With the string of Supreme Court victories, will the NeverTrumps now apologize?

Not too long ago, a lot of the so-called conservatives who went by the hashtag #nevertrump were telling us to go vote for Hillary Clinton.

They abused us, called us non-conservatives, and pulled all sorts of tantrums on us.  According to Investor's Business Daily, there is a whole page on them with lists of names on their own Wikipedia page.

Here's a typical one, painfully from Ralph Peters, who was so good at articulating conservative ideas up until he Went There:

RET. LT. COL. RALPH PETERS: I think Hillary Clinton is despicable.  She has committed criminal acts.  She's greedy, she's corrupt, and yes, I'm going to vote for her.  I'm going to vote for Republicans down ballot, but I am voting for Hillary Clinton because it's a vote against Donald Trump.  I don't want Moscow's man in the White House.

Here's Max Boot, who's been especially and incredibly obnoxious as a leading NeverTrump:

A lot of my Republican friends are incredulous to learn that #ImWithHer.  In truth, I'm more than a little surprised myself. If a sane Republican like Jeb Bush, John Kasich, or Marco Rubio had been nominated I wouldn't be voting for Clinton.  But the GOP instead chose to nominate a malevolent carnival barker.  So I will cast a ballot for the sane alternative.

Here's Iraq War architect Paul Wolfowitz, always desperate to be liked, trying to make friends among leftists under the rubric of being all for national security, which, by the way, President Trump has improved immensely:

"The only way you can be comfortable about Trump's foreign policy is to think he doesn't really mean anything he says.  That's a pretty uncomfortable place to be in," Wolfowitz said.  "Our security depends on having good relationships with our allies.  Trump mainly shows contempt for them."

Because he is so uncomfortable with Trump, Wolfowitz said he would likely vote for Clinton, albeit grudgingly.

"I wish there were somebody I could be comfortable voting for," Wolfowitz said.  "I might have to vote for Hillary Clinton, even though I have big reservations about her."

Then there's David Brooks.  No need to comment; The New Republic does it flawlessly for us:

David Brooks's endorsement of Hillary Clinton is a gift to Donald Trump.

Normally, getting the support of a prominent right-wing pundit would be a real boon to a liberal politician like Clinton, since it would get her message out to voters outside her fold.  But Brooks's support for Clinton was phrased with such a mixture of elitism and condescension that it can only add fuel to the fire of Trumpian anger.

Brooks begins by describing a Trump voter he met.  The entire passage has the tone of John Steinbeck as re-written by Thurston Howell III, the clueless millionaire from Gilligan's Island:

A few weeks ago I met a guy in Idaho who was absolutely certain that Donald Trump would win this election.  He was wearing tattered, soiled overalls, missing a bunch of teeth and was unnaturally skinny.  He was probably about 50, but his haggard face looked 70.  He was getting by aimlessly as a handyman.

I pointed to the polls and tried to persuade him that Hillary Clinton might win, but it was like telling him a sea gull could play billiards.  Everybody he knows is voting Trump so his entire lived experience points to a Trump landslide.  He was a funny, kind guy, but you got the impression his opportunities had been narrowed by forces outside his control.

Gad, they're an annoying bunch...and there are so many of them!

One of the big reasons a lot of voters did vote for Donald Trump for president was indeed his potential influence on who would end up on the Supreme Court. I personally know of several people who could have gone either way, Ivy-Leaguers among them, who said they voted for Trump precisely because of the stakes in the Supreme Court.

Yes, this is big.

We just saw a string of 5-4 decisions at the Supreme Court, with Justice Gorsuch as the deciding vote, and very much the result of President Trump's election.  The victories for us are about freedom – from the left's forced union wages, the left's coerced cake-baking, the left's forced abortion advertising, and other stuff –showing that at long last, we live again in a society where freedom of conscience matters.  It's stunning.  These are huge, important victories, and neither would have been possible had the NeverTrump crowd had its way.

Then Justice Kennedy announced he is retiring, which means there's a chance to shift the balance of the court decisively to the constitutional right, to finally end the judicial activism that had been debilitating our country and making governance itself impossible, due to all the left-wing judges.  Had we had a President Clinton, the left-wingery from the court would have been solid and probably impossible to undo.  We absolutely dodged a bullet by electing President Trump.

Isn't it time somebody called these NeverTrumps, many of whom got us into the Iraq War mess and then told us to go vote for Hillary in a second bit of bad advice, on the carpet for this?  Had Hillary been president, which many of them openly endorsed, the court would be in the iron grip of far-left liberals for the foreseeable future.  Yet, instead of admitting their mistake, people like George Will are  busy calling for Republicans to put Democrats in charge of Congress to "protect" the country from Trump.

Check out Investor's Business Daily, which calls for these NeverTrump AlwaysWrong clowns to apologize.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com