome thing Trump could do in this regard is to announce that Merrick Garland ought be confirmed forthwith and that, if he isn’t, he intends to re-nominate him January 21st.

    So, after beating Hillary and Obama (who tied himself to Hillary), Trump should immediately continue one of their biggest pushes, which was fought off by Trump’s now-allies?

    Are you in one of those states that legalized pot?

    Trump put out a list (two, actually) of potential Supreme Court nominees. If he goes off that list, it should be someone who his supporters will accept. And asking the Senate to confirm the guy they fought like hell to NOT confirm would be political suicide. Even for Trump, who thinks he’s exempt from the normal rules of politics (and so far, is).

    Garland is toast.

  11. CSK says:

    @gVOR08:

    I don’t think Cruz has groveled sufficiently to Trump for Trump to consider him for anything. Trump prizes blind loyalty and unquestioning adoration over any other qualities in his henchmen and henchwomen.

  12. Stormy Dragon says:

    @Slugger:

    It occurs to me that the actual perfect Macchiavellian response is to nominate Cruz and then have his nomination fail to get through the senate. It kills Cruz’s career in a way Trump can’t really be blamed for, and makes it harder for Democrats to filibuster a more reasonable but still pretty conservative follow on.

  13. Andy says:

    Lord I hope not. I agree with Dave, he doesn’t have the temperament.

  14. Dave Schuler says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    I believe Robert Jackson was the last person to be appointed to the Supreme Court who wasn’t a law school grad (a fictionalized version of him was portrayed by Spencer Tracy in Judgment at Nuremberg). He was, however, a highly distinguished lawyer—the only person to be Solicitor General, Attorney General, and Supreme Court justice.

    I don’t know that there’s ever been a non-lawyer. Used to be, you became a lawyer by reading law.

  15. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @James Joyner: I have no idea at all as to why you believe that a person who is so ruled by his own personal biases would “be a decent justice,” but que sera sera.

  16. dxq says:

    Conservatives have given us a truly shitty world.

  17. dxq says:

    I hate every dumbass conservative who did this to us.

  18. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    “Christian dominationist”

    Ooooohh, kinky… I like the concept.

  19. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    I’m inclined to think that Trump will either do the conventional thing and use the first list that he declared as his go to list, or he will do the Trump thing and appoint his sister to see if the Senate will really go along with him.

  20. CSK says:

    @Stormy Dragon:

    This might be too subtle a maneuver for Trump. It’s true that he’s Machiavellian, but only in the crudest and most rudimentary sense.

  21. Allen Maresh says:

    @James Joyner: As stated in the article, there is nothing to prevent the Republicans from invoking the “nuclear option’ as have Dingy Harry and the Democrats done in the past and requiring a simple majority to move to confirmation on the Senate floor. There; difficult climate solved.

  22. Martin says:

    @Pch101: Would the senate unite and start dancing and sing the witch is dead?

  23. Gustopher says:

    Do we really need nine justices?

    Given the politics that happened here, with the Republicans refusing to hold hearings on a nominee for most of a year, wouldn’t nominating someone just tarnish the integrity and independence of the Court?

    I think we need to wait for another Presidential election to nominate someone — let the people decide.

  24. Jc says:

    As George W said “I just don’t like the guy.” And if I am not mistaken that is the feeling of most of his colleagues. What better way to put him back in line than to deny his nomination. It would validate that nobody likes the guy and he should just go away, or fall in line and shut up. Ted Cruz – He went from “vote your conscience” to later bowing down to the Sith Lord. Yeah, real character and spine in Ted Cruz, what a great justice he would make…gag me.

  25. Jc says:

    @Allen Maresh: Please do the nuclear option – please set that precedent for the future, please GOP do it. Because you can’t redistrict your way to holding the senate majority and you know you will be screwed in the future, big time.

  26. Barry says:

    @James Joyner: “The most awesome thing Trump could do in this regard is to announce that Merrick Garland ought be confirmed forthwith and that, if he isn’t, he intends to re-nominate him January 21st.”

    That’s some mighty fine stuff that you’ve been consuming, James.

    “Absent that, I have no real problem with Cruz’ appointment. He’s surely qualified and would likely be a decent Justice.”

    He’d be a fascist.

    However, I don’t see Trump nominating Cruz – he’d rather humiliate and bully him.

