‘But Gorsuch’ Is Still Trump’s Best Argument

President Trump shakes hands with Judge Neil Gorsuch after he was sworn in as an Associate Supreme Court in the Rose Garden of the White House, April 10, 2017. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)
There is no “winning” in politics, after all, there is just the constant struggle.

NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE T his week, the Supreme Court struck down a Montana constitutional provision barring religious schools from benefiting from the state’s tax dollars. There are similar now-unconstitutional laws on the books across the nation — many of them borne of anti-Catholic bigotry — that subvert religious liberty and further empower government, rather than parents, to make educational choices for their kids. In most cases, those laws are now dead.

Some of us happen to believe that this development is more consequential than another tax cut or better trade policy. For us, school choice and the meaningful protection of religious liberty are non-negotiable. Would you know this from listening to the press?

Voters who took a completely rational view of the transactional nature of American politics, and who pulled the lever for Donald Trump as a result, are ridiculed with the derisive phrase, “But Gorsuch.” Some liberals, such as Bill Scher, make the argument explicit, contending that “the GOP traded its principles for conservative judges. It was a bad deal.” They misunderstand conservative priorities.

You’ll notice, first off, that Democrats never betray “principles”; rather, they engage in pragmatism when supporting flawed candidates. I hate to break the news to them, but backing a corrupt and philosophically vacant charlatan like Hillary Clinton, who had no problem “wooing” Putin and slew of other authoritarians, was also an unprincipled choice. It’s just one they’re comfortable with. Still, whatever the choice, “But Gorsuch” is literally correct. Trump’s judicial picks will transcend his tweets and his anarchic time in office. Moreover, considering the speed with which the mainstream Left has abandoned elementary republican governance, the courts may well be the only way to preserve our traditional constitutional order — at least, in the short term.

One reason the courts exist is to temper the excesses and vagaries of crude majoritarianism. There is no reason whatsoever to shy away from demanding that courts uphold law as written — which is not the same as judicial activism, though liberals gleefully conflate the two. Scher argues that, historically speaking, Trump’s record on judges been neither unique nor impressive, and that his loss might well pave the way for more liberal judges. That’s certainly one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that Trump’s improbable win interrupted a potential 16-year string of anti-constitutional appointments, and to some degree balanced the ideological disposition of the courts moving forward. The idea that Democrats wouldn’t have waged the same war on the judiciary if Hillary had won — after they had blown up the judicial filibuster — is, of course, baloney. They just thought they were going to win again.

“But Gorsuch” also had immediate implications. Without Gorsuch there is no Janus v. AFSCME, and unions would still be forcing workers to pay dues to organizations that participate in political causes they do not support. Without Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — who, say what you will about Trump, was unlikely to have sustained the support of any other Republican president through such a malicious confirmation battle — states such as Colorado would still openly be destroying the lives of Americans over thought crimes.

A Supreme Court with two Hillary appointees would be whittling away the free-speech protections of Citizens United. It would be hammering the Second Amendment protections that were reaffirmed by Heller and McDonald. Roberts may view himself as a Solomonic strategist and stickler for precedent, but his liberal colleagues have little problem dispensing with it whenever convenient.

It’s understandable that conservatives feel frustrated. When Republicans take Congress, Barack Obama simply circumvents the legislative branch and create laws by fiat. When Republicans win back the presidency, Democrats refuse to accept the legitimacy of the election, and spend the entire term trying to overturn the results, while convincing their constituents that the constitutionally prescribed election process is illegitimate. And when Republican presidents attempt to overturn the previous president’s diktats, using the very same mechanisms, the Court stops them.

It’s true, as well, that Republican presidents often flub their picks. Gorsuch disappointed social conservatives when helping invent new protections for LGBT workers. Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, will be a perpetual disappointment, I’m sure. Yet both are worlds better than the alternative. You don’t need to look any farther than the Montana school-choice decision to understand why.

The lesson gleaned from recent history isn’t that Republicans have gotten a “bad deal,” but rather that Republicans should fight harder to seat more jurists like Clarence Thomas and fewer like John Roberts. There is no “winning” in politics, after all, there is just the constant struggle. Conservatives, as their name indicates, rack up unappreciated victories by hindering the progress of bad ideas and preventing them from coagulating into law.

Was Gorsuch worth it? Counter-histories are most often a waste of time. Perhaps Trump’s election damaged the long-term prospects of conservative causes. Perhaps Democrats wouldn’t have radicalized as quickly had Hillary been president. It doesn’t really matter now. There are plenty of reasons a person may have not to vote for Donald Trump, yes. But the underlying arguments for “But Gorsuch” are stronger than ever.

David Harsanyi is a senior writer for National Review and the author of First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History with the Gun

Most Popular

The Anarchist Storm over Portland

Stephen Peifer, a retired assistant U.S. attorney in Portland, Ore., sat down with National Review’s Luther Abel to discuss the state’s long and infamous struggle with left-wing extremist groups, why federal officers were deployed to Portland, and what makes the current situation in the city uniquely ... Read More

The Anarchist Storm over Portland

Stephen Peifer, a retired assistant U.S. attorney in Portland, Ore., sat down with National Review’s Luther Abel to discuss the state’s long and infamous struggle with left-wing extremist groups, why federal officers were deployed to Portland, and what makes the current situation in the city uniquely ... Read More
Elections

Kamala Harris Is No Moderate

Kamala Harris, they assure us, is a “moderate.” A moderate what? Moderate compared to whom? Senator Harris is a moderate autocrat. During the Democratic primary debates, she vowed to ban so-called assault weapons by executive order. When Joe Biden pointed out that the president has no such power and is ... Read More
Elections

Kamala Harris Is No Moderate

Kamala Harris, they assure us, is a “moderate.” A moderate what? Moderate compared to whom? Senator Harris is a moderate autocrat. During the Democratic primary debates, she vowed to ban so-called assault weapons by executive order. When Joe Biden pointed out that the president has no such power and is ... Read More
Elections

Don’t Count on Kamala Harris

On the menu today: all about Kamala Harris -- why her political instincts never quite lived up to the potential her fans expected, how she turns the “law and order” arguments upside down, and whether her campaign offers some warning signs about her ability to thrive in the executive branch. What Separates ... Read More
Elections

Don’t Count on Kamala Harris

On the menu today: all about Kamala Harris -- why her political instincts never quite lived up to the potential her fans expected, how she turns the “law and order” arguments upside down, and whether her campaign offers some warning signs about her ability to thrive in the executive branch. What Separates ... Read More