Reason’s Damon Root asked ten conservative and libertarian legal experts whether concern over judicial appointments, and appointments to the Supreme Court in particular, is a sufficient reason to vote for Donald Trump in November. The results are here. I was among those surveyed, and one of those who concluded Trump is “beyond the pale.” I wrote:

The future of the Supreme Court is of tremendous importance, particularly given the number of likely retirements in the next several years. Concern for the Court, and lower federal courts, is often a good reason to ignore a Republican presidential candidate’s other inadequacies. A sound court appointment far outweighs a few silly spending programs. Many say this justifies supporting Trump. Not me. Trump is beyond the pale and there’s no guarantee Trump’s nominees will be any good anyway.

Others surveyed included Randy Barnett, Orin Kerr, Michael Rappaport, Alan Gura, Roger Pilon, Glenn Reynolds, David Kopel, Timothy Sandefur, and Carrie Severino.

Over at the Examiner, Hugh Hewitt makes the “It’s the Supreme Court, Stupid” argument in support of Trump. Hewitt warns that “If Hillary Clinton wins, the Left gavels in a solid, lasting, almost certainly permanent majority on the Supreme Court.” In response to those of us who have no confidence that Trump will make good on his pledge to nominate solid constitutionalists to the Court, Hewitt writes:

there is a positive case for Donald Trump . . . He brings 3,000 political appointees with him, and the first two — Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as VP and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has chief of the transition — telegraph that the vast majority of his team in the executive branch (and his appointees on the courts) will be conservatives.

Longtime Bench Memos readers might not find Hewitt’s reference to Governor Christie all that reassuring. In New Jersey, Christie squandered his opportunity to reorient his state’s Supreme Court. His judicial nominations were “disastrous,” as Carrie Severino discussed here and here. Assuming he has influence on the judicial nominations in a Trump Administration, why would we expect the results to be any different?

I understand why some conservatives believe that the Supreme Court is important enough to justify a vote for Trump. Hold your nose, some say, and imagine the next three court appointments (including one to replace Justice Scalia). This argument would be much more compelling were there any reason to believe that Trump would be reliable in his nominations — and were there not so many other reasons to believe he is completely unfit for the Oval Office.