Opinion piece

https://townhall.com/columnist...734408&lctg=26773771

Few things in Washington, D.C., generate as much excitement and intrigue as a Supreme Court confirmation showdown. For decades, since the eponymous "borking" of then-Supreme Court nominee Bob Bork in 1987, political battles surrounding the membership of the nation's high court have been among the most contentious and raucous of Beltway affairs. Which is why it's rather curious that very few outside the most fervid of court-watchers seem to be discussing the distinct possibility that there could be one or two Supreme Court vacancies after the current term ends this summer.

Justice Samuel Alito is 75 years old — and will be 76 by the end of this term. Justice Clarence Thomas is 77 years old — and will be 78 by term's end. Alito just celebrated 20 years of service on the high court, and Thomas would mark 35 years of service this October — nice round numbers. Alito has a forthcoming book set for release this October, around the start of the next Supreme Court term. That isn't anywhere near dispositive — Justice Amy Coney Barrett published a book last September, and Justice Neil Gorsuch has released two books since he was confirmed to the court in 2017 — but it has certainly fed speculation.

Thomas and Alito are, by some order of magnitude, the two most principled conservative justices currently sitting on the high court. It stands to reason that they would like to be replaced by ideological fellow travelers — something that likely requires a like-minded president and a like-minded U.S. Senate majority. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was very much an ideological fellow traveler, told Chris Wallace in a 2012 interview, "I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing what I've tried to do for 25-26 years. I mean, I shouldn't have to tell you that, unless you think I'm a fool."

If there is one thing we can say with certainty about Thomas, who is perhaps the single greatest living American, and Alito, who is perhaps the most authentic Burkean conservative on the high court, it is that they are decidedly not fools.

Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate. What's more, they face a remarkably favorable map this November: The GOP is defending very few (if any) swing-state Senate seats, and it will have enticing Senate pickup opportunities in Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire. But to paraphrase the old quip from former Israeli diplomat Abba Eban, Republicans oftentimes never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Accordingly, the increasingly voluble scuttlebutt out of Washington is that there is a chance Democrats retake not merely the nearly evenly divided House, but the Senate as well. Those odds are below 50 percent — the online exchange Polymarket, for instance, currently places the GOP's odds of retaining the Senate around 60 percent — but there is certainly a chance it happens.

That wouldn't just spell doom for the final two years of President Donald Trump's second term. It would be potentially calamitous for the future of the Supreme Court as well. Does anyone think that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and his Democratic caucus are not prepared to stall and refuse to confirm any prospective Trump nominee to the high court? Of course, they are prepared to do that. If Republicans lose the Senate this November and Thomas and Alito stick around through the 2028 presidential election, they will, in essence, be wagering on Republicans maintaining the White House and winning back the Senate.

Is that a risk worth taking?

In fairness, it might be. Republicans have historically botched few things more than they have Supreme Court nominations — from Justices William Brennan (brought to us by President Dwight Eisenhower), Harry Blackmun (President Richard Nixon), and David Souter (President George H.W. Bush), to some of the more milquetoast Trump selections such as Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. The track record is not exactly inspiring. And because Thomas and Alito are the two finest conservative jurists on the high court, there is little to no room for improvement, from a constitutionalist perspective — there can only be regression.

Nonetheless, despite the GOP's woeful judicial nominations track record, there are plenty of outstanding potential justices-in-waiting. My former boss, Judge James C. Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, a former Thomas clerk, is likely the single most principled originalist of all current lower-court federal judges. His 5th Circuit colleague Andrew Oldham, a fellow stalwart, happens to have the corresponding symbolism of being a former Alito clerk. D. John Sauer, the outstanding current U.S. solicitor general, is a former Scalia clerk and a rapidly emerging dark horse contender. There are other possible rock-solid nominees as well.

Far be it from me to encourage Thomas or Alito, each a hero of the American republic, to retire. But the timing does seem right. And as a political issue, a September confirmation showdown (or two) in the Senate Judiciary Committee could serve to boost Republican enthusiasm at the ballot box in November. In fact, it could be just what the doctor ordered.

quote:

Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate.

Looks good on paper but shaky at best in reality. Collins, Murkowski, McConnell, Tillis. Need I say more? The GOP needs to focus on gaining seats in November.

^^^^^
It’s possible that we’ll lose seats in November. Shaky is better than bad.

OTOH, Thomas might live longer than some younger liberal sitting Justices.

quote:

It’s possible that we’ll lose seats in November.

We might lose Maine (Collins). NC (Tillis retiring) is a toss up. So, we might lose both ME and NC. But,

Focus on getting Georgia (Ossoff), a toss up, and MI (Peters retiring), also toss up. All current models show the GOP retaining senate majority.

KY (McConnell retiring) is solid red.

Murkowski (AK) is not up for reelection.

So, say, losing three GOP Trump haters but gaining three new senators, who will likely be better, is a big win.

Trumps Supreme Court picks seem iffy at best

^^^^
I think that they’re pretty solid. They adhere to the Constitution and precedent, when applicable. Sometimes the result isn’t what conservatives would like, but it’s what they’re supposed to do.

Yeah, we sure don’t want to know how Killary or Kackle would have picked.

It probably ain't going to happen, but I pray that Thomas and Alito outlive me.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
It probably ain't going to happen, but I pray that Thomas and Alito outlive me.

I certainly hope they live long, happy lives, but don’t want them to roll the dice on the RBG plan. We can’t count on what would happen after Trump.

Thomas and Alito appear cognitively intact unless some unforseen health issue arises. I know quite a few professionals who are working at their age.
In contrast we have Maxine Waters,Chuck Schumer and Nadler who are well past their prime. Maxine does provide some entertainment. I wonder whether she will donate that wig to the Smithsonian.

Scalia appeared fine. No one saw his sudden death coming.

Who knows if he ever had a recent checkup. He died at Cibolo Creek Ranch in which is rather remote. It is certainly a place where I would love to visit. https://www.hotelsone.com/marf...1109712&dstt=8&nid=1
THe reviews are something else as are the prices. You could probably make some good business connections. There is a private airstrip close by should you chose not to drive,

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ZSMICHAEL,

All three of Tump's selections betrayed him. Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, and Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. Faux Conservatives!

quote:

All three of Tump's selections betrayed him.

Ridiculous!

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
All three of Tump's selections betrayed him. Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, and Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. Faux Conservatives!

I'm pleased when Republicans get to choose a justice as I'd assume they will generally rule more in line with my view of the Constitution, but I sure as heck don't want them "loyal" to the guy that nominated them. Trump obviously sees it differently.

quote:

All three of Tump's [sic] selections betrayed him.

They take an oath of loyalty to this, not the man.

I think that President Trump’s SCOTUS picks are pretty solid. They adhere to the Constitution (and precedent when applicable). Sometimes the result isn’t what conservatives would like, but it’s what they’re supposed to do.

The latest ruling against the tariffs was not against the tariffs themselves, it was whether he had the legal right to impose them under a particular law. There are other laws he can use, a Plan B, if you will. Or a Trump card.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

All three of Tump's selections betrayed him.

Ridiculous!

Consider the source. He should really stick to spamming the forum.