Mediaboss Marketing

TRUMP AND THE ROE DECISION.There's a debate among some on the right about former President Donald Trump and the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Does Trump deserve any credit for what happened?

Some anti-Trump voices say the answer is no. "Am I glad to see Roe gone?" asked National Review's Kevin D. Williamson in a recent article. "Absolutely. Do I think that Trump's role in this could have been performed by a reasonably well-trained monkey? Absolutely." Williamson went on to write that "no conservative who knows how to read supported Trump in 2016 because he was solid on judicial originalism," arguing instead that "it was movement conservatism ... that kept the Trump presidency from being a disaster for the right."

Williamson is an extreme case he likes to call Trump a monkey. But other, less strident anti-Trump voices have also tried to minimize Trump's contributions. So what is the reality? Does Trump, in fact, deserve some credit for the overturn of Roe? The answer is absolutely yes.

Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine that will keep you up to date with what's going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!

The critics point out that Trump was pro-choice for most of his life. Indeed he was. When conservative pro-lifers were laboring to defeat Roe in the 1980s and 1990s and 2000s, Trump was nowhere to be found. But when he ran for president in 2016, Trump proclaimed himself pro-life. Did he really mean it? Had he undergone some profound conversion? Or did he simply realize that he needed pro-life support to win the Republican nomination and then GOP votes in the general election?

Answer that with a question: Does it really matter? Whatever he truly believed, if anything, Trump pledged to appoint pro-life judges, which for decades was the most important promise a Republican presidential candidate could make to the pro-life world. He was quite explicit about it. In his final debate with Hillary Clinton, on Oct. 19, 2016, Trump, ever the salesman, outlined a scenario that sounds quite familiar today.

The discussion began when moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump, "Do you want the court, including the justices that you will name, to overturn Roe v. Wade, which includes, in fact, states, a woman's right to an abortion?"

"Well, if that would happen, because I am pro-life and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that that will go back to the individual states," Trump answered. "If they overturned it, it will go back to the states."

"But what I'm asking you, sir," Wallace responded, "is do you want to see the court overturn you just said you want to see the court protect the Second Amendment. Do you want to see the court overturn Roe v. Wade?

Trump's answer: "Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what's going to be that will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this: It will go back to the states, and the states will then make a determination."

It was music to pro-life ears. Did Trump feel it in his heart? No one cared. Pro-lifers had experienced so much disappointment in the past that their only real question was: Will he really do it?

To establish his credibility, especially since he had never run for office before, Trump went to the nation's premier conservative legal organization, the Federalist Society, for advice. Actually, more than that. Trump in effect farmed out the choice of judicial nominees to the group, which was happy to have more influence with a presidential candidate than it ever had.

Remember that in the 2016 campaign there was an empty Supreme Court seat, courtesy of Mitch McConnell (R-KY), then the Senate majority leader. Justice Antonin Scalia had died suddenly in February 2016, and McConnell outraged Democrats by holding the court seat open throughout 2016, on the grounds that since one party held the White House and the other party held the Senate, it should be left to the voters to choose the president to make the next nomination. So the campaign was held in the context of an open court seat.

Trump's campaign gambit, introduced in May 2016, was to produce a Federalist Society-vetted list of judges and lawyers and promise that he would pick a court nominee from that list. The first list had 11 names, and then in September 2016, Trump expanded it to 21 names. Trump's promise was explicit: I will pick my Supreme Court nominees from this list. All were solid conservatives.

So that was the campaign. Here's the remarkable part, from the pro-lifers' perspective: When Trump was elected, he kept his promise. He started with Neil Gorsuch, who became Justice Neil Gorsuch. Then he added a few names to the list, including Brett Kavanaugh.

Pro-lifers were cautiously delighted when Trump nominated Kavanaugh to fill the seat of the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Democrats were enraged. And then, when Democrats and allies on the Left launched an all-out attack on Kavanaugh, Trump stuck by his nominee. The attack came in the form of uncorroborated allegations of sexual assault 35 years earlier, when Kavanaugh was in high school. There was never a bit of proof that it ever happened. And then came progressively wilder allegations as Democrats launched a desperate attempt to smear Kavanaugh.

Trump stood behind Kavanaugh. This is fromJustice on Trial, the definitive account of the nomination battle by Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino:

Everyone, including the president, wanted to fight back on every front, including the media, in the committee, and with a hearing. Nobody considered withdrawing the nomination. They knew they might not win in the midst of a #MeToo media frenzy, but they would go down fighting. President Trump's eagerness to fight had previously irritated Republican leaders, but now even they were thankful for it. Other Republican presidents might not have shown the same fortitude.

