Clarence Thomas might rank higher on my list.
Roberts is a guy I’m not to thrilled with after his Obamacare decision.
Why did you pick Gorsuch first?
I don’t disagree with meeting Kagan, but she wouldn’t be a pick of mine.
Perhaps you could explain a few of these. I have no problem with your selection.
Gorsuch is first because he has written about his opposition to Substantive Due Process and willingness to restrict the doctrine of Chevron Deference. He is the most likely to be the new Scalia. I could listen to him for hours. I suspect Roberts is trying to forge a centrist coalition that produces narrow opinions which curb judicial activism and restores the Court as an arbiter of law and not a maker of policy. His Obamacare opinion is consistent with that philosophy. With Kagan I’d like to know the potential extent of her drift toward the center, whether she can take Breyer with her, and which center-right justice could lead her. I think she’s something of an enigma, which is why I’d like to meet her. Thomas follows in Hugo Black’s footsteps as favoring full incorporation of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment Privileges and Immunities Clause, which is an interesting pairing of Justices. Based on that I already know what his opinion will say in Timbs v. Indiana next term regarding the 8th Amendment Excessive Fines Clause. While I’m reluctant to embrace the doctrine of full incorporation, I agree with him on most everything so I don’t have that many questions for him. Don’t get me wrong; I’d enjoy spending an evening with him, as I already do with like minded friends. With Alito I would discuss where he wants the line between religious beliefs and adherence to the law, but he is the justice about which I know the least. Maybe he’s the one I should meet.
The last two I find intellectually dishonest partisan hacks and dinner with them would be thoroughly unenjoyable. I’ll bet they’d serve something with a lot of green peppers which I despise.