(07-10-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:16 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  It's not often that I am happy to lose a bet but after Gorsuch, I bet with tanqtonic that Trump would not nominate another acceptable-to-conservatives SCOTUS justice if he got the chance, and I am happy to be proven wrong. Kavanaugh has been endorsed this morning by editorials in both National Review and the WSJ, and that was our agreed-upon measuring stick. Tanq, PM me regarding your beer winnings!

I did not think Trump would go back to the Federalist Society/Heritage Foundation "list" for a second justice; I thought that campaign promise would at best only be honored a maximum of once, since it was reportedly almost broken out of the gate. And I still don't have a lot of confidence that he'd use it again if the opportunity arose (say, if Kavanaugh fails, or for any new opening on his watch), but I guess what distrustful conservatives like me have in our favor, ironically, is the *lack* of ideology in this self-proclaimed smartest president ever. I think he enjoys more than anything wielding the power and trappings of the office, but oddly enough this particular lever -- one of the most powerful at a president's disposal -- just is not one that interests him personally; else why would he outsource it? I guess it also helps that he is not a lawyer and former law professor like his last two Democratic predecessors, both of whom most certainly lusted after the chance to reshape the Court to their ideological preference. Trump certainly has his lusts, but they aren't ideological, and that, ironically, has turned out to be the key to getting unassailably conservative justices on the bench.

Take this with a grain of salt, but I saw rumblings this morning that the pick was made weeks ago, prior to Kennedy's retirement. That Kennedy was basically guaranteed that his former clerk would be selected, should he retire. And that this guarantee, made Kennedy comfortable enough to retire.

I imagine Trump would have been happy enough to, even if the pick wasn't truly his own, tie his name to the selection of a seat that potentially remolds the court in a more conservative way for decades to come.

Meh, I'm not saying Kennedy was completely apolitical in his decision (obviously he retired with a Republican president in charge and in a nonpresidential election year) but he strikes me as having too much respect for the separation of powers and the dignity of his office as co-head of a coequal branch to basically try and arrogate to himself the selection of his replacement. Besides, any such "promise" from Trump would have been completely unenforceable and worthless.

I will give Trump this: He has consistently said he wants to appoint judges who will uphold the Constitution. The question in my mind, though, has always been whether that's really his "philosophy" -- given that the man espousing it is likely the most nonphilosophical man to ever hold this office, certainly in modern times -- or whether it was a cynically calibrated dog whistle to the right (and many moderates) to entice their votes but that would then turn out to mean something quite different in practice. After all, I'm sure Obama, Clinton, et al. could easily say (and probably did many times) that they, too, wanted judges who would uphold the Constitution . . . meaning of course the "living Constitution," as interpreted by "wise Latinas" and such.