All errors should be reported to

Friday, June 29, 2018

Who shall be the new justice?

President Trump made public his list of two dozen candidates for the Supreme Court. He even posted the list online.

Instapundit and law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, favors Don Willett. Of course. Willett tweeted with humor and humility as a Texas Supreme Court justice, making a national name.

What struck Reynolds (and what strikes me) is Willett's back story. He was the first in his family to go to college, making it to Duke Law School. He is not an elitist. His mother, Doris, worked as a waitress to raise Willett and his sister after their father died. At 52 (come July 16) he can serve 30 years.

And that is how he would view the position: as an honor, not an entitlement.

In that same article, Eric Citron, a lawyer who also writes for SCOTUS blog,  made the pitch for Judge Thomas Hardiman (turns 53 on July 8) who was the runner-up to Neil Gorsuch for the first vacancy. Wrote Citron, "Hardiman, who worked as a taxi driver through college, has greater exposure to and sympathy for the working-class perspective."

Trump's sister, a retired federal judge, vouched for the man.

Disqualification: Steelers fan.

William Vogeler, a lawyer who writes for FindLaw’s Legal Professional Blogs, championed Judge Amy Coney Barrett. A Notre Dame law graduate, she is pro-life. The argument for a woman conservative is compelling. Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't perfect? None of them are.

Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah is getting a lot of chatter as well. He's 47 and knocked off incumbent Republican Senator Bob Bennett in the 2010 election to win his seat. His conservative credentials are near perfect. He is pretty independent as well, but not in a manner to impress "Meet the Press." I like him.

I am rooting for Georgia Supreme Court Justice Keith R. Blackwell. Like the others so far listed, his law degree is not Ivy League. He turns 43 on July 4. Repeatedly, the feeling is we need an outsider on the bench.

The Washington Post roundup of candidates had two eye-openers. Judge Amul Thapar, 49, is a favorite of campus rights groups. He's a California-Berkeley graduate. Seeing crazy up close and personal definitely sealed the deal on his conservatism. The Post said he is a favorite of Mitch McConnell.

The Post said Judge William Pryor, 56, is a favorite of Jeff Sessions. Tulane Law graduate.

We have an embarrassment of riches. Conservatives have lined up their ducks in a row. You could easily talk me into supporting any of these men and women.

What a long way we have come since Reagan had to cut a deal with a Democratic Senate to get Anthony Kennedy confirmed. Conservatives knew they had a problem, which they solved by developing a farm system.

Harvest time!


Please enjoy my books in paperback and on Kindle.

Trump the Press covers the nomination.

Trump the Establishment covers the election.

Fake News Follies of 2017 covers his first year as president.

For autographed copies, write me at


  1. I have met Robert Young, who was on the Michigan Supreme Court. He is a gentleman and very capable.

    -Mikey NTH

  2. Steelers fan...hahaha! Yeah, that’s definitely a disqualifier, Big D. Straightaway. Willett’s life story is compelling, for sure, but you’re right - our “minor leagues” are deep and strong. You could form a superb Court with any of the people on Mr. T’s list.

  3. I would prefer someone in their 40s. The younger the better. This is a long war.

  4. Review just about all the people on that list and all would make excellent members of the court.
    None of their qualifications will matter when the liberal start their attacks all they care about is politics and they will spew their hate and stupidity at all of them because they do not care about the law or the country to them only politics matter.
    Disgusting but unfortunately very true.

  5. It was an excellent idea for Trump's team to put the list together. Not only can the administration plan ahead, get facts straight, but we get to feel like we are part of the process also. We will form our own opinions before the left tries to force one upon us. They will now have to try to change our minds by their usually means of using violence and fear mongering - it will not work because no one believes the let, paid activists or the MSM anymore.

  6. I like the fact all these people are young. When the time comes to replace Notorious, Breyer, and (if we're good and eat all our veggies and say our prayers and get good grades) the Wise Latina, we'll have a sane Court that will drive the Left up the wall for many years to come.

  7. Eric Citron clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court for Associate Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Elena Kagan. AND, Steeler fan? Three strikes. : ))

  8. Don Willett is a shoo-in for one reason and one reason only...Judge Willett is considered a social media phenomenon who has drawn both praise and criticism for his prolific Twitter account. He is considered a "Tweeter Laureate" for his outsized presence on the social media platform. No question! Hands down! Case closed! Pardon the pun.

  9. There is no strategic advantage to nominating a woman to replace Kennedy. During the confirmation process the Dems will treat a conservative woman like trash (as they always do), nor would the choice of a pro-life woman for the bench be likely to sway independent voters during the upcoming election.

    You'd think Sen. Mike Lee would perhaps get the support of his colleagues in the Senate, but he wouldn't. The Senate Dems would put up a vicious fight against his appointment, so there's likely no strategic advantage in nominating him to replace Kennedy. The success of Trump's choice likely hangs in the balance by a single vote in the Senate. The White House may think Lee is the one who can just squeak past, but I don't believe the Dems would accord Lee special courtesy. There is no comity in the Senate these days.

    On the other hand, it would be nice if for the sake of judicial diversity the nominee came from a state court, not a federal court. Some of the people on Trump's list were only recently appointed to the federal bench and haven't been on it long enough to build a substantial body of work by which they can be evaluated. I'd leave them there until another opening arises on the SC. Consider one of the state judges instead. But if the pick MUST be a woman, then consider the one who sits on the military tribunal. She's a twofer, a woman and an outsider.

    1. I agree, and many others do too. The other day, President Trump's Facebook post threads were filled with comments from women Deplorables begging him not to appoint another woman, and asking for a "strong, conservative man". I'd prefer to keep Mike Lee in the Senate - we need all the stubborn Senators we can get.

  10. No Harvard Law, no Yale law. We need diversity.

  11. As long as the President's choice is a Constitutionalist the name and background are secondary considerations. - Elric

  12. One question should be front and center; where do they stand on immigration?

  13. It's truly great to have so many fine choices, all already a bit in the public eye. For most votes, most will vote with Roberts & conservatives, so that's almost a wash.

    What are the best optics? As the Dems spew hate & baseless allegations at the nominee, which one makes the Dems look worse to a) independents, and b) reluctant Democrats?

    I think the Dems hating a woman, because she's a woman and a pro-life Rep, makes them look worse. So yes on Amy Barret.

    For the nomination battle optics before the midterm.

  14. It seems Justice Willett is getting some serious consideration for SCOTUS. I would be pleasantly surprised. - Elric