Another GOP president might have sent Kavanaugh a lovely handwritten note thanking him for his willingness to serve but informing him that the administration would have to go in a new direction. Instead, Trump fought. And in the Kavanaugh confirmation, Trump earned the loyalty of many, many pro-lifers. He then strengthened the bond with the Amy Coney Barrett nomination, pushed through, by McConnell, again, in the final days of the 2020 campaign. (McConnell argued that it was OK to make such a late-term confirmation because both the White House and Senate were controlled by the same party.)

A simple recounting of what Trump did with his Supreme Court nominees is enough to undercut the ad hominem anti-Trump arguments. It in no way suggests Trump deserves exclusive credit for overturning Roe. Pro-life conservatives had labored for decades to make that happen. It was a big movement that suffered setbacks and kept going. Many people, including politicians, lawyers, activists, religious leaders, and others, contributed.

But the fact is, Trump contributed, too. Indeed, it would not be too much to say that he was essential to getting the anti-Roe campaign over the finish line.

For a deeper dive into many of the topics covered in the Daily Memo, please listen to my podcast, The Byron York Show available on the Ricochet Audio Network and everywhere else podcasts can be found. You can use this link to subscribe.

Go here to see the original:
Trump and the Roe decision - Washington Examiner

I saw my first Trump 2024 yard sign in rural Ohio on the way to my 50th high school reunion last weekend. It was in a county that had cast 78% of its 2020 vote for Donald Trump and judging from the Lets Go Brandon sign next to it, the homeowner was no fan of President Joe Biden. For someone like me, steeped in DC life, the visit to a deeply red area represented an invaluable opportunity to check the heartlands political temperature and see how the landscape was faring during a volatile time. Based on a number of conversations there, I drew several observations and lessons about the current environment.

The yard sign notwithstanding, many of the people I encountered had voted for Trump in 2020 but displayed surprising hesitancy about his possible 2024 candidacy. On the one hand, nearly all of them liked his policy agenda. They openly scorned what they saw as the Democrats turn to the left and Bidens ineffectiveness in dealing with inflation, COVID, foreign policy, and border security. They wanted someone who would keep government spending in check, slow the speed of the pandemic (without mask mandates or mandatory vaccinations), and stop the flow of immigrants across our southern border.

Yet on the other hand, they didnt like Trumps abrasiveness, wondered what to make of the January 6, 2021 insurrection, and preferred someone who would follow Trumps line but not antagonize so many people. Their ideal candidate seemed to be someone who supported Trumpism but with a nicer persona. In general, many of them told me they hoped Trump would not run, but that someone with his policy views would become the GOP nominee. This is consistent with data compiled by the Brookings Primaries Project based on an analysis of 2022 congressional primary candidates.

I arrived in the Midwest the day before the Supreme Court announced its historic reversal of Roe v. Wade. While most of the people I knew in DC bemoaned the decision as a betrayal of promises made during Senate confirmation hearings and a tragic rollback of womens rights, a number of acquaintances in rural Ohio applauded the decision. Some of my hometown folks had spent decades organizing the grassroots, rallying churchgoers, running for local office, and supporting pro-life candidates financially. For them, the court decision represented the culmination of a lifes work and evidence of how their political activities over several decades had paid off. Unlike Democrats, who sometimes acted as if tweeting was equivalent to organizing, conservatives had spent decades mobilizing voters, recruiting candidates, preparing policy proposals, and financially supporting leaders who promised to enact pro-life principles.

Although Republicans were pleased with the court decision, several recognized the new abortion decision would further divide the country, generate a massive counter-offensive from progressives, and pit state against state in a dangerous manner. They wondered what it would mean for other issues such as same-sex marriage. Despite their general conservatism, they recognized that same-sex marriage had become broadly accepted in many places around the country and that conservatives did not have the same ethical ground on that topic as they did when it came to life and death debates over fetuses.

While most of those I encountered had relatively clear views about domestic issues, the Ukraine War was another matter. That conflict perplexes many in the heartland because they are not sure what it means for America or how it affects them personally. I didnt encounter anyone who had a positive view of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Everyone sees him as a thug who terrorizes his own people and destabilizes global affairs. But they are not sure how the war will play out and what US involvement means for their lives.

In the short-run, the Ukrainian conflict has been a boon to American farmers. With Ukraine grain (especially wheat) blocked from the world market by Russia, grain prices have gone way up. Although American grocery shoppers are paying higher prices, US farmers are selling their stored wheat and corn at record levels. Of course, they recognize some of their financial gains are being lost at the grocery store and gas pumps, and through higher inflation on a wide range of farm costs. But U.S. agriculture is doing well due to grain supply restrictions.

