NewsMax CEO and Trump confidant Chris Ruddy believes Donald Trump should “do a deal” in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would retire from the Supreme Court to be replaced by Obama apointee Merrick Garland. But you don’t need to have read (or written) Art of the Deal to know it is not profitable to compromise with a weak opponent.
Speaking to Business Insider, Ruddy laid out his case for a Ginsburg deal: “They would remove a very liberal Democrat with a moderate, consensus Democrat, who I think Garland is. And I think it would be a huge move and a sign for Trump that he’s willing to break through the political ice.”
Why should a decision as important as a Supreme Court pick, which will have ramifications across decades, be used as a sign that the President is willing to break through the political ice? It makes no sense to break the ice with one of the most important decisions the President will make, as opposed to something like an appropriations bill to give congress a raise. Besides, Trump already broke the political ice by ordering a missile attack on Syria. The attack was widely praised by Democrats and “NeverTrump” Republicans…for a day or two; then they went right back to hating him.
Donald Trump should not be putting liberals on the Supreme Court, even if they are moderate and consensus Democrats, as Ruddy describes Garland. The court doesn’t need any help in the liberal department, between Obama’s picks and the fact that Supreme Court justices become more liberal as they get older, according to the American Bar Association’s ABA Journal. Trump’s base has been disappointed in the conservative members of the court as well, like Chief Justice Roberts, who found Obamacare to be constitutional.
Ruddy also commented on the Neil Gorsuch nomination, saying, “I think they made a big mistake by pulling the nuclear option.” Republicans seem to be hung up on points of decorum instead of securing the future of the judiciary with a strong court. Why is that? Shouldn’t the Democrats have expected the nuclear option following their own use of it? America did not elect Donald Trump, and indeed remove Democrats from more than 1,000 seats during Obama’s term, in order for the Republicans to play nicely with the Democrats.
What American voters did do was give Donald Trump a mandate to nominate conservative justices who have a deep respect for the constitution. Neil Gorsuch is a fantastic start, but Trump’s future court picks shouldn’t be compromises or “consensus Democrats,” they should be strong conservatives that remind us of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg is no friend of Trump. Do you know how out of line a liberal has to be for the New York Times to take Trump’s side against her? I’d frankly be concerned about her honoring a hypothetical deal naming her replacement. Conservatives will celebrate the day she finally retires and stops inflicting her personal brand of malicious liberalism upon the judiciary, but what good will it do if a liberal, even a moderate Democrat, replaces her?
Donald Trump has been elected President not to do a decent job and maintain the status quo, but to “drain the swamp” and fix problems that have plagued the federal government for decades and spanned presidencies. His voters do not expect baby steps on the Supreme Court. They expect serious changes that will last for decades. Donald Trump literally wrote the book on the art of the deal, so it is important he recognize when he has the opportunity to throw a bone to his political opponents and when he instead needs to put aside compromise in favor of victory for America.
Colin Madine is a contributor and editor at Breitbart News and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org