Remember when President Truman ordered U.S. troops to stop at the Rhine, and cut a deal with the Nazis restricting them to governing only Germany? “That’s the country you were elected to lead, okay? And that’s what we’re giving you back. Not one square inch more or less,” Truman said, in his famous 1945 telegram to Hitler.

Okay, that didn’t happen. But if supposed “Trump confidante,” Chris Ruddy, has his way, that’s the kind of deal that President Trump should make with the pro-abortion judicial activist left. You know, the faction that thinks every important decision in America should be made by five lawyers from Stanford or Harvard, who rule us as philosopher kings and pretend to interpret the Constitution.

As the Washington Examiner reports:

Ruddy, the CEO of Newsmax, suggests Trump nominate President Obama’s pick Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if Ginsburg retires.

“I think that he still should pick Merrick Garland and do a deal. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wants to retire, and I think they should swap her out, give her an offer where they would put Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court,” he told Business Insider.

“They would remove a very liberal Democrat with a moderate, consensus Democrat, who I think Garland is,” he said. “And I think it would be a huge move and a sign for Trump that he’s willing to break through the political ice.”

Trump could then replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is rumored to be considering retirement, with a more conservative pick, Ruddy said.

Ruddy was opposed to Senate Republicans’ decision to invoke the “nuclear option” to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016.

“I think they made a big mistake by pulling the nuclear option,” he said.

This is not the Chris Ruddy whom I remember from New York in the 1990s. Back then he was promoting his conspiracy theory book, which argued that Clinton pal and Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown did not die in an innocent plane crash. No, he was probably murdered at the orders of. … Well, let’s just say that Ruddy’s next book was on the death of Clinton aide Vince Foster.

Since then, Ruddy built a media empire down in Florida, but went from savage Clinton critic to “Friend of Bill.” Last time I checked, Ruddy was a pro-life Catholic, but something might have shifted. I can’t read souls, thank God.

Grab Defeat from the Jaws of Victory?

If Ruddy is still pro-life, then he is criminally foolish. The Democrats’ crass obstruction of the eminently qualified Neil Gorsuch meant one thing to every  conservative. It was time for a majority Senate vote to “nuke” the cheap procedural trick from the late 80s called the judicial filibuster. It was always, only, ever, a club that Democrats used to keep abortion legal. Period.

If Trump picked Garland, it would mean he is really pro-choice, and was lying throughout the campaign.

The Republicans never used it to block any of Obama’s judicial activist nominees to the Supreme Court. But Democrats used to keep Republican presidents from nominating real Constitutional scholars who’d fight for the Founders’ real intent when they drafted the thing. Instead, we got mumbling hollow men like Anthony Kennedy and David Souter.

Now Ruddy wants to saddle America with another liberal cipher, Merrick Garland. There is no doubt, of course, how Garland would vote. On the crucial moral and cultural issues where the Left uses the Supreme Court as a napalm strike to nullify the votes of Christians and conservatives, Garland would vote exactly like all Obama’s other appointees. Abortion would be legal for all nine months forever. Religious liberty would be in danger. Who knows where gun rights or free campaign speech might go? On a dozen other issues, we’d have one more decisive vote for the judicial activist left. We’d have another Obama justice. For this we elected Donald … Trump?

A Gesture of Pitiful Weakness on Trump’s Part

Republicans won the Senate fair and square, elected Donald Trump, and nuked the judicial filibuster when the Democrats forced us to. So, what possible reason could lead President Trump to throw away a SCOTUS pick to placate Senate Democrats? Even worse, to pick up Obama’s failed appointee, Garland? Could there be a single gesture Trump could make that would earn him more contempt, be more an admission of weakness, than the one Ruddy’s suggesting? 

If Christopher Ruddy’s scheme is a Trump trial balloon, we need to see it as a chemical weapon and shoot it down with Tomahawk missiles. If it’s just some pro-choicer scheming behind the scenes, Trump ought to disown it.

There is only possible reason that could move President Trump to make such a squalid deal as Ruddy suggests: If Trump is really pro-choice, and was lying throughout the campaign.

When “Pro-Lifers” Are Lying

Politicians have done that. I learned from the wonderful podcast Crimetown that former Providence, Rhode Island mayor and felon Buddy Cianci pulled the same trick when he was running to take back his old spot as mayor. He’d been forced to resign after kidnapping and torturing a local businessman inside the mayor’s residence. (Providence is a colorful city.)

In a tight runoff, at a debate, Cianci heard his two rivals say that they were pro-choice. So on the spur of the moment, Cianci announced that he was pro-life. He didn’t mean it. It didn’t matter. He won. Of course he never lifted a finger to help the unborn.

If Christopher Ruddy’s scheme is a trial balloon from inside the Trump White House, we need to see it as a chemical weapon and shoot it down with Tomahawk missiles. Maybe it’s just some pro-choicer scheming behind the scenes. I hope so. In that case, Trump ought to disown it.