  27. Barry says:

    @Slugger: “However, there are few reasons to think that Trump has any fear of establishment Republicans; he kicked their behinds in the primaries and rubbed their noses in it with his comments re McCain’s hero status, Cruz’ father involvement in JFK murder, etc. ”

    Cruz is up for re-election in 2018; Trump’s got him even more by the short-and-curlies than when he made him phone bank for him. If Trump turns against Cruz, there’ll be another right-wing a-hole senator from Texas in 2019.

  28. Barry says:

    @Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker: “I have no idea at all as to why you believe that a person who is so ruled by his own personal biases would “be a decent justice,” but que sera sera.”

    James is a right-winger, and a Trump supporter.

  29. stonetools says:

    Seriously, who gives a sh!t? Anyone who Trump puts in there will be on board with the Federalist Society’s “Constitution in Exile” policy of returning us to a pre Lochner vs. New York jurisprudence. They will continue to dismantle Voter rights protections and labor and employment rights protection at an accelerating pace, and will continue to undermine the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. Whether its Cruz or some other conservative a$$ hole is going to be completely irrelevant.
    I expect that Trump will not pick Cruz, because he will remember Cruz’s defiance at the Republican Convention. Cruz did abase himself to Trump later, but I doubt all is forgiven.

  30. PJ says:

    @Barry:

    James is a right-winger, and a Trump supporter.

    He declared in a post before the election that he would vote for Clinton.
    He always has, on multiple times, declared his distaste for Trump.

    Clearly a Trump supporter…

  31. dxq says:

    James Joyner is painfully stupid.

  32. Moosebreath says:

    @Dave Schuler:

    “To the best of my knowledge the last non-judge to have been appointed to the Supreme Court was Earl Warren.”

    I think it was Lewis Powell.

  33. dxq says:

    Especially if it meant getting rid of Ted Cruz for the foreseeable future.

    James, you should thank god you’re a white man, or you’d be working the late shift at Jiffy Lube.

  34. stonetools says:

    @dxq:

    I know you are angry. But trust me , James is not the enemy. He voted for Clinton.He’s not a liberal, but he understands that Drumpf is a menace.
    We’ll need allies in this fight. Don’t go all circular firing squad and shoot a potential ally.

  35. Barry says:

    @Pch101: “Having Cruz on the Supreme Court would serve as a reliable proxy for Scalia while getting him out of the hair of establishment Republicans who would love him to be gone. Two birds, one stone.”

    Having Cruz on the SCOTUS would enable Cruz to f*ck with Trump immensely, with zero chance of retaliation.

  36. Jack says:

    @dxq: Sounds like someone is all butt hurt. Please, cry more liberal tears, California is almost out of drought conditions.

  37. Pch101 says:

    @Barry:

    I didn’t say that Trump would appoint Cruz. I’m saying that establishment Republicans would have two reasons to like the idea.

    I suspect that Trump is too vengeful to even consider it.

  38. Dave Schuler says:

    @Moosebreath:

    You’re right. The key point is that was a long time ago.

    I think you need to factor in our common law system. That makes it practically impossible for a non-lawyer to be a credible judge let alone Supreme Court justice.

  39. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    Garland is toast.

    Even though Republicans agree that he is an eminently qualified jurist. Such are the politics of the right today.

  40. gVOR08 says:

    @Dave Schuler:

    That makes it practically impossible for a non-lawyer to be a credible judge let alone Supreme Court justice.

    A Russian journalist, Masha Gessen, has a good piece at NY Review of Books, Autocracy: Rules for Survival. She lists six rules. “Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.”

    There is little doubt that Trump will appoint someone who will cause the Court to veer to the right; there is also the risk that it might be someone who will wreak havoc with the very culture of the high court.

    If you think talk of autocracy is over the top, consider her “Rule #1: Believe the autocrat.” He said he’d jail Hillary. He said he’d create a “deportation force” and remove 11 million people. He said he’d ban Muslims. He said he’d suppress the press.

  41. Terrye Cravens says:

    The only time I ever heard Trump discourse at any length on any Supreme Court case was Kelo…and of course he was in favor it. After all, why should ordinary people be allowed to maintain ownership of property that their betters can make better use of. So, I suppose it depends on whether or not Cruz would be amenable to catering to His Majesty’s whims. But I am sure that the Senate would be happy to see him go.

