All that being said, National Review's Ian Tuttle raises another potential hindrance to the Constitution: Trump himself.
Trump’s potential abuses are numerous — and, unlike most presidential hopefuls, widely advertised. He has suggested that he will prosecute journalists who write unfavorable stories about his administration. He is open to “shutting down” parts of the Internet. (Might this be a free-speech violation? Only “foolish people” would suggest that.) The prospective commander-in-chief has declared that he would force American troops to commit war crimes. And he has said that he has no qualms about using executive orders much like President Obama has done (only Trump’s will be “better”). Trump’s dismissiveness toward the Constitution is in excess of anything Barack Obama displayed in 2008 or 2012.
Moreover, the only real insight we have into Donald Trump’s judicial philosophy (such as it is) is from the week he spent savaging Gonzalo Curiel, the federal judge who is presiding over two lawsuits against Trump University. The takeaway from that deplorable episode was that, as with everything else, Donald Trump likes judges who like Donald Trump; he wanted a judge who would put his interests above the law. What reason is there to believe that he would behave differently as president?
Nonetheless, those who cite the Supreme Court as a compelling reason to vote for Trump are of the befuddling opinion that the same man who has demonstrated willful ignorance of the Constitution, who has promised to subvert the Constitution, and whose dealings with the judiciary demonstrate contempt for the Constitution, is the man who will save it.
There's no question that Trump has made some troubling statements regarding what he perceives as executive authority. It's going to be difficult to square that circle with the constitutional purists who are still on the fence regarding this presidential race.
By all means, read Tuttle's entire piece. While he stops short of saying Hillary Clinton would be a more sufficient choice for President, Tuttle does offer the perspective that a Clinton judicial nominee does not necessarily result in the apocalyptic scenarios which Hewitt et al. suggest (Fear not, though. I still ain't voting for Hillary).