Even if Trump were a dedicated conservative, picking consistently originalist judges is far more difficult than it seems. President Reagan nominated Justice Kennedy, who wrote the gay marriage decision. President Ford nominated Justice Stevens, who wrote Kelo v. New London, a decision that empowered the government to seize property from one private citizen and give it to another. President George H.W. Bush nominated Justice Souter, who eventually voted against overturning Roe v. Wade and in favor of prohibiting prayer at high school graduations.

The Republican primary field contains a number of conservatives who have spent their entire adult lives thinking about the importance of judges who respect the Constitution. Many of these candidates have long records of dedication to the Constitution and supporting judges who will interpret it as it was originally understood. If conservatives prioritize restoring constitutional governance, they should choose one of those candidates rather than Trump.

The fact that a vote for Trump would likely defeat the originalist project should cause conservatives to reevaluate the cost-benefit analysis that led them to support him. The likelihood of a non-originalist majority controlling the Supreme Court for decades is too high a price to pay for the slim possibility that voting for Trump may—eventually—create a new and better Republican Party