Does the Supreme Court Gambit trump the NeverTrump Conservatives?

It is not news that many conservatives are reluctant to support Donald Trump for president. There are many neverTrump conservatives that will under no circumstance support a man that is neither conservative nor civil for the office of president. There are many conservatives that are ardently in support of Trump, though they claim to see his flaws. Often their argument follows one of two vectors: choose the lesser of two evils or choose Trump because of the Supreme Court. At this time I will address the second vector: the Supreme Court nomination gambit. 

According to Trump supporters, we must back Trump because he has promised to choose conservative Justices. There is currently one vacancy on the Supreme Court and it is likely that the next president will have to replace at least one, if not two, more justices. If Clinton is elected she will place the most liberal judges on the Court and doom our society to an ever increasing descent into socialism, lawlessness, and chaos. The fact that the Senate has to confirm any nominations is totally left out of the debate, though the Senate has been fairly weak on this point in recent years. Trump's pick of the conservative Justices is the only hope to end abortion, repeal Obamacare, outlaw gay marriage, protect religious liberty, and ensure the American way of life. 

There are several problems with this line of thought. First, do you really trust Trump to follow through? Campaign promises are as legitimate as three dollar bills. Trump's track record does not portray an honest individual and even Trump supporters have to admit that his character is questionable. There is no guarantee that he will honor his promise on the Judges. In fact, if he feels that conservatives have betrayed him he may well counterpunch with a liberal nomination to punish the perceived insult. Second, Trump doesn't understand the conservative perspective and can only guess as to what a conservative Justice looks like. He may have help in picking a conservative judge, but he is not surrounding himself with conservatives. He has clearly stated that it is the Republican party, not the conservative party (and the Republican convention has endorsed this statement). The neverTrump conservatives never trusted him in the first place, so why would they trust him on this pivotal point?

However, there is a more fundamental issue at stake with this argument that betrays a less than conservative approach to government. The Supreme Court has grown into the final arbiter of all legal and moral issues. If the Supreme Court says it, it is a settled issue. If Congress can't agree on an issue, they will let the court decide the matter. Certain Republican Senators did not want to attempt any repeal of the Health Care Act because they feared it would hurt them in an election. Instead, they wanted the Supreme Court to deal with it. The Supreme Court, though, did not rule as they wanted. And since the Court has ruled, many view it as a done deal. This is not how the Founders intended the Court to work. Laws are supposed to be established by the Congress. The only time the Supreme Court should enter the process is if there is the possibility that a law has violated the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has become a second avenue for the losing side in contentious legislation. The minority in Congress may not be able to stop or pass a bill, but they can try to forward their agenda through a Supreme Court case. If the Congress properly executes its responsibilities and obligations, then the Supreme Court should have little or no involvement in the establishment of legislation. 

Unfortunately, many conservatives have forgotten this fundamental principle and desire to use the Supreme Court when they can't advance their agenda through Congress. Placing this much trust in the Court is neither conservative nor wise. The Court doesn't always get things right. When a law is ruled unconstitutional, Congress should immediately revisit that law to fix their errors, but they should not accept any attempt to thwart their Constitutional duty through the Court. 

I understand the allure of relying on the Court. With the right case and right Justices, we could overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion without having to pass a contentious law. That simply won't work. I am opposed to abortion, but relying on the courts has never worked in favor of life and never will. Our focus should be changing the moral views of our society to the point that the demand for abortion becomes a rarity. That is hard work and at times appears impossible, but shortcuts have never worked in the moral landscape of America. Additionally, Republican presidents have appointed judges that were supposedly conservative, but those Justices have turned about to be more moderate than anticipated. The appointment of Supreme Court justices is always a wild card and you never really know how they are going to vote until they actually vote. 

To sum it all up: placing all our hope in the Supreme Court is neither conservative nor wise, even if we could trust Trump to choose a Justice. 

Military Action in Syria

It appears inevitable that the U.S. will engage in some degree of hostilities in Syria. The United States opposes the use of chemical weapons, especially against civilians. There has been overwhelming evidence that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against both military and civilian opposition. Morally, many would argue, the U.S. must intervene to end the use of inhumane weapons of mass destruction.

I am not sure to what extent the U.S. should be involved in Syria. Many of the rebels are just as bad as the Syrian government. Many of the rebels are Mujaheddin cut from the same cloth as the ones we trained in Afghanistan that later carried out attacks against America. The human tragedy, though, that is occurring does call for international intervention. Unfortunately, the international community lacks the will or direction to bring any sort of resolution to the calamity. I don't see a change to the situation any time soon.

I am also not sure what the U.S. can do in the current situation. I doubt a barrage of cruise missiles is going to make any difference. The presence of the chemical and biological weapons is a grave concern and a potential threat to the U.S. and its allies. Dealing with those weapon stockpiles is just as complex as the entire question of intervention. It would take prolonged and extensive military operations to secure and properly dispose of the weapons. The U.S. at this time is not willing to commit to that.

I do know that the U.S. will soon act. I also know how many conservatives will respond. Many conservatives will argue that according to the Constitution only Congress can declare war. That is true, but they must also take the War Powers Resolution into account. According to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the President can take military action as long as he gives Congress 48 hours notice. He does not need Congressional approval for the initial action so long as he notifies them of the action. The military action is limited to 60 days with a 30 day withdrawal period, unless Congress approves further involvement. This act has been controversial since it passed and many have argued that it violates the War Powers Clause of the Constitution.However, it is the law and will remain so until the Supreme Court overturns it or Congress repeals it.

I am a conservative and I do not support the current administration. However, the War Powers Resolution has been used by both Republican and Democratic Presidents. Reagan used it on several occasions. There will be many conservatives who supported Reagan's use of these powers that will quickly condemn Obama for doing the same thing. It will sound more like partisan bickering than actual concern over the situation. Conservatives must be careful in this situation not to let their animus for Obama overrule the need for prudent action.

Again, I don't claim to have all the answers for this situation. I think that the best thing that we can do is to pray. We need to pray for wisdom for our leaders. We need to pray for true peace in the Middle East. We need to pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ who are in the war zone. We need to pray for doors to open for evangelism. Our calls for prayer should be greater than our criticism for the President. And that is true not only for this particular situation, but for every challenge that we face as a nation.