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 10:23 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.

New York Coronavirus Cases

County data is updated nightly.

Confirmed Cases: 395872

Reported Deaths: 32137
CountyConfirmedDeaths
New York City21636223140
Nassau419472185
Suffolk415381983
Westchester349801426
Rockland13623668
Orange10759478
Erie7427639
Dutchess4231151
Monroe3885273
Onondaga2909188
Albany2130121
Ulster181586
Oneida170897
Sullivan145548
Putnam133363
Niagara126288
Schenectady82437
Broome73658
Saratoga56114
Rensselaer55930
Columbia47437
Madison36017
Orleans28251
Ontario27533
Steuben26841
Warren26630
Greene26318
Fulton26124
Washington24614
Genesee2395
St. Lawrence2222
Oswego2063
Wayne1813
Tompkins1780
Herkimer1723
Chenango1485
Chemung1452
Tioga14324
Livingston1308
Chautauqua1297
Cattaraugus1246
Cayuga1202
Montgomery1194
Clinton1014
Wyoming955
Jefferson930
Delaware914
Otsego845
Seneca700
Allegany631
Schoharie580
Cortland480
Essex460
Yates466
Franklin330
Lewis300
Schuyler130
Hamilton60
Unassigned00
Utica
Clear
59° wxIcon
Hi: 87° Lo: 59°
Feels Like: 59°
Oneonta
Clear
68° wxIcon
Hi: 85° Lo: 57°
Feels Like: 68°
Herkimer
Clear
59° wxIcon
Hi: 87° Lo: 59°
Feels Like: 59°
Thendara
Clear
59° wxIcon
Hi: 82° Lo: 54°
Feels Like: 59°
WKTV Radar
WKTV Temperatures
WKTV Severe Weather
Click here to learn more about A Healthier Mohawk Valley
Saluting Those Who Are Proud 2 Serve
Senior Send-Off brought to you by Herkimer College
Menu 2 Go list of takeout dinners & fish fries
WKTV Golf Card - Under 150 left