If Trump Fills A Supreme Court Vacancy, Here Are Three Suggestions

American Thinker 

This past weekend, conservatives celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito. The rest of the country should have joined the celebration. One of the most respected conservative decisions of the George W. Bush Administration, Justice Alito’s appointment signaled the first real step by Republicans to place real, reliable conservative jurists on the bench.

Justice David Souter had failed President George Herbert Walker Bush, and Chief Justice John Roberts has been a hit-and-miss disappointment. With Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s resignation (another Republican nominee who turned liberal on the court), Bush 43 had a chance to shift the court in the right direction. His first nomination, White House Attorney Harriet Miers, was a massive failure, a circus of moral cowardice trying to avoid a contentious confirmation process. To save face and shore up Republicans’ declining chances for the 2006 elections, Bush needed a winner.

Enter Samuel Alito, sometimes nicknamed “Scalito” for his conservative leanings. Unlike Roberts, he had a clear pro-constitution record of jurisprudence. As expected, he faced unprecedented attacks on Capitol Hill, similar to what Robert Bork and Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh faced during their confirmation hearings. Facing Alito, Democrats recognized that they could be losing a somewhat reliable liberal jurist for a more right-leaning justice and court to follow.

Thankfully, Bush 43 held his ground. Despite the filibuster rules still in effect for judicial nominees, the Republican Senate (55-45) achieved a cloture vote with willing Democrats (a number of whom still represented conservative states in the South and the Midwest). The Senate finally confirmed Alito 58-42, viewed at the time as close and contentious.

When Alito was sworn in, Democrats and liberal pundits hoped that he would turn into another Souter-O’Connor disappointment. To progressives’ chagrin and conservatives’ acclaim, Alito has voted reliably to restore constitutional norms through strict construction and originalist interpretation of the Constitution. He authored the stunning and much-needed Dobbs v Jackson decision, reversing the abortive (pun intended) Roe v. Wade, and he has consistently urged revisiting and reversing other rulings with damaging precedents.

George W. Bush may have failed on many policy issues during his term of office, but Alito’s confirmation (along with his ongoing legacy of tax cuts) makes up for those losses.

Twenty years later, Alito (75 years old) and Thomas (77) have established a remarkably constitutionally conservative bulwark for future courts. But the question remains: How much longer can they hold their seats on the court before time and chance take them from us? Granted, Alito and Thomas remain in good health, with no record or reports of major health challenges, and we hope they continue that way, but one or both may be eying retirement.

Advertisement

Still, Republicans should be wise, not allowing conservative justices to linger on, only for them to pass away during a Democrat Presidential administration. Would we want a possible President Newsom or Shapiro to replace Thomas or Alito?

If most conservatives had their way, Chief Justice John Roberts would have been replaced by now. His horrid failures on Obamacare and his insistence on maintaining precedent have slowed restorative efforts to rectify the country’s checks and balances. The court needs a Chief Justice who will demonstrate not just leadership and advocacy for judicial independence, but also restore constitutional preeminence against branch supremacy. Justice Roberts still fights to maintain stare decisis, even though the Framers of the Constitution never intended for judicial rulings to supplant the legislative branch.

Chief Justice Roberts is a spry 71-year-old but might grow tired of getting outvoted by his conservative colleagues. Now is a good time for Trump to consider future nominees.

To set up the best short-list, Trump should consider Justices Thomas’s and Alito’s former clerks. If they have been appointed to federal district or circuit courts, even better. The candidates would most likely demonstrate respect for originalism, strict construction, and constitutional restoration, since a caseload of judicial precedents needs to go: Obergefell v Hodges, Griswold v Connecticut, Lochner v. New York, etc.

Are there any likely candidates already?

Last week, Trump joked about nominating US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). It’s not a silly idea at all. He’s young (or at least young enough at 55) and in good health and standing. He boasts a commanding legal pedigree as a Harvard Law graduate, receiving praise from staunch liberal professor and civil rights attorney Alan Dershowitz. He also clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist (a decent conservative who voted against Roe v Wade). As Solicitor General for the state of Texas, Cruz argued nine cases before the Supreme Court, one of the longest records in modern history for a U.S. senator. Assuring his credentials as a constitutional restorer, Cruz has repeatedly criticized the courts’ judicial activism, including the same-sex marriage decision Obergefell v Hodges.

Cruz’s sharp mind will not only ensure conservative constitutional rulings but also help direct the court back to its true original founding and meaning. Trump may be overestimating Democrat designs to remove him from the US Senate, but his Republican colleagues would be more than happy to promote him out of the upper chamber.

Which other high-profile nominees could President Trump consider?

US Senator Mike Lee of Utah would be a fantastic choice. He’s not only a great conservative, but he’s also a staunch constitutionalist. Senator Lee clerked for Justice Alito, both when Alito served on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and on the Supreme Court. Lee comes from a long line of legal minds. His brother served on the Utah State Supreme Court. As far as character is concerned, Lee took out a RINO incumbent US Senator during the Tea Party Wave of 2010, and he has voted consistently on that record. He has authored several books onconstitutional jurisprudence. And like his US Senate colleague from Texas, he’s relatively young!

Another nominee, and this might be a long shot, but worth considering: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Disaffected conservatives turned off by Trump’s first-term failures and/or supposed unelectability switched to DeSantis during the 2024 primary. Because MAGA voters resent him for (in their view) betraying Trump and challenging him, DeSantis may have burned too many bridges with the Republican grassroots to have another chance at the Presidency. If the retiring Florida Governor’s presidential ambitions are gone for good, President Trump should consider him for the Supreme Court.

Governor DeSantis has a broad understanding of our constitutional principles and history. He wrote an extensive treatise about our Founding Fathers and the constitutional principles of our Republic. In his speeches, governing philosophy, and policy wins, DeSantis has restored and furthered respect for the natural law and natural rights basis of American jurisprudence.

He’s also very young, active, and undeterred in his commitment to America’s moral vision and values.

No matter who Trump nominates to the Supreme Court (if there is a retirement), Trump has nothing but good options available. US Senator Ted Cruz has a commendable record and a fearless spirit. US Senator Mike Lee is a grounded and well-rounded legislator. DeSantis is not afraid to shift culture with legal power.

Each of those candidates has the record, rhetoric, and character to be Trump’s next Supreme Court nominee.