Quantcast
Connect with us

Math is hard: Trump claims he could have blocked 5-3 abortion ruling by filling Scalia’s seat

Published

on

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump defied the laws of mathematics on Thursday, claiming that he could have turned around the Supreme Court’s 5-3 abortion ruling by nominating a pro-life justice to replace Antonin Scalia.

Radio host Mike Gallagher noted during an interview with the candidate that the Supreme Court “handed the pro-life movement a disappointing decision” by striking down a Texas law that made it more difficult for women to get abortions.

ADVERTISEMENT

Trump suggested that the 5-3 decision would have been flipped to a 5-4 decision upholding the law if he had been able to fill the vacancy left by the death of Scalia with a pro-life judge.

“Now if we had Scalia was living or is Scalia was replaced by me,” Trump said, “you wouldn’t have had that. Okay? It would have been the opposite.”

“So just to confirm,” Gallagher pressed. “Under a Donald — a President Donald Trump-appointed Supreme Court, you wouldn’t see a majority ruling like the one we had with the Texas abortion law this week.”

“No, you wouldn’t see that,” Trump insisted. “And people understand that.”

Ignoring the fact that it would have been impossible to confirm a new justice prior to the ruling, replacing Scalia with another pro-life justice would likely have had no impact on the ruling. The Texas law would still have been overturned 5-4 instead of 5-3.

ADVERTISEMENT

Listen to the audio in MP3 format.

(h/t: Sopan Deb)

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

GOP’s ‘chaotic’ first day fighting impeachment revealed they’re overwhelmed by evidence against Trump: Ex-prosecutor

Published

on

The House Republican strategy for the first day of public impeachment hearings showed they knew Democrats were playing a strong hand, and they didn't.

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti, writing for Politico, explained how GOP lawmakers tried to confuse jurors -- in this case, the public and their counterparts in the Senate -- by talking about Hunter Biden or Javelin missiles because they wanted to distract from the strong evidence tying President Donald Trump to an extortion scheme.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump’s latest and most ludicrous con job

Published

on

Donald Trump is con artist in chief of the United States. His many apparent and impeachable crimes, such as the Ukraine scandal, collusion with Russia and violations of the Emoluments Clause, flow from that fact. Of course, Trump’s long con involves millions and perhaps even billions of dollars. But Trump’s big score, his ultimate goal, is permanent control of the presidency of the United States and the power for him and his family and allies to engage in legal theft indefinitely.

This article first appeared on Salon.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

I was an impeachment skeptic. Here’s why I’m now convinced Trump must be removed

Published

on

Despite all the uncertainty surrounding impeachment, we can capture the current moment succinctly: President Trump’s fate hinges on whether Republican senators are more fearful of losing in a primary or in the general election. Now that the live impeachment hearings are about to fuel nationwide prime-time programming, those senators’ fears are likely to intensify.

While that dynamic will determine whether Trump will be removed from office, it doesn’t tell us whether he should be.  I am generally an impeachment skeptic. My recent book—Impeaching the President: Past, Present, Future—argues that impeachment should be regarded as a last resort that, as a general proposition, is inappropriate in a president’s first term.  The American people are capable of rendering judgment and should be given the first crack.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image