As conservatives around the nation rejoice the Supreme Court appointment of Judge Neil Gorsuch, it is imperative that we not forget this simple truth: President Trump’s choice of a principled Constitutionalist judge for SCOTUS would have been a pipe dream had it not been for his supporters (and detractors) pushing him toward victory.
I’ve learned many things during this election cycle, but one of the more important lessons is that when it comes to voting in leadership, you should always think about the bigger picture.
Throughout his run for the Presidency, Donald Trump maintained a relatively centrist campaign that included many conservative policies and ideals, rarely straying considerably from the mainstream narrative in anything other than his choice of language. He advocated pro-life policies, border security, fiscal responsibility and the all-important Supreme Court opening. With all that in mind, is it worth sacrificing principles for priorities? Perhaps more importantly, can both coexist?
Priorities Balanced SCOTUS
Depending on your opinion of President Trump, the struggle between priorities and principles might have weighed heavily on your choice in the last Presidential election. But it was priorities that gave us a balance in the Supreme Court. Regardless of your opinions on what constitutes a principled candidate, casting a vote in the direction that most closely matches your ideology (especially when the Judicial Branch and the fate of our nation is at stake) can result in principled appointments. In this case, a right-wing president got us a right-wing judge.
The truth is that, had Trump’s opponents gotten their way, President Clinton may have just announced a nominee that would make Merrick Garland look like the late Antonin Scalia by comparison. However you feel about the first days of his presidency, conservatives can at least agree on one thing concerning Trump’s latest appointment: he delivered, big league.