A friend asked this question of me today. It brought to memory all the radio and television talk show hosts who proclaim each election cycle that “this election is the most important of your life time”. I suppose they aren’t wrong. Each new election brings new rippling consequences, all of which set policy trajectories for years and decades to come. However, I do think this particular 2016 presidential election is one of the most pivotal elections my lifetime will see.
President Barack Obama has set America on a path to struggle both domestically and abroad. With more people out of the labor force than ever before, more on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP aka food stamps), more Americans living below the poverty line, we’re not doing too well. And with the proposed nuclear arms deal with Iran, there is a near certain military campaign looming in the next decade. That said, who’s political ideology will next grace the oval office will either continue our path, or deviate from it.
But there is one place where it makes all the difference in the world who is elected: judges. That’s right. The president appoints federal judges throughout their term. From the lower district courts to appellate and supreme court, the president’s political philosophies are represented by way of judges.
You see, while most people are concerned with policies (rightly so, of course), they rarely focus on judges. Regardless of which side of the political aisle you fall, if you’re a follower of the news and current events, I’m sure you’ve objected to some court ruling at one point or another because of some judge ‘legislating from the bench’. This happens when a judge reads into a law what he or she believes should be the law, and then rules in such a way that is inconsistent with it in favor of ‘righting a social wrong’.
My best advice is to focus on what seems to be the socio-political outlook of the candidates as much as what they promise. Determine their political outlook, where they believe the country should be. Take note of who they believe are the underrepresented in society because that’s who their judges will elevate and protect, letter of the law be damned.
Sifting Reality 
I fully believe that the recent SCOTUS rulings speak volumes about the importance of serious study before casting a single vote. And it is especially clear that both sides are keen to put in the Oval Office someone who will appoint judges and justices that will rule according to the philosophy of the party. Justices Scalia, Thomas and Allito seem definitely to consider issues according to how the Constitution is written, as well as within the limits imposed upon them by that document. Thus, if they should decide a case in a manner that I dislike, I feel confident they could draw upon things like original intent and the like to justify their decisions, thereby informing and edifying me. This is as it should be. It seems crystal clear that each has shown how Kennedy and the others have done everything BUT rule according to the Constitution, precedent and tradition and experience.
While it is quite possible that a conservative or right-leaning president can select someone for consideration who later proves to have been a poor choice, there is little doubt that the other side will pick someone they feel will move their agenda forward, regardless of how well or poorly doing so aligns with the Constitution and the duties and obligations of a federal judge or justice.
I am sorry. I have to mention Trump. I can’t believe he’s still in the race. I know he has struck a chord with frustrated Americans who want to feel like someone can tell the truth. But he has oversimplified public service. There are for more formidable Republican candidates who aren’t getting the attention they deserve. How can anyone consider Trump when he hasn’t held any time of public office? Do they expect him to walk into a joint chief of staff meeting and fire them? SMH.
I’m not opposed to having someone who has little political experience. But trump does have it. Not in the political playground. He has always had to be diplomatic, a good negotiator, able to plan ahead. Politics has always affected his business and so because he has SO MUCH business through out the world, I think he has plenty of experience. It just depends on whether he can handle properly the responsibility. I’m not a fan, but if he won the primary I’d vote him in the general. Not happily, but in order to see the further degeneration of our system. Personally I like Cruz.
I have to agree to some extent. He’s not the best choice as far as I’m concerned, but I don’t think lack of experience holding pubic office is required, as long as one can be surrounded by top-notch advisers. That’s important for any president.
Trump grabbed attention by his personal style. He didn’t merely draw it to him. That can be both good or bad depending on the candidate. I lean toward it being bad here, but I do believe that there is no one better on the Democratic side to prevent me from punching his number in the voting booth should he survive the primaries. I hope I’m not put in that position when it is all said and about to be done.
I like Cruz as well. He may indeed be the best going so far as our ability to ascertain can inform us. One area I would like to see him grilled harder is on immigration. I’ve read some things that make me really wonder. One of which is the work his wife has done which seems to deteriorate US autonomy should we move toward a North American union between us as Canada and Mexico as has been put forth in the past. I don’t mind a firmer partnership in theory, but not at the expense of United States sovereignty and security. I don’t think Cruz has given a good insight into his thoughts on this. Otherwise, at this point I think he’s my guy.