What benefit is it that "Trump's base" hopes to get from a conservative Supreme Court Justice?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

It's just politics. Works both ways. If Kavanaugh gets rammed through, which still seems likely, that will charge up the Ocasio-Cortez base and off to the polls they go. Feinstein herself was part of the wave of women voted into office after the Thomas appointment.

Going through life trying to placate and appease the Trump base really doesn't seem like sound political strategy. I don't think the Ocasio-Cortez base is really afraid of the T-base.

Also no one really cares about Puerto Rico.

How compelling and relatable is Dr Ford to minorities? What would get minorities out to vote? Isn't New York State a lock for the democrats already?

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Um, a constitutionalist maybe? How refreshing.

Don't forget protecting the 2nd Amendment

Religious liberty

And the right to disagree with the Dems until they decide to agree with the Repubs, then we all change our beliefs.

The fact is that a conservative court is thought to protect against many of the extreme views that the progressives are pushing. Fortunately this is not necessarily true as a true conservative judge will base decisions on the writings in the constitution and will not be swayed by politics or emotion. And that is how it should be. Liberal judges or activist judges think the constitution is a living document and should be interpreted based upon the times. This is probably not correct. In fact the constitution does provide avenues for changes based upon the times, but the bar to make those changes is difficult. That is on purpose and why the Congress has been so unsuccessful at passing major changes.

I few people have beat me to it but I think abortion issue is a big one. I also think a lot of his base feel they are losing the culture wars because of the Supreme Court. I think for the most part they are wrong about that. You could add second amendment.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

What good does a "constitutionalist" do for Trump's base and evangelicals? What's their benefit? How are they better off, day to day? Let's get back to reality, please.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

So a conservative SC will stop all the attacks on the Second Amendment that I seem to have missed. If Sandy Hook didn't touch the Second Amendment, nothing will.

Against what threat to religious liberty needs a conservative SC to defend? That sounds like a great thing, but what practical effect does it have on Trump's base? Gay wedding cakes?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

What in regards to abortion will a conservative SC do? More restrictions allowed by states? I'm guessing that Trump's base doesn't have a clue that abortion restrictions have been shown not to reduce the number of abortions, but to negatively impact women's health. Is that *really* what Trump's base and evangelicals want the net result to be?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I wonder to whom the abortion issue is still big for? With all the contraception available this is not the early 70's. It may be a differentiator for the dems vs. the GOP but it didn't stop Bush and Trump from being elected and plenty of women voted for restriction. I would love to see the voluntary end of abortion and replace it with initiatives that lead to a much stronger pro-adoption platform.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

I'm not sure what your point is?

Everyone thinks they're a constitutionalist. We just argue about constitutionality. Which is why we need the court in the first place.

No bonus points for papering oneself in the Constitution as if there exists some special ability to read it correctly.

For example Roe v. Wade weights the Due Process clause (individual protection from interference in your life by the government) vs. the notion that a fetus is a human life that needs to be protected. Arguments get to the Supreme Court *because* they're not easy to answer by reading the Constitution. If it's a simple constitutional argument, it never gets to the high court.

Please explain how this would "break" hyperpartisan politics? If anything, it would open up more floodgates to greater levels of partisanship in more areas.

I just don't see the support in the country to overturn Roe v Wade. On another note, I saw today a Dem Senator stating that if Kavanaugh is confirmed and the Dems take the Senate they'll impeach and remove him from the court. I don't recall ever hearing this threat on any prior justices, regardless how strong the opposition.

Seems this may be a very long-term fight.

It does not need strong support to be overturned. It does not matter if the majority of the country supports it, the problem is that when you set up a system of government that allows minority rule, it allows those in charge to implement policies that are not popular with little fear of it affecting elections.

Thomas Jefferson led the House in the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase, in an effort to undermine Federalist control of SCOTUS and in a retaliation against the court seizing power through the claim that SCOTUS had the power of judicial review (which the Constitution itself doesn't specify). The Senate acquitted Chase.

Today's "never before seen hyper-partisan politics" is like two little kittens batting at each other compared to the bloodsport (sometimes literal) of Federalism vs. anti-Federalism.