Trump's shortlist for Supreme Court pick

President Donald Trump interviewed four candidates for the next Supreme Court nominee to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Posted: Jul 3, 2018 10:09 PM
Updated: Jul 3, 2018 10:38 PM

Ever since the failed nomination of Robert Bork, whose rejection allowed an obscure federal court of appeals judge from Sacramento named Anthony Kennedy to become the 104th Justice of the US Supreme Court, presidential administrations have displayed extreme care and thoroughness in their vetting of candidates for the court.

A playbook has developed for use by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Many commentators believe that Presidents have adopted nuanced approaches for determining candidates' likely votes on hot-button issues. A 1985 article in Newsweek reported that the first thing judicial candidates, sitting down to talk with Reagan's chief judge picker, would say is "pleased to meet you." And the second: "Roe v. Wade ... was wrongly decided."

But even as they put in place increasingly sophisticated and dependable methods to ferret out a candidate's judicial philosophy and predict her likely voting pattern on the court, Presidents and advisers have been exceptionally careful to insist they don't impose particular "litmus tests" -- pledges to decide particular issues in specific ways.

Thus, as another of Reagan's judge pickers insisted, "We don't get into political questions, activities, associations or views. We don't test candidates by ideology or use a litmus test." Similar pledges have become compulsory for every administration.

It's not hard to see why. "Litmus test" questions, if discovered, can and should doom a candidacy. As Lincoln famously explained: "We cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it." (Less well-known is the lesson Lincoln drew from that axiom: "Therefore, we must take a (person) whose opinions are known.")

It would be the ultimate dereliction of duty for a judge to decide a case based not on the facts and law, but because of a pledge to a political patron. Even if the pledge coincided with the judge's own view, it would be corrupt of the President to trade a judicial appointment for a promise of a particular vote -- as if the judge's fealty was to his patron and not the law -- and ignominious of the candidate to accept the deal.

There are compelling practical reasons as well why pledges of specific votes are a sort of third rail in judicial selection. If a candidate offered to the President his assurance of how she would vote on a matter likely to come before the court, she would have no defense against the same sorts of assurances to the Senate. She would lose the all-purpose shield of, "I'm sorry Senator, but I cannot answer that question because it is an issue that might come before me if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed."

Thus, every President, certainly since Reagan, has insisted he did not and would not ask litmus-test questions, and given the sophistication of the nomination process, there is every reason to think that those assurances were accurate.

When I worked on judicial nominations, including Supreme Court nominations, in the Clinton administration, it was axiomatic that any litmus test questions were strictly off limits.

Enter Donald Trump. Trump's judicial selection process actually has been efficient and professional, in marked contrast to the chaotic and noxious administration in almost all other policy areas. White House Counsel Don McGahn, who will oversee the nomination and attempted confirmation of the next justice, surely will impress upon him that he simply may not seek to exact a pledge of a particular vote of any sort from his nominee.

And with any other President, that would likely quiet any concerns. But in the first place, Trump is a comically uninhibited rule-breaker who boasts about making decisions by his gut. He is -- and I wish I were the first to put it this way but I'm not -- the glandular President.

More importantly, we already know Trump is wont to try to exact improper pledges of personal loyalty to him above loyalty to the law. That is exactly what James Comey said he did with him, and Comey immediately recognized the stunning impropriety of the encounter, which he understood sought to ensure the FBI director's allegiance to the President above the law. Trump appears unaware to this day of why the demand was unseemly.

Yet more importantly, Trump is under serious threat of impeachment or criminal liability. From his selfish interests, he wants more than anything a nominee who would protect him at the Supreme Court in the very foreseeable event that questions on which his Presidency and even liberty may turn -- such as: can a President pardon himself? -- come to the court.

No one who has followed the news closely these last 529 days can feel confident that Trump, if left alone with a nominee, would not seek to secure some sort of personal assurance, if only in wink-and-nod form, of votes on specific issues, especially ones that may determine his personal fate.

