“The Supreme Court.” This was never a good rationale for reasons that we have discussed (e.g., Trump is averse to constitutional limits; key issues such as gay marriage have been decided). As esteemed conservative scholars point out, the desire for a conservative court does not outweigh the need for a responsible commander in chief. John Yoo and Jeremy Rabkin write:

AD

AD

The Supreme Court is not enough. Our nation confronts a revanchist Russia; a bellicose, expansionist China; terrorism in Europe; and civil war in the Middle East — in short, a world reeling at the edge of chaos. The president’s first responsibilities are to maintain national security, advance our national interests in foreign affairs and provide direction for the military. As Alexander Hamilton observed, the framers of the Constitution vested the executive power in one person, the president, to ensure that the United States could conduct its foreign relations with “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch.”

Moreover, after the flip on immigration, does any rational person actually believe Trump will stick to the list of judges conservatives gave him, from which he already backpedaled?

“He’ll get an all-star Cabinet.” With the exception of John Bolton, not a single experienced conservative foreign policy hand has offered to vote for him, let alone serve in his administration. In fact, dozens of smart Republican wonks have signed letters declaring they won’t support Trump or have come out for Hillary Clinton. Even if someone does agree to work for him, does anyone, after this campaign, imagine Trump will be constrained by reasoned advice based on facts and logic?

“Taxes.” Trump’s contribution to the tax debate has been a plan (even in its revised state) that would add trillions to the debt, deliver huge tax cuts for the rich and keep a big benefit for commercial real estate moguls like him. (He won’t be “ending the interest deductibility on new loans [that] would devastate the value of commercial real estate — which is a major business for Trump,” and therefore will be increasing the revenue loss by another $1.2 trillion.) Does anyone think anything like that is remotely viable? Even if it were, Democrats may have the Senate majority, or at the very least enough to filibuster such an absurd plan. By the same token, the GOP will be in a position to veto any big tax hike Clinton might propose. Yes, on balance, conservatives prefer tax cutters to tax hikers, but because none of this is going to happen (like reversal of Roe v. Wade), it’s not a logical reason to support Trump.