Since Justice Anthony Kennedy announced that he’d be resigning his post on the Supreme Court at the end of July, the President and his staff have been feverishly vetting their list of preferred candidates to replace him on the court.
The entire list is filled with worthy names, far better than many of the names that the last three Republican Presidents considered – like Harriet Miers, David Souter, and of course, Anthony Kennedy. Thanks in large part to the input of the Heritage Foundation, almost any of the names that the President announces will be sure to be an improvement over the retiring Kennedy.
South Carolina Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) argues that there should be one more name on President Trump’s list, that of his fellow South Carolina politician, Trey Gowdy (R-SC).
During an interesting conversation with CNN’s Van Jones (who is even further left than Barack Obama), Senator Scott argued that Gowdy would be a wonderful addition to the Supreme Court.
Van Jones: There’s a Supreme Court vacancy coming up.
Tim Scott: I heard about that.
Van Jones: You may have heard about that.
Tim Scott: Yes.
Van Jones: Are there any deal breakers for you? If somebody were sitting, wanted to be a Supreme Court justice and they said I won’t commit to preserving marriage equality, do they get your vote?
Tim Scott: Listen, as opposed to go through all the hypotheticals, I’m going to wait until I find out who the candidates are and make some recommendations of my own.
Van Jones: Is marriage equality something that’s important to you?
Tim Scott: I don’t have — I don’t have a litmus test on a specific issue when I look at the candidates, look at their overall body of work. I’m going to recommend Trey Gowdy be one of the folks that I would have strong recommendation for him to be on the Supreme Court. I hope that the president will be open to that.
Van Jones: You can speak well for him. He is a co-author with you on a book about bringing the country together.
Tim Scott: Absolutely. He is incredibly fair, though. Republicans were angered — angry with him because he was so clear even with this administration. Democrats were angry with him because he was so clear with the previous administration. A guy who will call balls and strikes and not choose a side even when he’s elected member at this time in our nation’s history, that’s hard to find.
It’s an interesting point, and Gowdy is an experienced legal mind, i’m just not so sure he’s at the level of brilliance that we normally require of our Supreme Court justices.
There is another surprising inclusion to the mix of advice for President Trump. Liberal legal scholar, Alan Dershowitz, who is normally a reliable leftist, thinks that President Trump should nominate a conservative-libertarian jurist! It seems that Dershowitz is more fearful of the left’s current trend towards tyranny than he is of Republicans stacking the Court.
.@AlanDersh: "If [President @realDonaldTrump] wants to unite the country and broaden his own base is to pick a true conservative libertarian, one who emphasizes individual liberty over the power of the state." #SundayFutures @MariaBartiromo pic.twitter.com/VmXU3aQ6rz
— Fox News (@FoxNews) July 1, 2018
Wow. A beautiful defense of liberty, even if it means a tougher time for his party.
I think Dershowitz is right. TRUE liberals (not progressives) would probably be better off supporting a nominee who emphasizes individual liberty, even if he/she is a conservative, than they would be if they supported a leftwing judge who would allow Democrats to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights. (Particularly the 1st Amendment.)
The Executive Vice President of the Federalist Society, Leonard Leo, concurs with Professor Dershowitz. Leo also explained that while the Left is making this all about Roe v. Wade, the reality is that it’s highly unlikely that decision will ever be overturned no matter how many conservatives sit on the court. Even without overturning Roe v. Wade, this next Supreme Court justice pick could be transformative.
“Any Supreme Court confirmation is transformative. This is a court that is often equally divided. At the end of the day, I think what’s really important to remember is that there’s been a movement on the court towards being more originalist and textualist. In other words, the idea that law means something, it has determinate meaning. And that’s the trend that I think this president wants to continue.”
The point is… this nomination is a big deal. No matter which name the President calls, the impact will likely be felt for generations.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com