  42. Terrye Cravens says:

    @gVOR08: He also said that he would deport millions of American citizens born to undocumented people. The fact that they are citizens means nothing to the man. But then again, I doubt if the Constitution means much to him either.

    I wonder how people will feel about this ass in a couple of years? Either he will go along with the alt Right and alienate most Americans or he will back off of this crap and piss off his base.

  43. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: Robert Bork was an eminently qualified jurist. Too bad those evil Republicans blocked his nomination…oh, wait.

  44. Jenos The Deplorable says:

    @Terrye Cravens: He also said that he would deport millions of American citizens born to undocumented people. The fact that they are citizens means nothing to the man.

    Got a source for that?

    The way I heard it, illegal aliens get deported. If they have children who have American citizenship, there are two choices: they can go with their parents (keeping their American citizenship, of course) or they can be left here in the care of a relative or other guardian.

    The parents put that kid in that position, not the government. So it’s their responsibility.

  45. michael reynolds says:

    I’m not entirely sure James is wrong about Garland.

    Getting off into fiction-boy stuff here a bit, but still within the limits of plausibility: Trump’s got 10 weeks till he can actually appoint anyone. He’s a psychopath. What does a psychopath do? Turn on whoever is annoying him most. So, who is or will be annoying him most? Given the irrelevance of Democrats, I’d have to guess establishment Republicans. A little brush-back pitch perhaps? A little I’m the boss display perhaps, wrapped up as a conciliatory gesture to Dems?

    Unlikely, admittedly.

  46. michilines says:

    @James Joyner:

    Absent that, I have no real problem with Cruz’ appointment. He’s surely qualified and would likely be a decent Justice.

    Based on what? Sure he’s been there, but what was the quality of of his work? As is common with ladder climbers, they check off the been there done that, but how well did he do? How has his recent experience influenced that performance?

    SMH

  47. michilines says:

    @stonetools:

    I know you are angry. But trust me , James is not the enemy. He voted for Clinton.He’s not a liberal, but he understands that Drumpf is a menace.
    We’ll need allies in this fight.

    Ted Cruz is a good choice for the Supreme Court? I can get along with my politics without such uninformed commentary or “support.”

    Not sure about you.

  48. An Interested Party says:

    Robert Bork was an eminently qualified jurist. Too bad those evil Republicans blocked his nomination…oh, wait.

    You made anjin-san’s point with that comment…Bork (in a Democratic-controlled Senate) was allowed to have an up or down vote on his nomination…Garland (in a Republican-controlled Senate), not so much…

  49. dxq says:

    Lot of smart people here. I’m sure James is glad to be in this company.

  50. Guarneri says:

    @dxq:

    Maybe you should join Reynolds in New Zealand. Surely he’s relocated there by now…..

  51. Guarneri says:

    @michilines:

    Like Hillary?

  52. Jack says:

    @An Interested Party: Considering Bork became a verb for killing a person politically, I don’t think that using Bork as an example of the decency of the Democrat party is what you intend…or maybe it is.

  53. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jack:

    Bork chose to push his nomination into a full Senate consideration, long after it was clear that the full Senate would reject it. If the man had any sense, he would have withdrawn himself after the Judiciary committee soundly rejected him.

    Like any true ideologue, he chose to push forward, and everything that happened to him after that (all of it deserved and accurate, IMO) is nobody’s fault but his own.

    It should, of course, be noted that 6 Republicans voted nay on his confirmation.

  54. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    The way I heard it, illegal aliens get deported.

    Yea. About that …

    You morons got played 🙂

  55. CSK says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    According to Trump’s upcoming interview with Leslie Stahl, the deportation figures seem to be down to “two million…or three million gang members.” The “terrific people” can stay, I guess.

  56. Jenos The Deplorable says:

    @HarvardLaw92: You ought to be happy if Trump’s walking back a promise that you didn’t like. Or are you more interested in scoring points in some imaginary game?

    Trump’s already proven to have kept the one promise I held most dearly: he wouldn’t be Hillary Clinton. The rest? I’ll wait and see.

  57. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @CSK:

    I’ll be amazed if they deport a single individual beyond the numbers that are already being processed. This guy is big on rhetoric.

  58. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    I’m just enjoying watching you guys figure out that you’re not going to get what you wanted, particularly with respect to you and your undeniable racism. Call it schadenfreude if you like.

