fbpx

Is SCOTUS a Good Reason to Support Trump?

Reason.com has a piece by Damon Root asking various libertarian and conservative legal experts what they think about the matter.  There are a range of answers.  Here is my response:

I certainly believe that the future of the Supreme Court is “a reason” to support Trump. There are no assurances, but I do believe it is likely that he will choose someone from the list he issued previously (or someone similar). Is it a strong enough reason to overcome the other reasons not to vote for him?

To me, it depends on one’s perspective. If one is simply voting for the candidate whose views are closest to your own, then most libertarians will vote for Gary Johnson. Trump’s Supreme Court appointments are unlikely to affect that.

But if you are (for some reason) choosing between Trump and Clinton, then Trump’s likely appointments are important. Both Trump and Clinton are so flawed that any significant chance that one of them will do something good is pretty important. So I would say that if one is choosing between Trump and Clinton, then Trump’s likely appointments are a strong reason for preferring him. Of course, that strong reason might be outweighed by other considerations, depending on your views of the two candidates.

Obviously, I am very tentative about the issue.   One’s decision here depends on how one views voting; the likelihood that Trump makes a good appointment is uncertain; and much depends on how one evaluates Trump’s other negatives.  But the key point is that “both Trump and Clinton are so flawed that any significant chance that one of them will do something good is pretty important.”  This is a pretty damning statement, but I am hardly alone in believing this.

The other people who responded are split on these issue.  Many believe, like Jonathan Adler, that “Trump is beyond the pale.”  Others see the Supreme Court as the main reason to support Trump, viewing the decision as Glenn Reynolds does, as between “certainly awful and possibly awful.”  What a political year we are in!

Given how similar the basic political principles are of the experts, it is genuinely interesting that they are so split.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on August 03, 2016 at 11:28:17 am

With Hillary we'll get another Sotomayor or Kagen because the Senate Republicans have no spine to fight the Democrat media. Our only hope is with Trump. But the constant concern trolling by the establishment may very well cost us the Senate as well as the Presidency. Your disdain for Trump will cost you everything you supposedly stand for like the law and liberty. Think about that, smart guy.

read full comment
Image of boxty
boxty
on August 03, 2016 at 20:44:39 pm

Boxty:

I think you impute too much "disdain" to Prof. Rappaport. If you want to see *disdain* and frankly beyond the pale hostility to The Trumpster stop off at National Review where it has been decreed that The Trumpster is the greater of the Two Evils.

I would add however, that after reading Prof. McGinnis piece above that we can now safely update that to The Three Evils with the Johnson-Weld ticket holding a solid 3rd place but itching up to 2nd.

Mike:

Spot-on in terms of the “certainly awful and possibly awful.”

I would add that it would seem less likely that one such as The Trumpster who has spent his adult life *fighting* government regulations would be willing to use the Fed Admin State to add even more regulations hostile to business - but that too is speculation.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on August 11, 2016 at 17:50:24 pm

I'd be happier if Trump promised to abolish the Court altogether since it's vastly overstepped its mandate as much as has the presidency.

read full comment
Image of REMant
REMant

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.