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.

The Uncertainty of Supreme Court Appointments

• With the upcoming election on November 4th, the media has been centered around the two candidates, Trump and Clinton, and has been scrutinizing their every word and movement.
• Trump and Clinton have very different views for our country in regards to our highest court, but recently Clinton’s rhetoric during the third presidential debate brought up the issue of who she would appoint to be the next supreme court justice.

Clinton Rhetoric  

• During the third presidential debate, Hillary Clinton said,“The Supreme Court should represent all of us. … And the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on behalf of our rights as Americans.”
• She used this rhetoric to try to identify with voters and relate herself to be just like a normal American citizen, saying that she wants a judge who will uphold her values as well. The use of her “I” language helps build the identification between her and the audience and helps create the idea that they are not as different as they seem. She tries to establish common ground and help establish the same believes, morals, and values as the audience members who are watching the debate.
• This also goes along with the rhetorical strategy of how she tries to reinforce her voters’ belief structure by what she said during the debate. This is a political debate strategy of many politicians. She wants to show voters that she will see out their votes and lead the way that they want a candidate to lead.
• Clinton also is quoted saying  “I’m going to let this president serve out his term with distinction and make the decisions that he thinks are right.” I think she uses this rhetorical strategy to build the ethos of President Obama since she has worked for his staff during his presidency and she wants to establish her own credibility as being fit for the job of being president. She wants to build her credibility with voters so she is seen as being able to choose a great candidate for Supreme Court Justice who has lots of experience.

A Battle 

• So for the next two weeks until election day, Clinton will be responsible for displaying to voters how unfit Trump is to be president and try establish her own identity of being the right person for the job, the right person to choose the next Supreme Court Justice, and the right person to lead our country. Can she do this? I guess we will just have to see…

 

McCain’s Stance on Hillary Clinton’s Appointees

Republican Senator John McCain recently made some fierce remarks regarding the appointment of a Supreme Court justice by Hillary Clinton to replace Judge Scalia. He has spoken of how he plans to stand against any nominee chosen by Hillary Clinton. “McCain made his remarks on WPHT-AM radio in Philadelphia, during an interview in support of fellow Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.). He stated, “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up (Washington Post).”

Results

The rhetoric that has resulted after release of these comments has been very critical from Democrats. It set the reality that a replacement for Judge Scalia could take much longer than they would have hoped for, particularly if Republicans remain in control of the Senate. This could cause the Supreme Court to remain unfilled possibly for the entirety of a democratic presidency if Republicans are in fact opposed to any nomination by the Democratic Party. To further this case, President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland has had no progress in over six months due to Republican urges that the Supreme Court appointee should not be officially chosen until the new President is seated. The bigger issue caused by this dilemma is that the Supreme Court will remain unfilled and imbalanced until a judge is appointed, which may not be for quite some time if Democrat Hillary Clinton becomes president.

Political Gains or Political Peace

The question that surfaces from Senator McCains rhetoric is whether or not the Republican Party cares more about the political gains of their party, or the well-being of the Supreme Court. McCains words seem harsh to democrats and moderates alike, as it appears any judge nominated by a democrat will automatically be shunned, regardless of his or her success, knowledge, potential, or values. The candidate would automatically be deemed ineligible simply because they have been chosen by a democrat which to many, is unreasonable and unwise.

Revoking What Was Once Stated

Since the accusations of McCain being close-minded and partisan after his remarks, he has since revoked his claims that anyone nominated by Hillary Clinton would be considered unfit. “Senator McCain believes you can only judge people by their record, and Hillary Clinton has a clear record of supporting liberal judicial nominees,” spokeswoman Rachel Dean said. “That being said, Senator McCain will, of course, thoroughly examine the record of any Supreme Court nominee put before the Senate and vote for or against that individual based on their qualifications as he has done throughout his career (Washington Post).”

Why?

Perhaps the reason for him changing the rhetoric of his claims is that he seems too partisan. Although it is good to be loyal to his party, his judgements came across as harsh and party-oriented since it appeared he would not consider ANY of her appointees even if they were well-qualified. Chances are Senator McCain rebutted his original statements in order to seem more reasonable, bi-partisan, and thorough by attacking the opponent (Clinton) while simultaneously making himself seem more credible by boosting his ethos.

