
Chuck Schumer did something that liberals rarely do. He told the truth. Without beating around the bush, he said the reason Hillary must be elected is so she can fill the Supreme Court with progressives. (His words) He also said that as the majority leader of the Senate, he would make sure that would become a fact. Harry Reid started it by not allowing filibusters for presidential appointees, which means with all the progressive republicans in the Senate, they could fill SCOTUS even if they don’t have the majority. They can always count on John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Jeff Flake, Kelly Ayotte and Susan Collins in a pinch.
Donald Trump has promised to only nominate judges who believe in the constitution, which would eliminate liberal/progressive judges. We already have two Obama appointees who totally ignore the constitution when entering their opinions in Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Imagine having 6 of them on a court of only 9 judges. Goodbye, America.
From The Daily Signal:
Conservatives Should Worry: Democrat Senator Says Progressive Supreme Court Top Goal
Sen. Chuck Schumer has reminded us just how important the upcoming presidential election will be in shaping the federal judiciary, calling getting a progressive Supreme Court his “number one goal.”
“A progressive majority on the Supreme Court is an imperative, and if I become majority leader, I will make it happen,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said to attendees at a conference last week hosted by the Rev. Al Sharpton.
These statements should concern individuals with a proper understanding of the limited role of the judiciary. The next president will appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court and could fill one-third of judgeships on the lower courts by the end of two terms.
And a “progressive” Supreme Court is not outside the realm of possibilities.
The high court has been closely divided on a number of contentious issues in recent years: the Second Amendment (Heller, McDonald), religious liberty (Hobby Lobby, Town of Greece), the First Amendment (Citizens United), racial preferences (Fisher I), and the death penalty (Glossip), among others. One vote made the difference in each of these cases, which most consider as victories for the conservative wing of the court.