http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-but-judges-argument-for-trump-and-why-it-fails/article/2603011#.V-vU69IqcpM.twitterThe 'but judges!' argument for Trump, and why it failsBy TIMOTHY P. CARNEY (@TPCARNEY)
• 9/27/16 3:38 PM
This is just about the only argument conservatives can make these days when trying to convince other conservatives to vote for a pro-choice, thrice-married, serial-philandering, Clinton-donating, factually challenged, eminent-domain abusing, pro-corporate welfare, crony capitalist con-man Donald Trump.
Most recently, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told conservatives to walk the party line in November because Trump — whom he has called a "pathological liar" — has promised to nominate good judges.
Cruz articulated the argument well: "For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue."
Cruz assumes Trump would appoint justices that conservatives would like. All evidence points to the contrary.
A social liberal
First, Trump is not with conservatives on the policies where the court matters most.
Trump isn't pro-life. He's called himself "very pro-choice." His recent supposed conversion to the pro-life position has been unconvincing in the extreme. His professed opposition to abortion embraces every caveat. On whether a baby in utero deserves the protection of the law "it depends when" in the pregnancy you're talking, Trump has said. And that's since he became "pro-life."
Look at who is closest to Trump — whose counsel Trump seeks and takes the most. It's his children. Donald Trump Jr. said in 2012 about conservatives: "[A]bortion, I don't get it. I don't even understand how it's a political issue … I don't understand how you can tell someone what they can or can't do…. I wish the Republicans would drop it as part of their platform."
Trump has also shown zero appreciation or understanding of religious liberty. When he utters those words, it is always in connection to the "Johnson Amendment," restraining the political activity of churches. This is the only religious liberty he seems to care about: the freedom of evangelical churches to campaign for Republicans.
When it comes to the truly pressing matters of religious liberty — the state coercing religious people to violate their consciences on abortion, marriage and contraception — Trump is silent, and seemingly ignorant. Trump clearly has no principled commitment to religious liberty: He's promised to ban people from immigrating if they practice Islam, and even flirted with the idea of a registry for Muslims.
Clueless on the Constitution
Second, Trump has shown no understanding of conservative jurisprudence and zero appreciation for constitutional limits on the executive and government power.
While he claims to love the First Amendment, he's pledged to crack down on the freedom of the press. While he claims to love the Second Amendment, Trump said in the first debate that he supports Hillary Clinton's proposal to strip gun rights from those on the no-fly list. Due process, the right to a jury trial, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and equal protection are all dangerous manifestations of "political correctness," according to Trump.
Trump, also doesn't seem to know what judges do. He's called for judges who will investigate Hillary Clinton, and spoken about the "bills" his sister — a far-left judge — has "signed."
Trump is not a conservative on the issues, doesn't respect the Constitution, has no concept of conservative jurisprudence and surrounds himself with liberals. There's no reason to think he would choose a conservative judge.
A con man's promise
Cruz probably sees this, and so he points to the lists of judges that Trump has recently produced. "Trump," Cruz wrote, "has promised to appoint justices 'in the mold of Scalia.'" Of Trump's list, Cruz says the nominee gave him "an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list."
Cruz apparently trusts an "explicit commitment" from Donald Trump.
While Trump lacks government experience, he is very experienced in making "commitments." Trump made marital commitments to two previous wives, and also to his current wife. Trump promised to support the eventual Republican nominee before renouncing that promise.
Trump made commitments to employees, contractors and vendors who are now suing him for non-payment — a fact that Hillary Clinton was able to hang around his neck during the first debate. Trump made commitments to creditors, before declaring bankruptcy, leaving them in the lurch, and bragging about it as smart business.
Trump University "guaranteed success" to those who handed over five-figure checks, according to one lawsuit. The Trump Foundation has promised millions to charities and hasn't produced evidence of even 1 percent of those gifts actually occurring.
Donald Trump is a con man. If you vote for him based on his latest promise — conservative judges — you're making yourself his latest mark.
After examination, the "judges" argument is eroded down to this thin reed: It's possible Trump will nominate conservative judges, while it's certain Clinton will not.
That weak argument hardly deserves to be a deciding factor for a voter calculating the lesser of two evils. Considering his inexperience combined with his ego, his erratic nature and his thin skin, Trump would be a dangerous man to have in the White House.
But if you're still a single-issue judges voter, Trump winning may be worse than the alternative. If he is a disaster as president, he would cost the party the Senate in 2018, lose the White House in 2020, and devastate the GOP for a decade — which could be far worse than four or even eight years of Hillary.
"But, judges!" is the most powerful argument Trump can make to conservatives, but studying Trump's record reveals how weak it actually is.