    He’s probably going to end up being closer to what I want than what you want, for the simple reason that he has no idea what he’s doing and will ebb & flow with popular opinion. The guy likes being liked.

    But hey, thanks for the tax cut. As usual, I get richer and you’re – well, you’re still you. 🙂

  59. An Interested Party says:

    Considering Bork became a verb for killing a person politically, I don’t think that using Bork as an example of the decency of the Democrat party is what you intend…or maybe it is.

    Oh poor Robert Bork, what a victim he was! Let me explain it again for those too warped to understand reality…Bork was given a hearing and allowed an up or down vote on his nomination…such actions are far more decent than what happened to Garland, who did not receive the same considerations…

  60. Maurice Story says:

    @Moosebreath:

    Elena Kagan is the most recent justice to have not served as a judge prior to the supreme court.

  61. grumpy realist says:

    Let’s see if Trump finds a spot for Barron in his official entourage, but given that he’s just announced Rince Priebus as his Chief of Staff, I think we’re starting to see the throwing of the alt-right into obscurity.

  62. An Interested Party says:

    I think we’re starting to see the throwing of the alt-right into obscurity.

    Umm, not quite…

    Bannon, the former chairman of the conservative Breitbart News, was named Trump’s chief strategist and senior counselor on Sunday. He was notably listed higher in the press release announcing the two appointments, suggesting that he will play a major role in the Trump administration.

    It’s been reported that Bannon hates Paul Ryan…this should be an interesting 2-4 years…

  63. grumpy realist says:

    @An Interested Party: Yes, if Trump decides to let the alt-right have their pound of flesh, it will be amusing to watch the social conservatives realize exactly WHO they’ve ended up getting into bed with.

  64. dxq says:

    HarvardLaw92 says:
    Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 14:08
    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    I’m just enjoying watching you guys figure out that you’re not going to get what you wanted, particularly with respect to you and your undeniable racism. Call it schadenfreude if you like.

    I’m sure I’m not the only person who’s noticed that republicans basically don’t like any of their alumni, except the fake version of reagan they created, because they want the impossible, and are angry they don’t get it.

  65. dxq says:

    Because they are stupid.

  66. dxq says:

    I can’t even type i’m too drunk.

  67. dxq says:

    I apologize to everyone. I just can’t handle this.

  68. Jenos The Deplorable says:

    @HarvardLaw92: I’m just enjoying watching you guys figure out that you’re not going to get what you wanted, particularly with respect to you and your undeniable racism. Call it schadenfreude if you like.

    The one thing I wanted was NOT Hillary, and I got that. Everything and anything else is pure gravy.

    And the term on “our” side for what we’ve been feeling is “schadenboner.” Every scream, every wail, every riot, every cry of “not our president,” every crackpot theory about swaying some faithless electors, all of that and more — it’s delightful.

    As far as the “undeniable racism,” I do deny it. So suck on that.

    Here’s one thought for you, one I lift from John Podhoretz:

    Liberals spent 40 years disaggregating U.S., until finally the largest cohort in the country chose to vote as though it were an ethnic group

    And one more thought, this one purely my own: you seem to delight in Trump seeming to walk back his positions. You found those positions so repulsive when he espoused them. Why aren’t you delighted that your worst fears aren’t being realized? Why is your first impulse to get all spiteful and gloating? Why is your first thought about how people you deplore just must be heartbroken and furious, and not relief for the country as a whole?

    My theory is because, at heart, you’re a very small person who needs to feel his own superiority by constantly asserting the inferiority of others. You’re just that insecure that you can’t bear the thought of your “lessers” being right, winning, feeling triumphant, because to you such things are a zero-sum game and if they’re happy, then you can’t be. Their happiness takes away from yours. So you need to take away their happiness for your own satisfaction.

    One major difference between you and me at this point is that yeah, I’m feeling just a bit petty and vindictive, but I admit it. And I’m limiting it to those who call attention to themselves with their temper tantrums over losing. Especially those who were so cocksure and arrogant and counted all those chickens before they didn’t hatch last Tuesday.

  69. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    My theory is because, at heart, you’re a very small person who needs to feel his own superiority by constantly asserting the inferiority of others.

