Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I doubt it will give us any joy on this issue, Trump's presidency will be a failure unless he successfully takes on the Uniparty establishment that operates, or rather not, like this. I don't think his vanity will allow him to fail without making a really serious and ongoing effort, and those who deny his effectiveness and ability are by and large those who claimed he'd never get win nomination or the election.…
Which cabinet nomination have you heard that gives you a belief that's going to happen? Outside of his "drain the swamp" rhetoric, what specific announcement/pre-announcement has he made to back your claims? So far I've seen all of his cabinet picks going to "establishment" folks, and his supreme court nomination is supposedly going to be based solely on abortion, with no thought whatsoever given to citizen united (y…
Putting Sessions' top dog or thereabouts in operational charge of the transition team. See the next item for why this isn't an establishment pick.
Nominating Sessions as AG; his position on immigration alone puts him way outside the establishment.
His Education Secretary, not so much or at all, I'll admit. But I'm in the "putting your children in today's public school is child abuse" camp anyway, so....
Picking Steve Bannon as his "Karl Rove". That's very much a sign this is not going to be a business as usual administration, as you can see from the Left's and the establishment's (but I repeat myself) total freak-out over that.
Citizens United ended a ban on core political speech, quite literally the government in oral arguments said it could be used to ban books, and it was specifically used to ban a movie about a candidate while she was running for office. Getting "money out of politics" is a pipe dream, but this was about silencing certain segments of the nation, and absent that decision by the Supremes it's hard to see how a civil war wouldn't have resulted sooner or later. That's the sort of thing that happens when you make it impossible for people to participate in the political process, at least, people who aren't going to surrender once that sort of thing happens. TL;DR: don't mess with the Bill of Rights.
That overturning Roe v. Wade is a consideration of his picks is hardly "solely"; long ago he published an initial list of suitable candidates, they're not one dimensional.
But while we're at it, you're eager to kill a core 1st Amendment political speech right while supporting a right literally conjured from the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut). I don't see how there can be any meeting of minds between the two of us.