Against seemingly insurmountable odds, Donald Trump has been elected the next President of the United States. Up until late Tuesday evening, a Trump presidency never truly seemed like a realistic possibility. National polls didn’t give him much of a chance, most experts pointed to a Clinton election but as the saying goes, “you never know what can happen”. Now that we know who our next president will be, it’s important to start looking towards the future. A power shift in the Supreme Court seems likely and Trump will almost certainly appoint a conservative nominee to fill the void left by the recently deceased Antonin Scalia. Only time will tell what exactly a Trump presidency means for the Supreme Court.

Mr. Trump’s election represents a lost opportunity for liberals, and they are fearful of what comes next at the Supreme Court. According to the New York Times, there could be a significant power shift in the Supreme Court were there to be another vacancy under Trump’s presidency. That appears entirely possible. As for the implications, they remain to be seen. Taking a look at the rhetoric behind all of this is the next important step for us to take at this time.

Rhetorical Implications

Throughout this election, Trump has regularly expressed how important the state of the Supreme Court is to him. By using persuasive language and trying to construct arguments to support his potential nominees, he has set the stage for a strong argument. Whether people believe he’s right or wrong, he has frequently relied on metaphors and other rhetorical devices to appeal to his audience. At the end of the day, whether you agree with him or not, the rhetorical stage has been set.

With election day less than one week away, many conservatives and pro life members of the party have voiced their support for Donald Trump’s list of supreme court appointees. They (Trump supporters) say Trump offers the only chance for unborn children to have legal protection via the Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade. Trump’s support groups believe the lists consist of individuals capable of protecting their rights (and beliefs). Not surprisingly, the issue of abortion is of utmost importance to these supporters. On the other side, you have Hillary Clinton who has repeatedly stated that she will not waver on her abortion stance. Her supreme court nominees will do whatever they can to ensure their beliefs are properly implemented.  Hillary Clinton has made it very clear that the only nominees she would consider for the high court would be potential judges who strongly support abortion and keeping Roe and it’s unlimited abortions in place. It’s not too surprising that both presidential nominations took such stances.

Implications (Rhetorically speaking)

Over the course of this election, Donald Trump has taken a few measures to ensure he caters to his audience. By understanding what his supporters want, when it comes to tasks such as appointing supreme court nominees, he know who his people would like. Being pro life is something many conservatives pride themselves on. By creating the narrative that his audiences desires, he’s played himself in a quality position on this subject. Rhetorical devices such as metaphors and imagery are key components of his campaign and he has implemented them effectively. Time will tell if Trump’s grasp on rhetoric works or not. Stay tuned.

Monday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid confidently claimed that he and the rest of the Democratic party would not hesitate to change filibuster rules again. This claim comes after the recent remarks made by Republican Senator John McCain. Harry Reid predicted confidently that if his party regained control of the upper chamber, the filibuster against confirmation of appointees to the high court would quickly become a thing of the past. It’s worth noting that while Reid won’t be in the Senate to make that decision, when it comes to this topic, he is a very credible, informed source.

Rhetorical Implications

Not surprisingly, there are a number of implications that come with such claims. Rhetorically speaking, Reid has set himself up nicely with a quality counterargument. By using language to frame his and the rest of his party’s opinion, he has successfully placed himself in a good position. At the core of any quality piece of rhetoric is persuasion. “I really do believe that I have set the Senate so when I leave, we’re going to be able to get judges done with a majority,”  Reid said. He is persuading his audience that he has done his job and that the Senate has been set to his liking. All things considered, rhetorically speaking, he is in good shape.

Final Thoughts

It was important that a major political figure respond to John McCain’s recent claims. Harry Reid proved to be the man for the job and his party is likely proud of it. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out moving forward. Whether our next president is Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, there’s no denying the fact that the Supreme Court will likely see some significant changes.

On Monday, Arizona Senator John McCain stated that if Hillary Clinton is elected, Republicans will come together to block any and every person she nominates to the Supreme Court. “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” he declared. He then went on to state the importance of retaining control of the Senate. As many people know, the current court consists of eight individuals. It has been operating as such since the untimely passing of Justice Antonin Scalia back in February. While it may not be exactly shocking that McCain would make these claims, the importance and potential ramifications should not be overlooked.

Clinton’s Vision

“I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but maybe they tried more cases,” Clinton said. Hillary Clinton has taken what many believe to be a good stance on the Supreme Court subject. By laying out her vision, it has given people the opportunity to understand exactly what it is she’s trying to do. She has alluded to Sonia Sotomayor’s belief that “we are not as diverse as some would like in many important characteristics”. Not only that, but from a rhetorical perspective, she has been effective as well. “The Supreme Court is never going to be a melting pot reflective of the country,”. This is a quote from Sotomayor that’s featured in Clinton’s vision. It stresses the importance of language and also provides some imagery as to what our country needs but hasn’t necessarily attained.

 

As of today, the general public has a relatively good idea of what Donald Trump’s supreme court would look like, were he to become the nation’s next president. With that being said, that doesn’t mean there still couldn’t be a few more surprises. After all, Donald Trump has built his entire persona around surprise and shock. With all of this in mind, let’s take a took at a few of Trump’s potential supreme court nominees.

Who Are They?

Current;y, there are roughly twenty-one individuals Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would consider for his supreme court. As many people know, there are only nine spots to fill. So what exactly does this mean? Well, obviously, some people would be left out. Not only that, but the fact that Trump has released such a full, seemingly growing list of potential nominees is extremely uncommon for presidential nominees. The nominees range from Edward Mansfield of Iowa to Keith Blackwell of Georgia. These are just a couple of the potential nominees but the fact that we know them at all is unprecedented.

  

Edward Mansfield (L) and Keith Blackwell (R). Pictured above.

Rhetorical Implications

Not surprisingly, many members of the Republican party are quite pleased with Donald Trump’s list of potential appointees. That doesn’t, however, mean everyone is. With that in mind, Trump is going to have to successfully construct a narrative to appeal to those who oppose his decision. Of course, this will be easier said than done. Were he to add a few more moderate, or even left-winged appointees, this would likely resonate well with both democrats and libertarians. If he is unable to at least slightly appeal to those who oppose him, constructing a successful supreme court will be an extremely difficult task.

The rhetorical nature of supreme court appointments has always been incredibly fascinating. To begin with, essentially every presidential administration has at some point referenced supreme court decisions in their comments to the public. Reelections, policy goals and legacies all have to do with exactly when and how these comments are made. Obviously, the frequent referencing of these supreme court decisions has to mean something. Administrations keep going back to this which is why we have to take a look at the rhetoric, especially when it comes to the appointments themselves.

The language of court opinions is without question one of the most important components of the legal process. With that being said, what does the language mean when it comes to supreme court appointments? Well, in my opinion, the appointment process can be broken down into a few parts. First, the nomination stage is where we see the rhetoric take shape. Presidents typically nominate those who share their ideologies and beliefs. However, this is not always the case. During the nomination stage, the rhetoric is crafted to reassure those who support the president’s decisions and convince those who oppose the decision is plausible. That’s the goal.

After nominating appointees, confirmation takes place. This is where the rhetoric changes slightly. The rhetorical goals don’t change but the delivery of information does. After the appointees have been confirmed, the president will likely draw on the appointees past successes and from there, the president will point towards hope for the future. Although the rhetoric of supreme court appointments often goes overlooked, that certainly doesn’t make the process unimportant.