Posted on 01/18/2016 2:16:20 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
When Ben Carson was rising in the polls, Donald Trump was quick to attack the former neurosurgeon for being "pro-abortion not so long ago."
The attack was more than a bit hypocritical because Trump himself was "very" pro-abortion not so long ago. In 1999, Tim Russert asked Trump if he would support a ban on "abortion in the third-trimester" or "partial-birth abortion."
"No," Trump replied. "I am pro-choice in every respect." Trump explained his views may be the result of his "New York background." Now that Ted Cruz has attacked Trump's "New York values," Trump's views on abortion will be getting a second look by many Republican voters.
During the first Republican presidential debate, Trump explained that he "evolved" on the issue at some unknown point in the last 16 years. "Friends of mine years ago were going to have a child, and it was going to be aborted. And it wasn't aborted. And that child today is a total superstar, a great, great child. And I saw that. And I saw other instances," Trump said. "I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life."
When the Daily Caller's Jamie Weinstein asked Trump if he would have become pro-life if that child had been a loser instead of a "total superstar," Trump replied: "Probably not, but I've never thought of it. I would say no, but in this case it was an easy one because he's such an outstanding person."
That Trump could go from supporting third-trimester abortion--something indistinguishable from infanticide, something that only 14 percent of Americans think should be legal--to becoming pro-life because of that one experience is a bit hard to believe. If it's true, the story still indicates at the very least that Trump is not capable of serious moral reasoning.
The more important question is not what Trump said in the past but what he would do in the future. Trump says he's pro-life except in the cases when a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother or is the result of rape or incest, although it remains unclear if he thinks abortion should be generally legal in the first three months of pregnancy (a position that is more accurately described as "pro-choice").
Trump has said he'd sign a ban on abortion during the last four months of pregnancy, when infants can feel pain and are capable of surviving long-term outside the womb. But after undercover videos were released showing Planned Parenthood involved in the trafficking of aborted baby body parts, Trump said he wasn't sure if the Planned Parenthood should lose all of its federal funding. He later shifted, saying: "I wouldn't do any funding as long as they are performing abortions."
Even if the mercurial Trump followed through on his promises to sign pro-life legislation, it wouldn't matter if he appointed liberal justices to the Supreme Court. The Court is just one appointment away from a solid liberal majority that would likely find a right to taxpayer-funded and late-term abortion.
By the end of the next president's first term, four sitting justices will be over the age of 80. Originalist Antonin Scalia and "swing-vote" Anthony Kennedy will both be 84. Liberal activists Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer will be, respectively, 87 and 82. There's really no telling how far a lockstep-liberal majority would go on other issues like guns, immigration, national security, and the death penalty. If Trump appoints a liberal activist--intentionally or not--the rest of his domestic agenda doesn't matter much.
The more likely result of a Trump nomination, of course, would be a Clinton presidency and the certain appointment of liberal justices. But in the event that Trump actually wins, what kind of Supreme Court justices would he appoint? When a voter asked Trump in December if he'd defund Planned Parenthood and try to repeal Roe v. Wade, Trump wouldn't answer the question. "The answer is yes, defund," he replied. "The other, you're gonna need a lot of Supreme Court justices, but we're gonna be looking at that very, very carefully, but you need a lot of Supreme Court judges. But defund yes, we're going to be doing a lot of that."
In 2015, Trump said he thought his sister Maryanne Trump Barry, a federal appeals court judge who struck down New Jersey's partial-birth abortion ban, would be a "phenomenal" Supreme Court justice. "We will have to rule that out now, at least," he added.
The bigger problem is that Trump's general hostility toward limited government conservatism indicates that he would not want to appoint a constitutionalist to the Supreme Court. Trump still supports allowing the government to seize private property for commercial use, and a Supreme Court justice who shares this view will almost certainly be a liberal activist on issues across the board. Even if Trump wanted to appoint a constitutionalist, there's no reason to think he'd know how to pick one in the first place.
On Saturday, Trump floated former senator Scott Brown, who supports a right to abortion, as a possible vice presidential running mate. "I tend to agree with @AnnCoulter on priorities here. If Trump immigration plan implemented, doesn't matter," tweeted Breitbart.com Washington editor Matthew Boyle. "I don't care if @realDonaldTrump wants to perform abortions in White House after this immigration policy paper," Coulter wrote in August.
Anti-immigration obsessives may not care about Trump's views on infanticide and judges. But a strong majority of primary voters in a conservative, pro-life party surely will.
I strongly disagree. I think the Tenth Amendment, the First Amendment, a limited federal government, religious liberty, nominations to the Supreme Court, and the sanctity of life are all very large fish. And I do not trust Trump at all to advance these issues, articulate them, or even to understand them.
see, even you rate it last on the list
The only way to end abortion is to appoint a genuinely PRO-LIFE majority to SCOTUS, have them hand down a decision declaring personhood at conception and thereby using the XIVth Amendment to stamp out “legal” abortion once and for all. So Presidents and abortion are always an issue.
