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.
I agree that there are pros and cons to both sides of the debate and how each candidate will decide to choose their Supreme Court Justice nominee. I do think that voters will side with the candidate that seems like they will morally hold up the values that the voter wants, either conservative or liberal views. The issue arises that people who don’t necessarily support Trump could vote solely for him because of his conservative tendencies and how he would uphold pro life in regards to abortions. Voters know that if elected Hilary will appoint someone who will do away with the pro life argument and uphold her view of prochoice. This sole issue of abortion could change who is chosen to be President.
I would argue that your main points are all valuable to deciding who won regarding supreme court appointees. It is most definitely up to the voter to decide who won based upon who spoke of matters that appealed to their interests and values. I enjoyed how you clearly laid out the rhetoric of both Clinton and Trump during the debate to compare each of their stances on replacing Judge Scalia. Since there are certain matters that are more important to some people than others, such as abortion laws, voters will likely not look at each candidate at a whole regarding their stance on issues, but rather pick out specific issues in which each candidate has an appealing view.