Posted on 07/10/2018 8:20:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I’ve got a piece up over at the Washington Post about the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. It was a safe choice — and an opportunity lost. There was a choice out there that fired the conservative imagination, the kind of choice that arguably only a Donald Trump would have the guts to make:
There was a moment, in the early afternoon of July 9, when conservatives contemplated the delightful possibility that they might witness the best possible version of President Trump — the man with the will (and flair for the dramatic) that would allow him to be bolder than the average Republican president. The best version of Trump would have been nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
Would another Republican have the guts to put forward a nominee who would so clearly inflame the culture wars? Would another Republican president shatter the GOP nominee mold by selecting a mother of seven kids, an outspoken Christian and a graduate from a “normal” non-Ivy League law school? The base-motivating, electrifying pick was right there, in the palm of his hand.
Then, he went establishment. He chose a man that any Republican president would have nominated. He made the best safe choice he could: Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
This does not mean that Kavanaugh will be a bad justice. Over time, I think he’ll prove to be a solid (and perhaps even excellent) pick. And, over the next several weeks, we’ll see an avalanche of progressive attacks, many of them labeling even his best and most rigorous opinions “extremist” or “dangerous.” Kavanaugh will be an easy pick to defend. But it’s simply a fact that tonight my inbox is lighting up with responses — many of them from Trump supporters — expressing a sense of regret.
And to those saying, “Relax, it will be her next time,” we should remember all the passed-over judges who never, ever saw that “next time.” There’s zero guarantee that Trump will get another SCOTUS pick. We don’t know of any justices pondering retirement, and nobody should be ghoulish enough to predict any justice’s demise. Don’t for a moment think Ruth Bader Ginsburg will step down under President Trump. So, until proven otherwise, I stand by my assessment.
One final note: You wouldn’t believe how often conservative professionals ask my advice about how “open” to be on their CV’s, in their social media, and online about their conservative religious affiliations. Ever since Brendan Eich, there’s a palpable sense that there’s a stained-glass ceiling descending on certain professions (including law) restricting the upward mobility of orthodox Christians. Barrett’s nomination wouldn’t “just” have put an outstanding originalist on the Court for 30 years, it would have helped blunt the force of secular bigotry. The direct confrontation between an angry secular Left and an accomplished, poised Christian professional would have represented a culturally important moment.
But alas, it was not to be. Kavanaugh will be an excellent judge. In a more functional political system, he’d win confirmation by an overwhelming majority and not the slim margin he’ll likely receive. I’ll defend him vigorously from unfair critiques tomorrow, but tonight I join many conservatives in a slight sigh of regret. There was a better choice.
RE: Amy Coney Barrett would have absolutely failed as a nominee.
He succeeded in becoming Circuit court judge despite all that scrutiny.
And BTW, I’ll be very much mistaken if ACB doesn’t drift left.
re:Am I wrong to think that if RBG bites the dust, Nominating Barrett to replace her would kick off Civil War II? LOL
Nah man, we need to nominate Judge Roy to really get one started ..
RE: And BTW, I’ll be very much mistaken if ACB doesn’t drift left.
And where in her record as judge tells us that?
Amy Coney Barrett will be RBG’s replacement.
Cant wait for it
RE: And the reason for that would be???
She would have been opposed by Collins and Murkowski and there is no way she would have picked up Democratic votes.
Could be, she's already had her name out there so they have a better feel for what to expect from the knee jerk dems. Or simply the Jerk Dems.
She’s an academic, she doesn’t have a trail of decisions we can look at. Dealing with flesh and blood people is very different from dealing with what if questions that don’t actually impact anyone’s lives.
RE: She would have been opposed by Collins and Murkowski and there is no way she would have picked up Democratic votes.
So, let’s always nominate someone who will definitely not be opposed to Roe vs. Wade. Is that what you recommend?
Because as long as these two Senators are in office, you will never get a strong pro-life judge to be in the SCOTUS.
