Hillary Clinton’s Dangerous Supreme Court Confusion


Much of the media has jumped on one of the final moments of the debate in which Trump said that he would evaluate the result of the election after it was over. That has served as a distraction from some of the more pressing issues covered. Although Donald Trump has worked for his entire adult life as a businessman and lacks some of the “political experience” of his opponent, in the final presidential debate, he exhibited a seemingly superior understanding of the job of the Supreme Court and role of the Constitution in our nation.

Moderator Chris Wallace posed the question: “The first topic is the Supreme Court … First of all, where do you want to see the court take the country? And secondly, what’s your view on how the Constitution should be interpreted? Do the founders words mean what they say, or is it a living document to be applied flexibly according to changing circumstances?”

What followed was a frightening lack of understanding from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “…The Supreme Court should represent all of us. That’s how I see the Court. And the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on our behalf of our rights as Americans.”

As a lawyer, Clinton should know that the job of the Supreme Court is not to represent the people – it’s to understand, defend, and enforce the United States Constitution. These are not elected, representative officials, they are experts on the laws and constitutional foundations of our nation. What followed was more frightening as she explained how she would change the first and second amendments and used examples that were either nonsensical or downright incorrect to support her reasoning. 

Trump’s response stuck to the upholding of the Constitution and the very amendments that Clinton was attacking, as he wrapped up with, “I don’t think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear. It’s all about the Constitution, and so important, the Constitution the way it was meant to be.”

To find out more, The Wall Street Journal covered the topic extensively in their article Hillary’s New Constitution.