Donald Trump will make America great again, or so he says. Certainly, the next president will leave a lasting mark on American jurisprudence, as he or she will nominate anywhere from one to four Supreme Court justices. (Barack Obama is currently vetting a possible nominee.) With his outsider appeal and appearance of a high rolling successful businessman, Trump promises that he’ll turn this country around, clean out Washington and guild it with his gold-colored trademark.

“I’m sorry,” columnist David Harsanyi asserts, “but ‘support the American Putin because he’s the only one who can save SCOTUS and the Constitution’ is deeply unpersuasive.‘”

Not only is it unpersuasive, it’s downright worrying. Because he hasn’t held public office and therefore been on record demonstrating support for the Constitution, Trump’s views and how he interprets the Founding Document are ambiguous, at best. (Not that it would matter — his views on anything change whenever he changes ties.) However, we do know, as George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin writes, that Trump conducts his business in such a way as to undermine Rule of Law, free speech and property rights.

Trump sued journalists he thought gave him unfavorable coverage in order to bully them into silence. As we pointed out, our nation’s libel laws were established before the American Revolution. They are part of the jurisprudence that helped build this country, and Trump wants to fundamentally transform it. Trump has also spoken in favor of expanded eminent domain powers that would allow the government to seize property from private citizens and then give it to private developers — developers like Trump.

These positions are neither grounded in precedent, nor do they respect Rule of Law. In fact, they are views held by a man who does not understand the basic duty of a judge. At the GOP debate before Super Tuesday, Trump said judges “sign” bills. Any fifth-grader should be able to tell you judges are to interpret the law created by presidents who sign the bills the legislature creates. And yet some discontented voters are willing to give him the responsibility of vetting who will become the next Supreme Court justice.

(Updated.)