There exist understandable reasons why well-intentioned Republicans who think the worst of Donald Trump could be convinced to support him. Among those reasons is that the next president will likely have the opportunity to appoint a few Supreme Court justices. Despite Trump’s many shortcomings, he is better fit to do so than Hillary Clinton, right?
Not necessarily.
The Supreme Court’s duty is to overturn unconstitutional acts, including those of the president. President Trump would not likely nominate justices who would constrain his power to its constitutionally limited bounds.
Professor Randy E. Barnett, Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, told THE WEEKLY STANDARD, “I am not saying that Trump’s judicial picks might not, in some respects, be better than Hillary’s.”
George Washington University Law Professor Orin Kerr told The Weekly Standard that Trump will nominate pro-Trump justices.
For conservatives who would vote Trump for judiciary: When Trump learns that judges can stop a Prez’s agenda, he’ll only nominate cronies.
— Orin Kerr (@OrinKerr) May 4, 2016
George Mason University Law Professor Ilya Somin argues similarly in the Volokh Conspiracy.
Trump is also no friend of the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Fifth Amendment, among others.
He is proud to say he never takes “no” for an answer, even when it comes to the Constitution and attempting to take elderly widow Vera Coking’s home. Some have argued she ought to have sold her house to him instead of resisting. It is important to note she is not legally obligated to do so, and those who believe Trump was right to sue her might have seen things differently if Trump was trying to take their homes.
Trump has a long record of disregard for the Constitution in his actions, rhetoric, and proposals. He doesn’t take “no” for an answer, even when the Constitution says “no.” There is no reason to believe any of that would change when President Trump nominates Supreme Court justices.