    Well if anyone would know about being small at heart…

    Click

  70. CSK says:

    @grumpy realist:

    Guess again about throwing the alt-right into obscurity. He just appointed Bannon as his chief strategist.

  71. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    My theory is because, at heart, you’re a very small person who needs to feel his own superiority by constantly asserting the inferiority of others

    Nah, just yours 🙂 Truthfully, this is strangers on the internet. I’ve forgotten you 5 seconds after I close the page. I don’t take it seriously. I have fun with you at your expense because YOU take it so seriously.

    You’re just that insecure that you can’t bear the thought of your “lessers” being right, winning, feeling triumphant, because to you such things are a zero-sum game

    The thing is, they aren’t a zero-sum game. Your buddies just screwed themselves to the floorboards while setting into play a string of events that will probably result in my bank balance growing quite nicely while they get pretty much the same nothingburger they’ve had all along.

    Tomorrow, and indeed four years from now, they’ll find themselves still working the same dead end jobs (for those of them who even have one at this point) or visiting the same food pantries waiting for salvation that will never come. I’ll be better off than I already am. This has never been a zero-sum game – it’s an “I win, you lose – again …” game. You’re just too dumb to realize you’re been played.

    You essentially just voted for me to have a few million more in my pocket while you get bupkis. Thanks? LOL

    yeah, I’m feeling just a bit petty and vindictive, but I admit it.

    Stay tuned. You’re going to feel a whole lot worse, but hey, kudos for finally admitting it 🙂

  72. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @CSK:

    Guess again about throwing the alt-right into obscurity. He just appointed Bannon as his chief strategist.

    I can’t help but wonder how long it’s going to take for these two diametrically opposed camps he’s selecting from to erupt into open warfare within the White House.

  73. rachel says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    I’m just enjoying watching you guys figure out that you’re not going to get what you wanted, particularly with respect to you and your undeniable racism.

    I dunno… Supporting these idiot’s racism is a cheaper way of getting their votes than actually helping them. It’s why the Republican Party turned to the Southern Strategy to begin with.

    ETA: I mean to say that Trump et al. with probably throw them a few bones there to keep them on board. Anything else? Forget it.

  74. grumpy realist says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable: You had better hope that Trump crashes and burns as quickly as possible along with the rest of his entourage. Otherwise, I suspect that he’s going to go down in history as Il Douche That Destroyed America, his children will be frantically hiding their identities and changing their names to the other end of the alphabet, and his supporters are going to be claiming left right and center that they never heard of him and all of them voted for Hillary.

    And you will have to have learned Chinese to have any decently-paying job at all….

  75. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @rachel:

    Four years from now, they’re still going to be fuming about “all those dayum Messycans what took are jobs”, trust me on this one.

    They won’t get deportations, they won’t get their wall, they won’t get jobs returning to the rust belt / midwest, etc. They might get a tax cut, but that will benefit the people they have far more than it will benefit them, and the associated cuts to spending will decimate them.

  76. CSK says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Oh, I’m fairly sure warfare will erupt well before the inauguration.

    Trump will proceed in accustomed fashion: by appointing to whatever position whichever individual smooched his flabby derriere the most lavishly and the most recently.

  77. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @CSK:

    I have to admit I’m quite enjoying the (admittedly now more probable) likelihood that he actually listens to Bannon, and finds himself at war with the House leadership as a result. That might even merit two buckets of popcorn.

  78. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @t:

    Welcome to the free market. Be careful what you wish for. 🙂

  79. Jenos The Deplorable says:

    @CSK: Oh, I’m fairly sure warfare will erupt well before the inauguration.

    I hope you’re wrong, but I fear you’re not.

    Hillary and the DNC paid convicted felon and frequent White House guest Robert Creamer to send instigators to start violence at Trump rallies under the guise of Bernie Bros, and The Usual Gang Of Suspects are organizing and funding the anti-Trump riots. And let’s not mention all the Trump assassination threats flooding Twitter and other social media.

    Right now, it’s just riots. For it to be a war, there have to be two opposing sides.

    The side that’s not fighting right now is the one that has a lot more guns.

  80. CSK says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    I’m pretty sure Bannon, who’s been running the premiere alt-right Trump propaganda site for over a year now, will be a yuuuge influence.

    I’m wondering if Trump will bring on board Alex Jones of Infowars.