Would “Surging Ted” be a pro gay “marriage” Prime Minister of Canada?
Wrong spin. I did that to put it in the context of other constitutional issues that are tied to it. Not that the sanctity of life is a small thing. Far from it.
Those are all great issues you have identified. And you think that a young, articulate, clean, first-term Senator who promises you hope and change for all these things will actually deliver? How did that work out the last time?
I can’t imagine living with that for a moment.
Although I currently prefer Trump, I will be happy with either Trump or Cruz.
Here's Trump's official campaign position on immigration.
And here's Cruz's official campaign position on immigration, which seems substantially similar to Trump's, which is why I say I will support either one in the General.
With a corrupt Congressman, there is only one "deal" he will understand:
"Cross me on this, and I WILL ensure that you will have a well-financed primary opponent when you run for re-election. And I WILL dig up every piece of dirt on you there is to be dug up. Every mistress. Every bribe. Every kickback. Even if I have to hire PI's with my own money. You know I can. You know I will."Trump can say the above, with nobody questioning his ability to carry out what he says. Can Cruz do the same?
Thank you for the links.
So, we can switch from calling him “the Donald” and just start referring to him as “the Don”.
It ought to be a proud day for America!
I am a Catholic. With every rosary I say, I pray for hope and I have received hope. Change is now not a "nice to have" but it has become a "must have."
As a Catholic, I must say that I will gladly place my hope for change in the hands of a young, articulate, clean first-term Senator who is actually my brother in Christ as a Southern Baptist despite any doctrinal differences. That is in spite of the fact that the election of Barack Insane Obozo was also the election of a "young, articulate" but not really clean young senator. The difference is that Obozo was raised by his leftwing moonbat mother and her equally moonbat family to be the communist that he is, to associate with the likes of Bll Ayres and Bernardine Doehrn and Frank Marshall Davis, allowed him to be trained in radical Muslim Midrashas in Indonesia under substitute "father figure" Soetero, influenced by his apparent father who was a Kenyan anticolonialist nutcase, and willingly (for show/see Obozo is too a "Christian") attended the "church" of the Rev. Mr. Anti-American Wrong and I expect that Ted Cruz will deliver or trigger an internal war against those who need to have war made upon them.
That is how it will work this time. There is no genuine comparison between Obozo and Cruz. Ted Cruz has the best potential of any candidate (other than perhaps the late Jack Kemp) since Ronaldus Maximus. Our elitist enemies will, if he is not elected, see to it that the opportunity will not come again. Cruz is performance not weathervane blustering with NY values.
If you love Mitch the Sellout McConnell, ponder that the new, new, really new Donald gave Mitchie $50,000 to help him against our candidate Bevin for the KY US Senate nomination. That was without any apparent intention to locate a new outpost of TRUMP EVERYTHING in Kentucky so the usual rationalization that the donation was good business seems not to apply. He also gave $$$$$$ to Rahm Emmanuel's race for Chicago Mayor. Considering that the Chicago Machine is a bit entrenched, that one amounts to a purely corrupt payoff.
In spite of all this, I will vote for Trump IF and only IF he is nominated but his future behavior and that of ghis supporters COULD change my mind. Our country is in bad enough shape that someone must take positive measures that are drastic and "positive" rules out Hillary and Bernie. The Donald is NOT perfect nor anything remotely close to perfect but he needs to be refined by the campaign before he will gain the trust of actual conservatives.
Cruz could also use refinement of his candidacy. This is what campaigns are for.
God bless you and yours! I would also note that priority #1 for our enemies was to keep Scott Walker from being nominated and our enemies succeeded. Sciott Walker was born of American citizen parents in Colorado Springs and raised in Iowa and Wisconsin for those who view such matters as critical.
Good point! p
Cruz must learn to do the same at least as to opposition research and, as POTUS, I suspect he will be able to arrange adequate financing for primary challengers to the usual gang of elitist airheads and other liberal GOP-Es.
The Left will take a "nice guy", chew him up and spit him out. We will need a guy who will be willing to "go to the mattresses" with the Left.
“Go to the mattresses...”
Now you’ve got him sleeping with the enemy ( 8 > }
"Cross me on this, and I WILL ensure that you will have a well-financed primary opponent when you run for re-election. And I WILL dig up every piece of dirt on you there is to be dug up. Every mistress. Every bribe. Every kickback. Even if I have to hire PI's with my own money. You know I can. You know I will."What is "Godfather-ish" about promising justice for corruption?
Well, We could get another Roberts appointed.
So you admit he supports touchback anesty? And how is that better? Let me give you a hint: No one sho supprts touchback amnesty is going to actually go to the trouble to massively deport. The huge cost and logistical hurdles, just to make them all citizens or permanent residents? Not going to happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.