 

Issues of gender have seemed to creep into every aspect of this year’s election, and that certainly rang true in last night’s debate on the Supreme Court. The very first question of the night was about the future of the Court and Hillary Clinton’s gender-focused responses underscored her goal of painting a picture of Mr. Trump as anti-woman.

Hillary and “all” the Ladies 

Hillary’s vision of the Supreme Court is one that she claims will represent “all of us.” However, her use of “all” was loaded with rhetorical significance and was arguably more about women than about everyone. She mentioned the importance of not overturning Roe vs. Wade and of equality in the work place, both of which are focused on women’s rights. She continued, bluntly saying, “we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of of women’s rights…”  Although she did mention other minorities, Hillary’s use of all in this case painted a picture of herself as pro-woman, and ultimately further alienated her opponent from women.

It’s all about the Angle  

Hillary strategically angled her response about the Supreme Court to launch a loaded discussion about abortion and women’s rights. With a vacant seat and a state of deadlock in the Court, the election of a candidate will likely sway the court in the direction of that candidate’s political party. Hillary took full advantage of this, knowing that recent events have contributed to Trump’s anti-woman persona and that his stance on these issues would likely reinforce that persona. She pointed out that Trump’s stance on abortion and his plan to defund Planned Parenthood would deny women of benefits and of the right of choice. After reinforcing Trump’s lack of concern for women, Hillary swept in as the hero by claiming she would defend Planned Parenthood, Roe vs. Wade, and women’s right to choose.

The real kicker, however, was Hillary’s claim about Donald’s intention to punish women in regards to abortion. “We have come too far to have that turn back now,” she said,  “and indeed he said women should be punished; that there should be some form of punishment for women who obtain abortions. And I could just not be more opposed to that kind of thinking.” This statement designates her as an agent of protection for women against Trump.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/19/498293478/fact-check-trump-and-clinton-s-final-presidential-debate

Nobody likes the Bad Guy 

Hillary Clinton’s strategic responses in last night’s debate certainly reinforced her goal of alienating Trump from women voters. She framed her responses, even about seemingly gender neutral issues such as the Supreme Court, to further vilify Trump in the eyes of women- the demographic he desperately needs to stay afloat in the election.

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.

Wednesday’s Debate 

• The last Presidential debate on Wednesday is high stakes for both candidates and their campaigns. Donald Trump has to keep his conservative base of voters despite the recent video leaks of him verbally abusing women. Hillary has to try to maintain her democratic voter base despite newly classified emails being released as well.
• The debate on Wednesday will have the Supreme Court be one of the highlighted topics of the night’s discussion. According to Bloomberg Politics, “for the first time since 1968, Election Day will arrive with a Supreme Court seat needing to be filled.” This is crucial to the future of our country and the stability of our highest court.

Clinton Rhetoric 

• Clinton has touched on the issue of how she will appoint the next Supreme Court Justice and has used identification rhetoric to do this. She is quoted saying,“I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience…” This strategy was so she could identify with audiences on a personal level and make herself seem more relatable to their needs and wants. The only issue is that this strategy is not effective when she is trying to reach so many voters. It would have been more effective if she had specifically tried to target a certain group of voters for support when she said this. In reality, all of the Supreme Court nominees have “real-life experience.”
• She also mentioned that she would look through “a wide list of candidates to fill the vacant seat,” this almost contradicts her normal views of supporting President Obama with the nomination of Garland.
• Hillary has also used identification with voters when she is quoted saying, “I respect the Second Amendment.” This quote is especially important because the Supreme Court decides on major issues like gun control and the new justice could sway the Supreme Court’s ruling on Gun control. By Hillary saying that she supports gun control this could impact who she wants to appoint as Supreme Court Justice, but on the other hand she could just being saying that to appeal to more conservative voters whom she is trying to win their vote.
• Hillary is also quoted saying she will choose the Justice based on, “who understands the way the world really works.” This is a rhetorical strategy that uses ethos and pathos because it shows how she wants someone who can relate and identify with voters on a personal level, but also wants someone who is credible in their experience to make the important decisions that Supreme Court Justices are supposed to make.

 

What Will Be Discussed During Wednesday’s Debate?

