Ever wonder how a President Trump would deal with the Supreme Court?  I don’t get the impression he feels very beholden to…anything.  He also seems to “call ’em as he sees ’em.”  Good versus evil.  Obey the law.  But does The Donald realize that we’re not living in lawful times?  

For instance, years ago a number of cities decided to take immigration law into their own hands, and in open defiance of the law, they designated themselves “sanctuary cities.”  The liberal media had no problem with the lawless nature of the pronouncement since in its collective judgement they were obeying a higher, moral law.  Now, imagine the media outrage if a conservative or religiously oriented city council declared itself a “sanctity city.”  In such a community, abortion would be illegal – to hell with federal laws.  The council members would simply be reacting to a higher moral law.  If a resident of the “sanctity city” didn’t like the new law...tough.  Live with it.  Get used to it.  Become enlightened.

Another example of lawlessness comes from our Supreme Court’s rulings on Obamacare and its decision on gay marriage.  Justice Scalia in his dissent said likewise:

The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.”

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by the State.” And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.

Now comes a sentence that a gutsy guy like Trump might sink his teeth into.

This Court, however, has no free-floating power to rescue Congress from its drafting errors. Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U. S. 526, 542 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Would a President Trump actually consider challenging the High Court?  For that matter, would any of the Republican candidates?  In his dissent in the gay marriage case, Justice Scalia seems to ponder the thought.

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative -- indeed, super-legislative -- power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a Constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judg­ment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.

Hubris is sometimes defined as overweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”26 With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them -- with each decision that is unabash­edly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

Let’s put that into Mr. Trump’s pipe and let him smoke it.  Campaign on!