This is in response to a letter authored by Gerrard Wilbur regarding Donald Trump’s stance on Supreme Court justices.
During the last presidential debate, the Democratic nominee proclaimed that she would choose Supreme Court justices that “represent all of the people.” That belies a prejudicial stance in terms of the United States Constitution. Supreme Court justices are not appointed in order to “represent all of the people.” They are supposed to be chosen and affirmed on the basis of their ability and inclination to interpret the Constitution with fidelity in the cases brought before the high court.
There are two types of jurists on the Supreme Court; the first involves those believing the Constitution is a “living document,” and therefore quite malleable. The second method is viewing the Constitution as a “dead document” and believing it means what it says (this is often called the originalist view). The court is now evenly spilt along these lines.
The Democratic nominee has a history of opposing the First and Second Amendments relative to majority decisions reached by the Supreme Court. She has railed against Citizens United as well as the Heller decision. During the last debate she disingenuously articulated that Heller was about “protecting toddlers” from gun violence instead of the truth that it affirmed the right of every citizen to armed self-defense. She is on record as wanting to overturn that decision. Citizens United incurred her wrath because an anti-Clinton film had been released and she wanted it banned.
The Republican nominee will support the appointment of “originalists” to the Supreme Court. Men and women who believe the Constitution of the United States means what it says.
The Democratic nominee will do the opposite. As you prepare to vote, keep these stark differences in mind.