Based upon the rhetoric surrounding the recent death of Judge Scalia and Donald Trumps latest release of potential Supreme Court appointees, the topic of Supreme Court Judges will be a heated discussion during Wednesday’s debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. It could be argued that based upon previous debates, both candidates will likely prove to have partisan views on the matter at hand and allow their opinions to overwhelm the logistics of the debate.

 

Trump’s Prospective Argument

In the previous few months, Trump has spoken heavily regarding the values of Supreme Court appointees in which he stands with. In particular, he has made remarks that coincide with a strict interpretation of the Constitution. For example, on July 21^st he stated, “At this moment, I would like to thank the evangelical community who have been so good to me and so supportive. You have so much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits…An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson, many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and protect free speech for all Americans (Life News).” By applying this statement to other social issues, it is clear that Donald Trump’s argument will focus on challenging the liberal point of view. He will adhere a pro-life platform, religious freedom in politics, and a lesser separation of church and state with the goal of encouraging the pulpit to openly preach pro-life values to followers. However, he will likely focus on generalized terms of his discussion, because his rhetoric does not match up with his policy based upon his claims that he cares about women and their rights, meanwhile he is revoking their constitutional freedoms. Instead, he will mainly focus the specifics of the explicit 11 appointees he has openly chosen.

Clinton’s Prospective Argument

Recently, Hillary Clinton has also made remarks about her opinion on the values of Supreme Court appointees stating, “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 (Huffington Post).” Clinton is likely looking for a candidate who reflects the diversity of the United States, rather than choosing a white male politician. It has been argued that this statement is a nod to Sonia Sotomayor, an Ivy League-educated Puerto Rican woman from the Bronx who started out as a district attorney in NY before becoming a federal trial judge. Clinton will probably speak of more specific terms related to social justice such as pro-choice, religious freedom, separation of church and state, and precisely the diversity of the American people not only pertaining to race but to religion, age, and socioeconomic statuses. Clinton will try to defend the current laws set in place for LGBTQ persons, women’s rights, and softer immigration laws.

Rhetoric of the Debate

Since it is presumable that Trump and Clinton will be perpetuating the partisan attitudes which is the basis on which presidents have historically appointed supreme court justices. The goal has always been to choose judges, which coincides with their own political agenda. Since this election has been so intensely polarized, especially during political debates, Trump and Clinton will probably speak to each other in an aggressive manner in order to prove their interpretation of the constitution correct. In summation, the views of the 2016 candidates for President of the United States will only further the Democratic and Republican objectives in order to appoint justices which reflect party views.

 

 

 

 

 

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 Silence is Finally Broken

Sunday night’s presidential debate marked the long awaited discussion about the Supreme Court’s vacant ninth seat. The candidates’ answers made one thing very clear: Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump are NOT on the same page (or even in the same chapter) in terms of their visions for the Supreme Court. When prompted with a question about potential appointments, Clinton focused on experience and protection of rights while Trump pointed to Scalia-like justices with conservative tendencies. Whose argument was better?

Let’s take a look at the facts…

SHE Said what?

Clinton’s response was clearly articulated and represented the typical liberal value system (or typical liberal Supreme Court Justice) by emphasizing equality and diversity. She made herself a team player by claiming she’d “look broadly and widely” for justices who would represent the country’s diversity and she focused on the protection of (women’s) rights.

HE Said what?

Trump’s initial response was a lot less fluffy. He answered the question directly, pointing to his list of potential appointments who would fit the mold of Judge Scalia by voting conservatively on issues that matter to Republicans, specifically in terms of abortion. This part of his answer sharply contrasts Clinton’s by casting a traditional conservative vision for the future of the Court.

But then he said…. Money, Money, Money 

A closer look at the transcript from the debate reveals how Trump strategically changed the subject from the Court to his favorite topic: money. Trump’s subject change reflects his desire to highlight his strengths and appeal to conservatives.

So, who Won? 

A case could be made for either – it all depends on what matters most to the listener. Hillary’s argument contained more substance, she outlined her vision for a more liberal, diverse Court in detail. Trump took more of the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach by claiming Scalia had done a sufficient job and then strategically changed the subject to highlight his economic strength.  There are pros and cons to both strategies, but at the end of the day, voters who value liberal social policy will most likely declare Clinton the winner while conservative, economic-minded voters will probably take Trump’s side.