Trump voters saved the Republic from the scourge of a liberal Supreme Court

Marc Thiessen:

For those conservatives who voted for Donald Trump because of the Supreme Court, congratulations: You've been vindicated.

Had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election, she would have replaced the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia with a liberal jurist -- giving the Supreme Court a left-wing activist majority for a generation. Because Trump won, Neil M. Gorsuch was confirmed to replace Scalia, securing the court's 5-to-4 conservative majority.

This week, the dividends of that appointment for conservatives were apparent in two landmark conservative rulings. In National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Becerra, the high court ruled that the state of California cannot force crisis pregnancy centers to advertise access to abortion to their clients, in violation of the owners' conscience. And in Janus v. AFSCME, the court ruled that public workers cannot be forced pay union dues to support public policies with which they fundamentally disagree. These were critical 5-to-4 rulings that buttressed the First Amendment freedoms of all Americans.

Trump was able to preserve the status quo before Scalia's passing. But now, with the news that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is retiring, Trump has a chance to do something much bigger: He can not only preserve but also expand the court's conservative majority.

If he replaces Kennedy -- a swing vote who often joined the court's liberal bloc on important matters -- with a reliable conservative in the mold of Scalia and Gorsuch, the president may have transformed the court for a generation.

To do this, Trump will have to break the mold of his Republican predecessors. Over the past three decades, presidents from his party have picked seven justices, and several have turned out to be disappointments to conservatives.
...

I think Trump will not make the mistakes of past Republican presidents who put some clunkers on the court.  Kennedy was a mixed bag and he was on the court was as a result of Democrats unfair attacks on Robert Bork.  I expect they will be even less restrained this time.  As can be seen with the liberals in and out of the media hysteria is common on even made up controversies like the border policies. 

A lot of the attention will probably focus on Roe v, Wade.  Whether you approve of abortions or not, as a legal matter it is a decision that is hard to defend because it relies on made up "emanations from the penumbra" of the Bill of Rights.  That is legalese for saying there is nothing set out in the constitution that supports the decision but think they can find something in the literal margins of the document.  It is made up law.