The U.S. Supreme Court decisions which came down Monday graphically illustrate the difference between what I call “outcome-based voters” and “principle-based voters.” Outcome-based voters are people who vote based on what they think the person they’re voting for will do. Principle-based voters are people who vote based on the kind of person they think their preferred candidate is.
Those descriptions are admittedly a little simplistic, for a number of reasons. First, most of the time the character of a person (what kind of person they are) will drive what they do; conversely, most of the time what a person does is driven by the kind of person they are — although similar results can stem from very different motives (i.e. I can make my wife breakfast in bed because I like to cook, or because I want something from her, or because I just don’t want to sit at my desk and work, etc.). Also, these descriptions are, for most people, on a continuum — most of us vote for our preferred candidate based on some combination of results- and principle-based considerations. There are some voters, however, who are entirely results-based voters; i.e. some voters will vote for anyone — and only someone — who will oppose abortion at all costs. Nothing else matters.
Which brings us back to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States). On Monday the justices did several things which will likely infuriate conservatives. Here’s an overview:
First, the Court decided not to review (consider and act upon) any Second Amendment cases. There were five such cases before the Court, some of which constituted pretty egregious defiance of previous Supreme Court decisions, such as the District of Columbia v. Heller case which was decided more than a dozen years ago and very clearly affirmed every individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Since then, various states and cities have continued to heavily regulate (in some cases, just short of outright ban) firearms.
It’s important to understand that according to SCOTUS rules, four of the nine justices have to vote to hear a case in order for the court to review it. In the case of the Second Amendment petitions, Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas were vocal about their opinions that the Court should hear those cases. That means that the Court needed only two more justices to vote in favor of those cases. Let’s do the math: the Supreme Court has nine justices. Five of those are supposed to be conservative: John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Since Thomas and Kavanaugh voted to hear the cases, they only needed two more affirmative votes to hear the case. So at least one, and possibly as many as three, of the remaining “conservative” justices — Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch — voted not to hear those cases.
Moving on, the court went on to hold, in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, that sex discrimination (outlawed in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Bottom line: employers cannot discriminate against Joe just because he is dating John, or identifies as Jane. Among those voting for this abomination: John Roberts (Bush appointee) and . . . Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee. In fact, Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion for the Court. (I should also point out here that Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, also voted for, and authored the opinion of the Court, upholding the legality of that legal monstrosity known as Obamacare.)
How are those Trump-appointed justices working out for you?
Oh, and by the way, here’s Trump’s reaction to the Bostock decision:
“They’ve ruled and we live with their decision. That’s what it’s all about. We live with the decision of the Supreme Court. Very powerful. A very powerful decision, actually.”
A vast majority of religious conservatives voted for Trump solely or primarily (or at least substantially) because they believed that he would put conservative judges on the Supreme Court, and that would make things all better. Conservative judges will fix what ails us, and that’s all that counts. Unfortunately, history has shown us time and time again that that voting strategy doesn’t work. David Souter was nominated by George H.W. Bush, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor were nominated by Ronald Reagan, John Paul Stevens was nominated by Gerald Ford, etc. All liberal justices (to varying degrees), and all appointed by Republican presidents.
Look, human beings are fallible. Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II were/are principled men with high character and solid values. Sometimes, no matter how hard a president’s administration vets a candidate and how much homework they do, they’re going to misjudge the legal philosophy of a judge, and we wind up with liberal decisions and bad law. Which is precisely why we cannot use individual judges, or the Court in general, as our sole measuring stick for who we will vote for. There has to be a better standard — one that, while not guaranteeing good results, at least makes them much more likely. Like . . . I don’t know . . . the character of the candidate?
As Jon Schweppe of the social conservative American Principles Project so aptly put it: “I was told there would be winning.”
