What a Liberal Wants: Supreme Court Justice Edition

President Trump, in perhaps the smartest move of his entire Presidential campaign, released a list of candidates that he would pick from when choosing Supreme Court nominees should Americans choose to elect him President. Liberals slammed President Trump for relying on “special interest groups” such as the Federalist Society when crafting the list, acting as if the American public actually believed that Democratic Presidents never thought about how NARAL might feel about the Supreme Court nominees they put forward. The death of originalist icon Antonin Scalia in February 2016, just nine months before the 2016 Presidential Election, really shook up the race and allowed President Trump to energize the conservative base by reminding them that should Hillary Clinton win the Presidential Election, the Court would permanently tilt to the left (polling showed that Americans already saw the Supreme Court as too liberal.)

Needless to say, President Trump ended up winning the 2016 Presidential Election.  Exit polling showed that the overwhelming majority of those who considered the Supreme Court the most important issue facing the country supported President Trump.  President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court just eleven days after taking office and confirmation took place within the first 100 days of his Presidency.  President Trump had a second opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice when Anthony Kennedy, the judge who gave us gay marriage, announced his decision to retire.  President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh, one of Kennedy’s former law clerks, to succeed him and confirmation hearings will begin next week; much to the chagrin of Senate Democrats.   

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, did not make a list of candidates she would choose from to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Justice Scalia. Maybe she thought she had it in the bag or maybe she thought she did not need to pick anybody because the Republicans would confirm Merrick Garland during the lame duck session of Congress before she had the chance to pick somebody even more liberal, such as President Obama, for the seat. Either way, with two of the Court’s most liberal judges, Ginsburg and Breyer, already into their 80s, the Supreme Court will likely find itself as a wedge issue in the 2020 Presidential election.

With that in mind, what might a list of liberal Supreme Court Justice picks look like?  Ordinarily, Presidents from both parties would consult with the American Bar Association and only pick candidates that the ABA rated as “well-qualified.”  However, as I pointed out during one of my school newspaper articles during my senior year of college, the Supreme Court has become a political branch.  Take a look at this excerpt of my article, which I wrote shortly after President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court has become the biggest political football of American politics in recent decades.

This is because there are competing philosophies as to what the purpose of the Court is. Chief Justice John Roberts said during his Confirmation hearings that the purpose of a Supreme Court Justice is to “call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat”. Others believe that it is the purpose of the Court to step in and act when the other branches of government have failed to solve particular problems.

 

The Confirmation hearings can be brutal. Just ask Clarence Thomas, who had to ward off sexual assault allegations during his Confirmation hearing. While most Supreme Court nominees going before the Senate Judiciary Committee 25 years ago could expect to eventually pass the full Senate with a nearly unanimous vote; that is almost unheard of today.

All of this evidence points to an obvious conclusion: The purpose of the Supreme Court is no longer to interpret the Constitutionality of particular laws but rather to advance specific policy goals. At least that’s the way members of the Senate see it. Expect Trump’s nominee to be asked at least once about whether Roe v. Wade is “settled law.”

It was previously assumed that Supreme Court justices would use the Constitution and not their personal opinions when making decisions. However, human nature makes it very difficult to be impartial.

It would be nice to think that the Supreme Court did not have a policy-making agenda and instead stuck to interpreting the Constitutionality of the laws that come before it. However, I cannot be so naïve.


Back to 2018, in the era of Trump, association with #TheResistance serves as a more effective qualification than admiration from the American Bar Association.  By this characteristic alone, Trump impeachment architect Al Green would seem like an ideal candidate to serve as Supreme Court Justice.  However, vacating his seat in Congress could hypothetically lead to Republicans picking it up in a special election; even though Hillary Clinton carried it with more than 75 percent of the vote in 2016.  Similar scenarios took place in 2010, where Republicans picked up a House seat in a deep blue Hawaii Congressional district that President Obama carried with more than 70 percent of the vote as well as a Senate seat in deep blue Massachusetts, a state President Obama carried with 62 percent of the vote.  In 2011, Republicans picked up Anthony Weiner’s Congressional seat in New York City, which President Obama had carried with 55 percent of the vote in 2008. While many other members of the #Resistance with law degrees currently serve in Congress, Democrats might want to refrain from opening the can of worms that might come with them vacating their seats. 