BTW, let me remind you once again, Collins and Murkowski voted to CONFIRM Barret to the Federal Circuit Court. KNOWING where she stands and KNOWING her background. This, DESPITE the grilling she took under Pro-Choice Senators like Dianne Feinstein.
How are these Senators going to justify their voting ‘no’ when they voted ‘yes’ previously?
RE: She’s an academic, she doesn’t have a trail of decisions we can look at.
She is NOT MERELY an academic.
She practiced law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C
She clerked for Scalia himself.
She has been a sitting judge for a year.
And for that matter, Barrett twice received a “distinguished professor of the year” award, in 2010 and 2016 from Notre Dame for teaching constitutional law.
That’s good enough for me.
There is a big difference between the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court. Would you expect Senators to be willing to confirm a person for the Supreme Court simply because they confirmed them to a lower court?
Well then we agree to disagree
No ... save that powder in case RBG retires/expires. It has the added benefit of causing the lunatic left to self-terminate. If Trump got to replace a woman (RBG) with a woman (ACB) you would need a dump truck to clean the NY sidewalks from jumpers every day.
Well, he isn't the Almighty. He's doing amazing things, far more than any rational person could have predicted, probably saving the Republic entirely... but even he (not He) makes mistakes (and makes deals, too). Sessions was a nice reliable Senate vote until President Trump reassigned him. How'd that work out for everyone? How many weak-kneed appointments have scurried away from the (vicious) Leftist heat so far in just 17 months?
The facts are that Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy, has deep Bush roots, has said that he'd respect precedent for Roe v Wade, and Traitor McCain is saying glowing things about him. That's enough to make me think our President just replaced a centrist with a centrist. It's still 4/2/3 (L-to-R)... which isn't terrible, but it also isn't a major victory. (The Dems screaming is just to to keep them screaming... about anything ... until at least mid-NOV. Odd how the border kids have suddenly been forgotten, no? Their puppet masters know full well that they cannot handle more than one topic at a time.)
I tend to agree with those who think Kennedy may have retired early on the promise that he could pick the nominee from Trump's List. Another Trump deal-making win, but not a wholesale victory. Some Give had to go with the Take.
I also am concerned about the speculation I saw that Thomas and Breyer might decide to retire together, with Dems reluctantly approving the replacements, but only if Breyer could get the same deal (getting a centrist at best, but that's all the Left can hope for). That would make SCOTUS 3/3/3, even after four Trump appointments. Again, not the worst thing to happen, but also far short of what most of us on the Right might have been dreaming about after 4 replacement picks. I can see the Left going for that.
(Ginsberg stays in place until a Dem is elected, or the Rapture. She will outlast Trump, and possibly even Keith Richards. Her handlers will make sure of it.)
And, if I'm wrong about Kavanaugh, then SCOTUS is further to the Right. A win-win for me, baby! LOL
No, she hasn’t been a sitting judge for a year, only since November 2017.
“Those don’t look like the earmarks of a surefire conservative vote on the SC to me. We’ve been burned repeatedly by “moderate” or “safe” conservative judges who turn out to be big disappointments once confirmed. “
THAT is a judge that I want on the USSC - someone who, as Scalia himself said, rules as the law DEMANDS that he (or she) must, regardless of their own personal opinions or preferences. In fact, Scalia said that it would be unlikely that a good judge (as measured by this standard) WOULDN’T, at some point in their career, rule against their own preferences.
Note that I’m no great fan of the Bush family or their politics, either. However, every once in a while they get something right - remember that Bush the Elder appointed Clarence Thomas. Maybe it’d be a good idea to actually examine people for their record and their character, and not necessarily for their involvement in Republican politics when the only game in town was named “Bush” for about 2 decades?
Hey Frenchie.....Amy will replace Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg! I can’t wait!
Chris Stirewalt IS a MORON and UNWATCHABLE!
I wish it was her too, I have had it with the Yale skull and bones club.
I think LAURA BUSH wanted Harriet Meyers, and W just wanted to please his wife’s request!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.