Would Trump appoint justices who would thwart the first amendment?

Leon Wolf:
The last scare tactic that the reluctant Trump adopters use against those of us who are still stubborn Trump refuseniks is the threat of Hillary Clinton appointing Supreme Court Justices. On a surface level, it's an effective appeal to pragmatism, because Hillary really and truly will appoint some horrible Supreme Court justices.

But the assumption that Trump's judges would be any better seems to ignore his many public pronouncements that reveal his judicial philosophy. As but one example, Trump appears to be an ardent opponent of the First Amendment, even in concept, as he revealed in a tweet this morning:

It is not "freedom of the press" when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!
Trump's conception of the concept of Freedom of the Press is literally, and without exaggeration, the old Soviet position of freedom of the press: the press is as free as they want as long as they only things that aren't "lies"; and by the way, "lies" are distinguished from "truth" exclusively by the authority of the State.
There is much more.

It appears that both Trump and Hillary Clinton are hostile to the 1st amendment in their own special ways.  They both would like to stop people from producing material critical of them.  They would both seek judges who would thwart the very purpose of the 1st amendment.


Popular posts from this blog

Democrats worried about 2018 elections

Illinois in worst financial shape, Texas in best shape

Obama's hidden corruption that enriched his friends