Several judges have done their best to signal to Democrats in Congress their commitment to #TheResistance and liberal judicial activism, especially Judge William Orrick of San Francisco.  Orrick, who has a relationship with a Planned Parenthood-affiliated medical complex, put a gag order on the pro-life group Center for Medical Progress, preventing them from releasing undercover videos documenting conversations with Planned Parenthood officials.  In addition, Orrick also prevented President Trump from withholding federal funding from sanctuary cities who thumb their nose at Federal immigration law.      

In addition to activist judges primarily based out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the “left coast,” liberals also have quite a few Democratic State Attorneys General who have done their best to make the Trump Presidency a living hell.

Xavier Becerra: A Former Congressman, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has worked closely with Judge Orrick in making life difficult for the Center for Medical Progress; picking up where his predecessor, Now-Senator Kamala Harris, left off.  In addition, Bacerra barred state-funded travel to a series of red states including Texas, Alabama, Kentucky and South Dakota because of laws that allow religious-based adoption agencies to refuse to same-sex couples.  This guy clearly has no respect for Federalism, unless it comes to immigration law, which he believes every state should have the power to decide on its own despite the fact that immigration clearly falls within the Federal government’s purview.     

Douglas Chin:  Former Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin decided to resign his post earlier this year, instead choosing to run for the open seat in Hawaii’s 1^st Congressional District because he thought that he could more effectively combat the Trump agenda as a member of Congress.  Chin had already established himself as a foe of the Trump administration by suing the administration over every single one of its travel bans.  Chin ultimately lost the Democratic primary for the Congressional race earlier this month and will continue to serve as Hawaii Lieutenant Governor until after the gubernatorial election this fall. 

Bob Ferguson: Just a week into the Trump Presidency, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed suit against the President’s first travel ban directed at terror-prone countries; which a Seattle-based Federal judge promptly declared unconstitutional.  Ferguson has also prosecuted Barronelle Stutzman, the florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. 

The list would have included Former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman who led a lawsuit trying to stop President Trump’s recision of DACA, but his career came to an abrupt end when it became public that he physically abused former girlfriends.  A self-proclaimed champion of the #MeToo movement, Schneiderman stepped down from his post earlier this year.  Acting Attorney General Barbara Underwood has picked up where Schneiderman left off, specifically by filing a lawsuit against the Trump Foundation.   

In addition, quite a few people who would like to become Attorney General also come to mind as liberals’ ideal Supreme Court Justices:

Zephyr Teachout: Fordham University Law Professor Zephyr Teachout hopes to succeed Schneiderman as New York Attorney General.  Teachout had previously ran in the Democratic Primary for Governor of New York in 2014 and later as the Democratic nominee for New York’s 19^th Congressional District in 2016, and lost both races.  Hoping to make the third time a charm, Teachout posted a video of herself promising to abolish ICE, which she refers to as “a tool of fear and illegality,” should she win the September 13 primary and the general election. New York Democrats apparently consider demonizing the law enforcement agency as an effective strategy, with Governor Andrew Cuomo describing them as “a bunch of thugs” during his debate with his primary challenger Cynthia Nixon.    

Keith Ellison: While domestic abuse allegations may ultimately derail his campaign to become Minnesota Attorney General, Congressman Keith Ellison, who also serves as Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee, has become a folk hero of the left during his 12-year tenure in Washington, D.C.  Ellison wore a shirt proclaiming “I don’t believe in borders” in Spanish.    

This list only includes six people, as opposed to the 24 jurists on President Trump’s revised list of Supreme Court candidates last updated in November.  While the Supreme Court may not find itself a major issue again until 2020, a lot remains at stake in the 2018 election.  According to Axios, Republicans on Capitol Hill have begun circulating a spreadsheet of all of the investigations the Democrats will open up in an effort to bring the Trump agenda to a screeching halt. The spreadsheet reportedly lists over 100 possible investigations, which the Republicans based on “formal requests from House Democrats,” that have ultimately gone nowhere thanks to Nancy Pelosi not controlling the speakers’ gavel.  Should the tables turn, the “deplorables” may end up kissing the Make America Great Again agenda goodbye.  Note to all “deplorables” keep in mind the list of potential Supreme Court Justices I created as well as the spreadsheet when voting in 2018 as well as 2020.