Opinion Outpost Mar. 22


Protesting Trump

The time has come to halt the demonstrations.

They became counterproductive once the confrontation between Trump’s followers and opponents at the UIC Pavilion turned violent. It doesn’t matter who started it. Trump profited from it. He will continue to do so whenever images of punching and cursing partisans lead the evening news.

— Ron Grossman
Chicago Tribune

Black Lives Matter protesters may help elect Donald Trump president, just as their predecessors did for Richard Nixon.

Then as now, race and law enforcement were tightly intertwined issues. And, then as now, most people in general support law enforcement.

… Donald Trump did not invent the narrative that equates racial activists with crime, disorder and disruption. And if black radicals push the country toward a law and order candidate, it only shows they don’t know their history.

— James S. Robbins
USA Today

Organized groups of left-wing agitators intentionally come to Trump rallies to provoke his supporters. … They should not be surprised when they get a reaction. Walk into a blue-collar bar and start taunting people that way, and you are likely to leave without some of your teeth.

The fact is, if the protesters were holding peaceful protests outside his venues, there would be no violence.

—  Marc A. Thiessen
The Washington Post

For Donald Trump, the protesters that are increasingly emboldened at his rallies are a point of amusement, if not outright pride.

“Every five minutes or so,” he brags of his interruptions.

… It’s been a half-century since such civic-minded violence has broken out in the United States, with a leader like Trump occasionally goading them on. The rage is escalating, and Trump’s campaign has no interest in tamping it down.

— Philip Elliott

Republicans stink at protesting. Sometimes we counter protest. But we look like dancing white boys at a college fraternity party when we do it — that or the mob that chased Frankenstein through the countryside in the old black-and-white classic.

Either way, it’s inelegant.

— William F. B. O’Reilly 

Merrick Garland

Judge Garland’s opinions were models of judicial craftsmanship — unflashy, methodically reasoned, attentive to precedent and tightly rooted in the language of the governing statutes and regulations. He appears to apply Supreme Court precedents with punctilious fidelity even if there is reason to think he would have preferred a different outcome and even where other judges might have found room to maneuver.

— Adam Liptak 
The New York TImes

Republicans and Democrats who have studied Garland’s record understand that … Garland is, in fact, the embodiment of bipartisan judicial restraint. He sincerely believes, as he said in his moving and uncharacteristically emotional speech accepting the nomination, that a judge “must put aside his personal views or preferences, and follow the law — not make it.”

— Jeffrey Rosen
The Atlantic

Judge Merrick Garland may well be the most moderate Supreme Court nominee anyone could expect from a Democratic president, but he’s also a justice who could create the first liberal majority on the high court in more than 40 years.

That explains why President Obama, Senate Democrats and liberal activists are convinced Garland … deserves a hearing and a confirmation vote.

And it’s why Republicans and conservative activists are just as fiercely determined to block him

— David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times

The selection of a moderate was undoubtedly calculated to embarrass Republicans who have stated that they will refuse to even consider the President’s selection. Had the choice been a judicial extremist … the Republican decision to refuse to even consider the nominee might have resonated with a majority of the public.

The choice … hands Democrats a strong argument that Republicans are shirking their constitutional responsibilities.

— Paul Callan

By tapping Merrick Garland, a D.C. circuit court judge with a centrist reputation, Obama bummed out those hoping for a left-wing version of Antonin Scalia.

… A “liberal Scalia” was never, ever going to happen.

— Paul Callan

Republicans need not worry that he’s an ideological Democrat. He’s not a political man, just a jurist of the highest quality.

… The GOP isn’t thinking far enough ahead on this matter.

… Garland is a jurist, not a partisan.

… If they stick to this position, the Republicans lose and so does America.

— Douglas E. Schoen

Print Friendly, PDF & Email