Yet it would be extraordinarily stupid, brazen, and corrupt, and could fatally compromise the candidate for the court -- reasons enough for every President in modern memory, and perhaps American history, to eschew it, save this one.

Given the high stakes of the nomination and the character of the President, expect the first round of questions in the Senate to Trump's nominee to be a series of exacting inquiries about exactly what the President told her and whether he approached or crossed the litmus-test line.

These are straightforward inquiries, and it would be dangerous, not to mention dishonorable, for a candidate to answer dishonestly. If in fact it were to emerge that Trump had sought some sort of pledge, it would likely upend the nomination and force the administration into a do-over that would extend the confirmation battle past the midterm elections.

It is very hard to imagine such an extreme self-inflicted wound, but if any President has what it takes to inflict it, it's Trump.

West Lafayette
Partly Cloudy
80° wxIcon
Hi: 78° Lo: 62°
Feels Like: 81°
Kokomo
Clear
80° wxIcon
Hi: 83° Lo: 62°
Feels Like: 81°
Rensselaer
Cloudy
72° wxIcon
Hi: 79° Lo: 60°
Feels Like: 72°
Fowler
Partly Cloudy
80° wxIcon
Hi: 81° Lo: 61°
Feels Like: 81°
Williamsport
Partly Cloudy
76° wxIcon
Hi: 82° Lo: 61°
Feels Like: 76°
Crawfordsville
Partly Cloudy
75° wxIcon
Hi: 80° Lo: 60°
Feels Like: 75°
Frankfort
Clear
75° wxIcon
Hi: 83° Lo: 61°
Feels Like: 75°
Delphi
Clear
74° wxIcon
Hi: 83° Lo: 62°
Feels Like: 74°
Monticello
Partly Cloudy
74° wxIcon
Hi: 81° Lo: 64°
Feels Like: 74°
Logansport
Partly Cloudy
79° wxIcon
Hi: 83° Lo: 61°
Feels Like: 80°
Hot today with sunshine, then muggy and stormy
WLFI Temps
WLFI Planner

Indiana Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 752108

Reported Deaths: 13816
CountyCasesDeaths
Marion1033831790
Lake558431013
Allen41736693
St. Joseph37007565
Hamilton36617417
Elkhart29425461
Tippecanoe22938228
Vanderburgh22565400
Porter19369327
Johnson18486389
Hendricks17696317
Clark13233195
Madison13176344
Vigo12631253
LaPorte12429221
Monroe12226176
Delaware10970198
Howard10349224
Kosciusko9643121
Hancock8578147
Bartholomew8174157
Warrick7864156
Floyd7815180
Grant7248179
Wayne7164201
Boone6979103
Morgan6768141
Dubois6224118
Marshall6214116
Cass6024110
Henry5903110
Dearborn589878
Noble581688
Jackson509476
Shelby502396
Lawrence4753122
Gibson445595
Clinton443555
Harrison441775
DeKalb440385
Montgomery439890
Whitley406744
Huntington403381
Steuben400859
Miami395769
Jasper389155
Knox377691
Putnam373461
Wabash362383
Ripley347370
Adams345555
Jefferson336186
White332753
Daviess3035100
Wells295481
Decatur289892
Greene286885
Fayette284864
Posey274335
LaGrange273272
Scott270356
Clay267148
Washington246336
Randolph245183
Jennings235349
Spencer234531
Starke228159
Fountain222048
Sullivan214843
Owen212358
Fulton204043
Jay201032
Carroll193820
Orange188255
Perry187237
Rush175926
Vermillion175344
Franklin170435
Tipton166646
Parke149616
Pike138334
Blackford136232
Pulaski120847
Newton114936
Brown104443
Benton102614
Crawford102516
Martin91815
Warren84115
Switzerland8158
Union72810
Ohio57911
Unassigned0424

COVID-19 Important links and resources

As the spread of COVID-19, or as it's more commonly known as the coronavirus continues, this page will serve as your one-stop for the resources you need to stay informed and to keep you and your family safe. CLICK HERE

Closings related to the prevention of the COVID-19 can be found on our Closings page.

Community Events