The presidential election of 2016 is a very intense contest between two candidates — one has been a public servant for her career and one has been a businessman and a commercial real estate developer for his career. Their education, experiences, personalities, worldviews, policies and plans for America are light years apart.
One candidate represents Wall Street and one candidate represents Main Street. One represents the upper class and one represents the middle class. One favors globalism and one favors nationalism. One favors tree trade and one favors fair trade. One is an insider and one is an outsider. One is advocating the status quo and one is advocating a change in the status quo. One wants to raise taxes and one wants to lower taxes. One wants to offshore jobs and one wants to bring jobs home. One wants to decrease the size and scope of the government and one wants to decentralize government. One wants to appoint liberal judges and one wants to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court. One is pro-choice and one is pro-life. One wants to secularize the nation and one wants to preserve the Judeo-Christian heritage of America. One wants to decrease the size of the military and one wants to increase the size of the military. One wants increase the national debt and one wants to decrease the national debt. One wants to increase the trade deficit and one wants to lower it. One wants to create a common market of North and South America and one wants to preserve the sovereignty of the USA. One wants to open the borders to refuges and one wants to use extreme vetting of refugees.
And the list goes on and on and on. There has never been a wider gulf between two candidates running for president of the United States.
According to Real Clear Politics, 63 percent of the American people feel the country is going in the wrong direction. These individuals want to see a major change in the size, scope, and policies of the federal government.
One of the most significant aspects of the presidential race is the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. Whoever sits in the Oval Office will appoint between four and five justices during his or her term in office.
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch — one of America’s most astute statesmen — endorsed Donald Trump for a very important reason. His decision to back the Republican nominee was not an idle gesture.
On May 12, 2016, in an interview with Fox 13 TV, he said:
"This election is perhaps the most important of my lifetime. With such critical issues as the future of the Supreme Court hanging in the balance, it is vital that we defeat Hillary Clinton and elect a Republican to the White House."
During the Republican National Convention, several members of the Utah delegation sought to derail the selection of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee.
In an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune on July 18, 2016, the senator urged the delegates to support Donald Trump.
He said, "He deserves our support … I think the sooner they accept that, the better off we are all going to be and then we can get behind him and hopefully help him win."
In an interview on the same day with the Desert News he declared:
"If Hillary Clinton gets there, this country is going to have a rough time surviving in its current state. In fact, I question whether it can. We simply cannot allow her to win," he exclaimed.
The senator reminded the Utah delegates that Donald Trump had released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees that had been vetted by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society.
As the former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary in the U.S. Senate, Hatch is uniquely qualified to pass on the character, judgment and qualifications of those who should serve as justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. And he approved the list of nominees put forth by Donald Trump.
On Sept. 13, 2016, the senator published an essay in the Washington Times titled, “A Clinton Win Would Ensure the Most Liberal Supreme Court in 80 Years.”
He stated, "The outcome of this November’s election will determine the direction of the Supreme Court for a generation. The next president will have at least one, and as many as four or five, vacancies to fill. There is no more important issue in this election than the Supreme Court.
"This is because Supreme Court justices do more than just decide legal cases. To a great extent, they shape the kind of country we have.
"Judges come in two basic varieties — those who follow the law as enacted by the people’s representatives, and those who effectively rewrite the law to match their own personal preferences. The first type of judge seeks to implement the law as passed by Congress or state legislatures. The second kind of judge seeks to control the law by making the words in statutes and the Constitution mean what the judge wants them to mean.
"The first kind of judge allows the people and their elected representatives to run the country and define our culture, while the second kind of judge prefers to take that role for himself. In this sense, the second type of judge acts as a sort of philosopher-king, deciding what sorts of laws and activities will be allowed, regardless of whether anything in the Constitution or existing law actually addresses the question. Supreme Court decisions restricting religious freedom, greatly expanding federal power and legalizing abortion and same-sex marriage nationwide offer examples of the second type of judge in action.
"The most critical issue in this year’s presidential election is which kind of judge each candidate is likely to appoint.
"Donald Trump has said he would appoint the first kind of judge, one who follows the law and doesn’t seek to inject his or her personal views into policy debates. He’s pointed to the late Justice Antonin Scalia as the kind of judge he will select, one committed to faithfully implementing the laws Congress has actually passed.
"Mr. Trump has backed up that promise with a list of federal and state court judges who, he said, are representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value. That list was well received by those of us in the conservative legal movement who believe judges must enforce the law as written.
"Hillary Clinton’s record, by contrast, shows that she would appoint a very different kind of judge. When she was a senator, she voted 24 times to filibuster President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees, including current Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, an outstanding jurist.
"In fact, a comprehensive statistical analysis, based on a widely used measure of judicial ideology, concluded that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the court may quickly become the most liberal it’s been in at least 80 years."
Sen. Hatch endorsed Donald Trump not because he is a perfect man. He endorsed the Republican nominee because the appointment of the next four to five justices to the Supreme Court is vital to the preservation of the U. S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the principles of religious liberty.
On Nov. 8, each of us will cast the most important vote in our lifetime.
Let us follow the counsel of Sen. Hatch and cast our vote for Donald Trump and Mike Pence. A vote for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and Evan McMullin is a vote for Hillary Clinton.
Prepared by Michael Chadwick — geo-political analyst, author, editor, former legislative assistant to U.S. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, professional staff member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, and director of the National Bicentennial Program on the U.S. Constitution in Washington, D.C.