After anti-Trump efforts at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland failed, many conservatives who were either hostile toward or skeptical of Donald Trump’s candidacy fell in line behind the Republican nominee. They argue that prudence dictates voting for Trump.
Some conservatives in the media have made a prudential argument for voting for Donald Trump. Hugh Hewitt, for instance, has forcefully made the case that conservatives ought to vote for Trump to preserve our voice on the Supreme Court.
However, the argument that a vote for Trump is the only way to preserve the Supreme Court, and therefore the republic, remains unconvincing.
There is little reason to believe that Donald Trump would adhere strictly to the list in the first place. In an August interview with Mark Halperin, he suggested that his sister, a left-wing judicial activist, would make a good justice.
Trump is a man without principle, and there is no reason to believe he would stand by that list of judges, whatever he may tell Hewitt in a radio interview.
Not only that — Trump has a lengthy record of flip-flopping. On social issues from abortion and religious freedom to North Carolina’s transgender bathroom law, Trump’s positions are incredibly difficult to define. Trump has recently even been inconsistent on his campaign’s signature issue, immigration.
Beyond that, Hewitt’s claim that a Clinton presidency and Supreme Court nominations would spell the death of conservatism is downright hyperbolic. There are plenty of options for conservatives to continue to fight.
For one, the Senate has no constitutional obligation to confirm the nomination of a far-left justice. Senate Republicans admirably blocked the confirmation of President Obama’s latest appointee, Merrick Garland, to no real political disadvantage. Should Hillary Clinton win the election in November and nominate a leftist to fill the late Antonin Scalia’s seat, conservatives in the Senate have the ability — even if they find themselves in the minority — to block the appointment.
Even if a liberal justice is confirmed, there are still options for resisting bad decisions from the Supreme Court. Conservative legal scholars like Robert George have written on the possibility of executive defiances to unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions, and Congress has the authority to strip the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction on many issues.
The prudential case for Trump breaks down further when his candidacy is considered more carefully.
Trump’s foreign policy alone should be enough to dissuade conservatives. Across the spectrum, from Mitt Romney to Ted Cruz, conservatives believe that American leadership on the global stage is necessary for national security. Donald Trump on the other hand has said that we should retreat from strategic alliances like NATO and treat hostile regimes like Iran and Russia as partners for peace.
Many on Trump’s foreign policy advisory team are altogether too friendly towards Vladimir Putin and our Russian adversaries. They minimize or even defend Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, and deny the geopolitical threat that Putin’s new totalitarianism poses to American interests.
Much like Hillary Clinton, some of Trump’s advisors — like Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn — have even accepted money from the Russian government. The American people cannot trust someone so surrounded by pro-Putin stooges, and willing to praise the brutal dictator, to act in the nation’s best interests abroad.
Not only that, but Trump’s proposed national security policies are unjust and insane. He has refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in the United States’ fight against ISIS. He has sworn to order drone strikes on terrorists’ innocent families in the Middle East — which actually would constitute a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. These are not the policies of a war hawk or someone who is “tough on terror.” These are the policies of an unhinged, uninformed demagogue, trying to whip up the passions of the American people.
A Trump presidency likely would be an abject catastrophe. He has no real commitment to conservative principles, and the American right should not put faith in his demagogic posturing.
Lucchese is a junior studying American History