  81. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    LOL, forest – trees. You missed the turn – again …

  82. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @CSK:

    I’m wondering if Trump will bring on board Alex Jones of Infowars.

    Now you’re just being greedy 🙂

  83. An Interested Party says:

    By the way, would anyone care to explain how making Reince Priebus his chief of staff helps Trump to “drain the swamp”…

  84. CSK says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    The war will break out when Trump appoints six different secretaries of state within 48 hours. What you’re not accepting is how easily Trump, who is massively insecure, can be jerked around by anyone who tells him he’s swell.

  85. HarvardLaw92 says:

    You know, it also occurs to me that the Dems in the Senate have a golden opportunity here: given the undoubtedly insane cabinet choices he’s likely to make (Ben Carson? Sarah Palin??), it’s to our advantage to play along and cheerfully confirm every single one of them, then just sit back and watch them implode. Newt Gingrich as SecState is honestly just almost too much to hope for.

  86. CSK says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Hey, Jones is one of Trump’s major supporters.

  87. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @CSK:

    I guess I’ll need to stock up on popcorn then 🙂

  88. An Interested Party says:

    I can’t help but wonder how long it’s going to take for these two diametrically opposed camps he’s selecting from to erupt into open warfare within the White House.

    That may come sooner than anyone anticipated…

  89. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @An Interested Party:

    Christmahanukwanzikah is coming early this year. I suddenly feel quite rejuvenated.

  90. CSK says:

    @An Interested Party: @HarvardLaw92:

    I’m speaking to my broker tomorrow about popcorn futures.

  91. CSK says:

    To add to the hilarity, the Wall Street Journal is now reporting that, during his meeting with Obama, Trump was “surprised” by the extent of a president’s duties.

    Of that I have no doubt.

  92. An Interested Party says:

    After meeting with Mr. Trump, the only person to be elected president without having held a government or military position, Mr. Obama realized the Republican needs more guidance. He plans to spend more time with his successor than presidents typically do, people familiar with the matter said.

    Good grief, talk about amateur hour…this idiot makes George W. Bush seem like FDR by comparison…

  93. rachel says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    They won’t get deportations, they won’t get their wall, they won’t get jobs returning to the rust belt / midwest, etc.

    Let me put it another way: the Republicans will throw them any racist bone that will not inconvenience themselves or the 1%. I see more federal use of private prisons, non-prosecution of hate crimes and more vote suppression as more likely forms of pandering than anything that actually helps these spiteful idiots.

  94. Jenos The Deplorable says:

    @An Interested Party: By the way, would anyone care to explain how making Reince Priebus his chief of staff helps Trump to “drain the swamp”…

    Priebus knows where the bodies are buried.

    He could sabotage Trump’s plan from the inside, or he could be the Judas goat. Time will tell.

  95. wr says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable: Oooh, Jenos is getting that warm feeling in his pants, just thinking about people he likes murdering all those icky liberals and minorities. He is the soul of the Trump voter.

  96. al-Ameda says:

    If Obama is not going to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court then I’ll just have to stock up on some organic, non-GMO popcorn and a decent IPA and enjoy the festivities.

    Michelle Bachmann on the Court?
    Ted Cruz?
    Louis Gohmert?
    Heck, why not Rudy Giuliani?

    I’m with HarvardLaw92 on this, we have to hope for the implosion.

  97. gVOR08 says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    I’ll be amazed if they deport a single individual beyond the numbers that are already being processed.

    Yes. Immigration from Mexico is already net about zero. The GOPs will suddenly notice this around June and take credit for it.

    Also Obama’s gotten the economy pretty much back to normal; under 5% unemployment, Fed’s about to raise interest rates, wages are starting to rise. The GOPs will take credit for all this.

    Obama also has ISIS pretty much on the ropes, about to take Mosul and a strong, unlikely, Kurdish-Arab coalition force moving on Raqqa. (The supposedly liberal MSM seems barely able to mention these developments.) Again, if the GOPs have any sense, they’ll continue Obama’s policies and take credit for their success. Later, of course, they’ll renege on any deals we’ve made and blow it all up again.

  98. An Interested Party says:

    @gVOR08: Even after Obama has done so many good things, you know that the GOP, with the man-child as president and the fire breathers in Congress, will find plenty of ways to screw things up…and since they have all the power, it’ll be hard to blame their mistakes on anyone else…