This is a perceptive analysis, Mr. Lat. I have a follow-up question, though — a somewhat sensitive one which you may feel free to sidestep or ignore altogether without giving a particle of offense:
Of those you've mentioned, or others you're familiar with, who do you think Trump would think most likely to feel the strongest loyalty and allegiance to the POTUS who nominates him?
I phrase it this way so you won't have to assume or presume or impute lack of fidelity to the law to any of these judges. But another way of asking it would have been, justified or not (and we'll hope not), which of them would Trump perceive as most likely to try to bend the rules in a dispute involving Donald J. Trump?
I don't think he comprehends or gives a fig about the Rule of Law or anything other than his own aged butt, and I think if he gets a chance, he'll pick the candidate whom he thinks will be most personally loyal regardless of the law, but whom he could still get through the current Senate.
(An aside: Thanks for your link to the January 2024 New Yorker profile of Ms. Isgur. I note that although it's paywalled, the New Yorker chose to make it accessible to anyone using an "incognito" window.)
Great question! And here's my honest answer: I don't think any of the folks I've mentioned in this post are total Trump loyalists, a la Kash Patel or Matt Gaetz.
How quickly they'd rule against Trump might vary, depending on how hard or close a call is it. But I think all of them would be wiling to rule against him and his interests in a certain case, if the law required it.
And I guess this is where we can say thank God for Senate confirmation. Even if Trump pretty much owns the Republican Party, including most Republican senators, I don't think he could get a Jeff Clark or John Eastman confirmed (to name two people who would be total Trump loyalists).
To quote that Federalist Paper that Sarah Isgur and David French love to invoke (Federalist No. 76), the advise-and-consent power is “an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from state prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.”
One question to ask is: to what extent will Trump hand over the nomination of a justice to the Federalist Society? This time around, he may not defer to Leonard Leo et al. So we may see a surprise, such as Harriett Meyers under George Bush. The incoming Solicitor General is one possibility.
Thinking strategically, Judge Bumatay may be the best choice. He is ideologically strong but not perceived as a jerk. I cannot say the same for Judge Ho, for example.
Much depends on when a vacancy occurs. If it happens after the 2026 elections, Trump may face a hostile Senate. The Republicans will likely lose seats in the next election; they may even lose a majority. If that happens, the Democrats may say, "Talk to us about an acceptable candidate. If you refuse, the seat can remain vacant until after the 2028 election."
This is a perceptive analysis, Mr. Lat. I have a follow-up question, though — a somewhat sensitive one which you may feel free to sidestep or ignore altogether without giving a particle of offense:
Of those you've mentioned, or others you're familiar with, who do you think Trump would think most likely to feel the strongest loyalty and allegiance to the POTUS who nominates him?
I phrase it this way so you won't have to assume or presume or impute lack of fidelity to the law to any of these judges. But another way of asking it would have been, justified or not (and we'll hope not), which of them would Trump perceive as most likely to try to bend the rules in a dispute involving Donald J. Trump?
I don't think he comprehends or gives a fig about the Rule of Law or anything other than his own aged butt, and I think if he gets a chance, he'll pick the candidate whom he thinks will be most personally loyal regardless of the law, but whom he could still get through the current Senate.
(An aside: Thanks for your link to the January 2024 New Yorker profile of Ms. Isgur. I note that although it's paywalled, the New Yorker chose to make it accessible to anyone using an "incognito" window.)
Great question! And here's my honest answer: I don't think any of the folks I've mentioned in this post are total Trump loyalists, a la Kash Patel or Matt Gaetz.
How quickly they'd rule against Trump might vary, depending on how hard or close a call is it. But I think all of them would be wiling to rule against him and his interests in a certain case, if the law required it.
And I guess this is where we can say thank God for Senate confirmation. Even if Trump pretty much owns the Republican Party, including most Republican senators, I don't think he could get a Jeff Clark or John Eastman confirmed (to name two people who would be total Trump loyalists).
To quote that Federalist Paper that Sarah Isgur and David French love to invoke (Federalist No. 76), the advise-and-consent power is “an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from state prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.”
One question to ask is: to what extent will Trump hand over the nomination of a justice to the Federalist Society? This time around, he may not defer to Leonard Leo et al. So we may see a surprise, such as Harriett Meyers under George Bush. The incoming Solicitor General is one possibility.
Thinking strategically, Judge Bumatay may be the best choice. He is ideologically strong but not perceived as a jerk. I cannot say the same for Judge Ho, for example.
Much depends on when a vacancy occurs. If it happens after the 2026 elections, Trump may face a hostile Senate. The Republicans will likely lose seats in the next election; they may even lose a majority. If that happens, the Democrats may say, "Talk to us about an acceptable candidate. If you refuse, the seat can remain vacant until after the 2028 election."