Is SCOTUS a Good Reason to Support Trump? Libertarian and Conservative Legal Experts Weigh In

[longknife]

A very interesting piece asking the question of clearly non-Republican legal types. The options are clear and each expresses his or her opinion in ways that should make all voters think about their choices in November.



But is that reason enough to support Trump in the 2016 election? I wanted to hear what the key players in the libertarian and conservative legal movements had to say about it, so I asked a group of them, including Alan Gura, the ace Second Amendment lawyer who argued and won District of Columbia v. Heller before the Supreme Court in 2008, Randy Barnett, one of the architects behind the 2012 legal challenge to Obamacare in NFIB v. Sebelius, Jonathan Adler, one of the architects behind the 2015 legal challenge to Obamacare in King v. Burwell, and Glenn Reynolds, the respected law professor who runs the popular political blog Instapundit.com. Their opinions range from denouncing Trump as "beyond the pale" to arguing that Trump's judicial appointments "would almost certainly be better" than those of Hillary Clinton. Here are their thoughts on whether the future of the Supreme Court is a good reason to support Donald Trump.



Their responses can be found @ Is SCOTUS a Good Reason to Support Trump? Libertarian and Conservative Legal Experts Weigh In

 

[oldsoul]

A very interesting piece asking the question of clearly non-Republican legal types. The options are clear and each expresses his or her opinion in ways that should make all voters think about their choices in November.



But is that reason enough to support Trump in the 2016 election? I wanted to hear what the key players in the libertarian and conservative legal movements had to say about it, so I asked a group of them, including Alan Gura, the ace Second Amendment lawyer who argued and won District of Columbia v. Heller before the Supreme Court in 2008, Randy Barnett, one of the architects behind the 2012 legal challenge to Obamacare in NFIB v. Sebelius, Jonathan Adler, one of the architects behind the 2015 legal challenge to Obamacare in King v. Burwell, and Glenn Reynolds, the respected law professor who runs the popular political blog Instapundit.com. Their opinions range from denouncing Trump as "beyond the pale" to arguing that Trump's judicial appointments "would almost certainly be better" than those of Hillary Clinton. Here are their thoughts on whether the future of the Supreme Court is a good reason to support Donald Trump.



Their responses can be found @ Is SCOTUS a Good Reason to Support Trump? Libertarian and Conservative Legal Experts Weigh In

I would have to agree with Timothy Sandefur when he said that confirming Garland is likely the best strategy. Not the best possibility, but the best strategy none the less.