Keeping Promises

President Trump’s Supreme Court is delivering what his base wants

President Donald Trump’s promise to appoint conservative justices to the nation’s highest court has been paying off. So far he’s been able to name one—Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

But one has been enough in several crucial cases.

So far, the court has found that a Colorado baker who said making a wedding cake for a same-sex couple would violate his religious beliefs wasn’t treated fairly by the state’s civil rights commission. And just Monday the court ruled that the contentious 2010 Republican redistricting lines could stand. Both decisions were sure to please the president’s conservative following.

Now comes even more.

On Tuesday, the court upheld 5-4 the president’s executive order banning travelers from a number of predominantly-Muslim countries, saying the ban “is squarely within the scope of presidential authority” and “is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices.”

The reasoning is questionable, but then that could be said of many court decisions. Executive orders aren’t always the easiest things to justify and that’s as true for other presidents as it is with Trump.

And something even more important to many of the president’s more devout supporters. The court ruled 5-4 against a California law requiring so-called “crisis pregnancy centers,” usually Christian-based programs designed to discourage women from having abortions, to post signs stating as much and also notifying women that the state provides pregnancy and birth control services, including abortions.

It was the last provision that really rankled the centers. They saw no reason they should have to promote the state’s message, especially when it comes to abortion. The law was challenged on the grounds it violated the centers’ First Amendment rights, in part by compelling speech they disagreed with.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law. And now the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned that ruling.

Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said the law “targets speakers, not speech, and imposes an unduly burdensome disclosure requirement that will chill their protected speech.”

We agree—to an extent. We see no problem with requiring full disclosure of intent. Women should have that information before they decide to walk through the doors.

But forcing a Christian-based organization to essentially promote state-funded access to abortion? That is unacceptable.

Views on President Trump span the gamut. Some love him, some loathe him. But one thing is for sure: He’s delivering what he promised. He is giving his voters what they wanted. The court is testament to that.