Many farmers seem to be adopting a wait and see attitude to determine how the war plays out. The longer the conflict goes on, however, the greater the risk that Ukraine fatigue will set in. Putin clearly understands the fickleness of American opinion and is playing a long game to outlast US policymakers. He undoubtedly hopes Trump returns to office in 2025 and pulls the plug on the whole operation. If that happens, the Russian dictator would be free to consummate his conquest of Ukraine.

The clear lesson for Republicans is to nominate a Trump wannabee but not Trump himself. If the latter is the nominee, there will be cross-pressures between those wanting a return of Trumpism but not the abrasiveness and acrimony associated with the former president himself. A nicer version of Trump, at least from a personality and public presentation standpoint, clearly would be the strongest GOP nominee for heartland voters. If Trump is the nominee, some Republican voters fear that campaign could reelect Joe Biden.

The big choice facing Democrats is whether President Biden steps aside or seeks reelection. That decision, which is his alone to make, will dictate the strategic environment facing both parties. If Biden runs again, as seems likely now, the race would emphasize a complex blend of economic and cultural issues that would starkly divide the country. If Trump is the opponent, personality, age, and health issues would loom large for each nominee and play a role in the ultimate outcome. Most of my conservative friends back home view Biden as too old and not up to the job, even though the President is just three years older than Trump. Age and health clearly will be issues for either individual.

However, if Biden does not run, which my Ohio acquaintances pray is the case, it becomes an open question who will emerge as the Democrat nominee. Vice President Kamala Harris has not solidified her position as a candidate who would clear the field and be the dominant frontrunner. The people I encountered have a very low opinion of her, which is not surprising given the conservative tenor of my hometown. Many other candidates likely would run and there is no way to know in a crowded field who would emerge as the party nominee. In the wake of the Roe v. Wade reversal, there are no guarantees that a candidate from the moderate wing will triumph as happened in 2020.

The party could end up with a progressive candidate who would harness the anger unleashed by the court decision, mobilize mass voters, and make 2024 completely unlike 2020. Of course, that would fuel sentiment in the heartland that the Democrat party has been taken over by extremists and raise the level of conflict and antipathy between the two sides. The only safe prediction in that situation is a high-stakes election, record turnout from both sides, and political adversaries who neither trust nor like the opposition. If you think America is highly polarized now, it actually could get a lot worse and turn violent in ways that would shock both Americans and foreigners.

Go here to see the original:
Observations from Trumpland - Brookings Institution

Yikes! Apparently Ivanka Trump was present in the Oval Office for a pretty heated phone call between her father and the former Vice President, with the details regarding the days before the insurrection becoming more and more interesting. Heres what we know:

As reported by The Independent, Tim OBrien, author ofTrumpNation: The Art of Being The Donald, has recently suggested that the former presidents eldest daughter Ivanka had a bad feeling about pressure her father was reportedly putting on Mike Pence in the days leading up to January 6, 2021.

Clips of Ivanka Trumps testimony were played at the public hearings regarding theCapitol riots. Weve also heard from them, as Oliver OConnell for The Independent writes, that Donald Trump was repeatedly told that his scheme to get former Vice President Pence to send back electors to the states in the hope of overturning the election result was illegal.

In a recent interview between MSNBC host Alex Witt and Mr. OBrien, the author was asked,Do you get a sense from her testimony that Ivanka had a bad feeling about January 6th, even before the rally at the ellipse? OBrien replied, Absolutely.

He continued, We know from other accounts of what she did that day that she honoured the fact that Mike Pence was resisting Donald Trumps pressure to decertify the electoral results on Jan 6 at the Capitol. OBrien explained, And then she obviously was in the Oval Office with several other campaign advisers, including lawyers, who heard him swearing at Mike Pence, who heard him grow increasingly angry at Mike Pence, because Mike Pence wouldnt do what Donald Trump wanted him to do, which was to break the law.

OBrien elaborated, What is significant is what we have learned in the hearings thus far, is that Donald Trump at that point knew it was illegal. The writer added,[John] Eastman had told him it was illegal. They had also, there are other people in the White House who said that the plan was nutty. It was crazy. So it was not only lacking in visibility, it was illegal, and yet he continues to pressure Mike Pence, to break the law and he did so in front of a number of witnesses including his daughter.

