President Trump's Outstanding Supreme Court Nominee is Why You Should Not Vote for Him

I have made it a point until now not to announce my vote for president this year. Initially, I said I would probably not announce my vote until after the election. But events change plans. A Supreme Court vacancy opened up, and new ideas and principles were introduced into the continuing argument over who should appoint replacements to the Supreme Court during an election year. I decided the next day that I would make my announcement the day before the election, and I announced my plans for anyone on social media who cared about such things. Another event has caused me to change plans yet again and to make my argument now for my electoral choice: President Donald J. Trump announced during his first debate with former Vice President Biden that Roe vs. Wade is not on the ballot in this presidential election.

Here is the exchange between the two candidates:

Vice President Joe Biden: (10:11)
Let me finish. The point is that the President also is opposed to Roe V. Wade. That’s on the ballot as well and the court, in the court, and so that’s also at stake right now. And so the election is all-

President Donald J. Trump: (10:25)

You don’t know what’s on the ballot. Why is it on the ballot? Why is it on the ballot? It’s not on the ballot.

Vice President Joe Biden: (10:31)

It’s on the ballot in the court.

President Donald J. Trump: (10:32)

I don’t think so.

Vice President Joe Biden: (10:33)

In the court.

President Donald J. Trump: (10:34)

There’s nothing happening there.

Vice President Joe Biden: (10:35)

Donald would you just be quiet for a minute.

President Donald J. Trump: (10:36)

You don’t know her view on Roe V. Wade? You don’t know her view.

Now, of course Justice Barrett has addressed the status of Roe vs. Wade in the past. I won't go into the issues of what she said, when she said it, and what it likely means now. The point is that President Trump's view is that her position on Roe vs. Wade is unknown and that Roe is not on the ballot in the presidential race. This is important not because it is likely that Barrett's position on Roe vs. Wade is unknown (though it is likely) nor even because it is probable (though it may be probable) but because of who said it. It is also important because according to prior statements by the president, it appears that he has not discussed Roe vs. Wade with Barrett: therefore his statement must be based on knowledge that is available to the public.

I don't want to misrepresent President Trump here: just because he is not making Roe an issue now does not mean he could not make it an issue at some point in a second term. No one thinks that is unlikely, and I don't think any reasonable person would fault him for doing that. Roe vs. Wade remains controversial, for good reason. Many of Trump's political allies and supporters want it undone, either through Constitutional amendment or through Supreme Court rulings. The lack of a commitment to overturn Roe vs. Wade does not imply a commitment to not overturn Roe vs. Wade. I would take the president's statement as an example of honesty in setting expectations, and I do not fault him for the expectation he is setting.

By honestly taking Roe off the table for the present, however, Trump opens the door for a strategic discussion among opponents of Roe. Up until now, the pro-life argument for Biden and against Trump has not been tied to Trump's position on any strategic anti-legalized-abortion objective. Roe vs. Wade is a permanent, non-negotiable anti-abortion target. I would argue that the president's refusal to take a position on Roe vs. Wade in this election is an opportunity to reconsider his usefulness in the anti-abortion cause.

Anyone like me who has a general alignment to a party platform has certainly faced pressure to make a public decision between the two presidential candidates. A refusal to announce a preference, together with a willingness to comment on the statements and actions of the candidates, opens one up to criticism by both candidates' adherents. We are at that point in the election cycle where even some who before would not make an issue of opinions on the presidential race are insisting that there is only one moral choice. Principled opposition to abortion is an argument that voters for both candidates are already using.

I want to emphasize an argument, however, that has not been dominant and perhaps not fully expounded by others. My argument is that the political and legal case for ending legalized abortion depends strongly on our founding and governing documents.

My argument is that the political and legal case for ending legalized abortion depends strongly on our founding and governing documents.

Although this issue and others, such as slavery, war against other nations and peoples indigenous to or outside of the current boundaries of the United States, women's suffrage, segregation, eugenics, and civil rights have a significant moral component, the case for change can not be separated from the nation's framework of revolutionary ideas and legal principles. There is no divine right republicanism that guarantees a vote or political equality to every person and nation on earth. Much less are rights and duties tied to some naturalistic, materialistic principle of social progress that human beings must acknowledge. The right to life for categories of people is similarly tied to specific political and social conditions, some of which are not universally applicable to all of the peoples of the world. Moral actors become political actors with legitimate power to direct government only by constitutional means.

Moral actors become political actors with legitimate power to direct government only by constitutional means.

Yet here is the thing: constitutions can change, even in their fundamental principles. The process by which we were transformed from a collection of royal colonies to a federal republic is a prime example. We could change again, and it could just as likely be to something worse as to something better. Attempts to make political and legal constraints independent of the logic of national development are a contemptible exercise in futility, and they have no moral justification.

Yet here is the thing: constitutions can change, even in their fundamental principles. The process by which we were transformed from a collection of royal colonies to a federal republic is a prime example. We could change again, and it could just as likely be to something worse as to something better. 

It is true that the evolution of our society (even in ways that have advanced the founding ideas) has been influenced by extra-legal actions, violent and non-violent. However, these are exceptions that prove the rule. When the exceptions become the rule, the logic for the exceptions ceases to exist. This is why respect for the rule of law in general and commitment to non-violence in particular is so important. We may think that the rules don't apply to us or that we are justified in making exceptions, but the chances that we as individuals or political cliques have some insight into the direction of history that the rest of society lacks are remote.

There is indeed a tie, as national and social leaders at key points in history have demonstrated, between religious principle and the direction of political or civil life. However, it is as easy to overestimate the strength of that tie as it is to dismiss its validity entirely. The American Revolution was not a purely religious enterprise. Neither was abolition. Neither was the Civil War. Neither was the Civil Rights Movement. 

And neither is the Pro-Life Movement.

So let's talk about President Trump. Some of Trump's supporters in 2016 argued that conservatism had failed and that it was time for a less civil, less incremental approach. Their argument was not flawless, but they have had an opportunity to experiment with a different approach. Surely, this is a good point to take stock of the results of that experiment.

Trump has had some success in pointing out failures across society, from political leadership to media to government bureaucracy to nearly every institution of American life. Yet he routinely makes issues about himself and at best exaggerates the shortcomings of others. He almost never accepts responsibility for his own failures: it is always someone else's fault. Even if he appointed them, it is not his fault.

He habitually expresses opinions on issues where he has not earned the right to disagree with authorities, from medicine to science to intelligence to military matters, and on and on. He has not ended the abuses of the Chief Executive or the Commander-in-Chief. His performance as a leader on legislative policy (now a major responsibility of the president) leaves much to be desired. Yet beyond his abuse of power and his inability to perform many responsibilities of the office, he actively makes things worse. He picks petty fights and sows doubt in people's character, skills, and knowledge where there is no justification for that doubt. He is actively damaging the institutions of government he claims to want to fix, and he is confusing his own personal interest with the national interest.

This is the man Republicans are asking us to trust to fix abortion. If abortion is a civil rights violation, Roe vs. Wade frustrates the proper operation of the state and federal governments. It usurps the legislative power even of the federal government and hinders the state governments in the performance of their duties. Casey vs. Planned Parenthood does not fix the problem. Donald J. Trump, if he even understands the problem, is doing exactly the opposite of what needs to be done to fix it. He is breaking the mechanism by which the problem can and should be fixed.

That is why I will not be voting for Donald Trump next month. In fact, I will be voting for Joe Biden. In some ways, he most likely represents a step back on abortion. However, in my opinion, he will not do as much harm to the nation and the anti-abortion cause as Trump. In his own way, he may even help.