To make matters worse, Ivanka testified that she heard her father in a pretty heated phone conversation with the former VP. Photos have emerged of several members of the Trump family together in the Oval Office on the morning of January 6, just ahead of the rally on the Ellipse before the Capitol riot.

Members of staff close to the former president and his daughter his body man Nick Luna, and her chief of staff, Julie Radford also claim Mr. Trump called his vice president a wimp and a py.

In the weeks since the hearing, the former president denied calling Pence a wimp, before then implying that Pence didnt have the courage to do what Trump wanted.

Last week,at a conference in Nashville, TN held by the Faith and Freedom Coalition, Trump said to the crowd,I never called Mike Pence a wimp. Trump continued, I never called him a wimp. Mike Pence had a chance to be great. He had a chance to be, frankly, historic. Mhmm.

See the original post:
Donald Trump Just Received The Most Devastating News About Jan. 6This Doesnt Bode Well For Re-Election! - SheFinds

Wall Street Journalist Peggy Noonan recently penned two, scathing opinion pieces on Donald Trump. The first, dated June 16, titled Trump Voters Need a New Direction, urged the Trump MAGA crowd to find another candidate to support for President in 2024. He might have been the only Republican who could beat Hillary in 2016. But hes a sure loser in 2024, writes Noonan.

The second column, titled Trump and Biden Both Face Rejection, dated June 23, focused on the Jan. 6th committee hearings, and the bad economic factors, as a reason why neither Biden or Trump will be their partys nominee in 24. This is the big political story now: Both parties are rejecting their leaders,Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Its a continuing tectonic shift and the story underlying every daily political story. Its building and will only grow. Both parties are starting to scramble for whats next, whos next. Both are casting about, writes Noonan.

The second column drew the wrath of Trump, who issued a statement that his PAC released which read, I listen to all of these foolish (stupid!) people, often living in a bygone era, like the weak and frail RINO, Peggy Noonan, who did much less for Ronald Reagan than she claims, and who actually said bad things about him and his ability to speak, or Rich Lowry, who has destroyed the once wonderful and influential National Review, the pride and joy of the legendary William F. Buckley, or George Will, whose mind is decaying with hatred and envy before our very eyes, or Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes, two people who are finally out of the conversation and of no relevance whatsoever, Trump said. Where do these people come from? They have no idea what the MAGA movement is, and even less of an understanding of America First, which is necessary, and even vital, to save our Country, writes Trump.

Trump is wrong about Noonan, and the eloquent words she wrote for President Reagan, who had the ability to deliver them perfectly. Noonans words, delivered by Reagan, were so powerful that she is still relevant today.

But Trump is right about one thing: Noonan and the others that he named, Lowry, Will, Goldberg and Hayes, are indeed from a byegone era of the Republican party.

Rusty Bowers, the Arizona Speaker of the House, also appeared to be of that same bygone era of the GOP when he testified how he stood up to Trump and Rudy in the days before Jan. 6.

Unfortunately, the discussion about this split in the republican party, and the tiff between Trump and Noonan was overshadowed on Meet the Press over abortion and the recent overturning of Roe v Wade, when Noonan said that the GOP should become a party that helps women.

That comment drew laughs from the panel, and ridicule from the Social Media haters.

But Noonan hit a nerve when she wrote that Trump and Biden are done. Its now DeSantis or Pence or Nikki Haley for the GOP. And if that happens maybe all of the never Trumpers can come home again.

Noonan, notably,wrote an op-edfor Thursdays Wall Street Journal in which she argued that the Jan. 6 hearings are sinking Trump and Republicans are searching for his replacement.

Read more here:
Donald Trump vs Peggy Noonan: The Old and New Guard of the Grand Old Party - Yonkers Times

Donald Trump may have been gone from the White House for almost a year and a half, but a decision by the US Supreme court to effectively ban abortion in half of the country his finger prints all over it.

Across the US, the ruling has created deep division at a time when Trump is once again in the spotlight over allegations he plotted to overturn the 2020 election.

Today, legal analyst Jill Wine-Banks who was one of the prosecutors during the Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon on Trump's lasting legacy and what's going wrong in America.

Featured:

Jill Wine-Banks, legal analyst

Subscribe to ABC News DailyontheABC listen app.

BroadcastSun 26 Jun 2022 at 6:00pmSunday 26 Jun 2022 at 6:00pmSun 26 Jun 2022 at 6:00pm

Australia, US Elections, Donald Trump, Law, Crime and Justice, Courts and Trials, Abortion, Reproduction and Contraception, Health, Shootings

Excerpt from:
Abortion, guns and an insurrection: Donald Trump's legacy - ABC News