Posted on 07/10/2018 8:20:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I’ve got a piece up over at the Washington Post about the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. It was a safe choice — and an opportunity lost. There was a choice out there that fired the conservative imagination, the kind of choice that arguably only a Donald Trump would have the guts to make:
There was a moment, in the early afternoon of July 9, when conservatives contemplated the delightful possibility that they might witness the best possible version of President Trump — the man with the will (and flair for the dramatic) that would allow him to be bolder than the average Republican president. The best version of Trump would have been nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
Would another Republican have the guts to put forward a nominee who would so clearly inflame the culture wars? Would another Republican president shatter the GOP nominee mold by selecting a mother of seven kids, an outspoken Christian and a graduate from a “normal” non-Ivy League law school? The base-motivating, electrifying pick was right there, in the palm of his hand.
Then, he went establishment. He chose a man that any Republican president would have nominated. He made the best safe choice he could: Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
This does not mean that Kavanaugh will be a bad justice. Over time, I think he’ll prove to be a solid (and perhaps even excellent) pick. And, over the next several weeks, we’ll see an avalanche of progressive attacks, many of them labeling even his best and most rigorous opinions “extremist” or “dangerous.” Kavanaugh will be an easy pick to defend. But it’s simply a fact that tonight my inbox is lighting up with responses — many of them from Trump supporters — expressing a sense of regret.
And to those saying, “Relax, it will be her next time,” we should remember all the passed-over judges who never, ever saw that “next time.” There’s zero guarantee that Trump will get another SCOTUS pick. We don’t know of any justices pondering retirement, and nobody should be ghoulish enough to predict any justice’s demise. Don’t for a moment think Ruth Bader Ginsburg will step down under President Trump. So, until proven otherwise, I stand by my assessment.
One final note: You wouldn’t believe how often conservative professionals ask my advice about how “open” to be on their CV’s, in their social media, and online about their conservative religious affiliations. Ever since Brendan Eich, there’s a palpable sense that there’s a stained-glass ceiling descending on certain professions (including law) restricting the upward mobility of orthodox Christians. Barrett’s nomination wouldn’t “just” have put an outstanding originalist on the Court for 30 years, it would have helped blunt the force of secular bigotry. The direct confrontation between an angry secular Left and an accomplished, poised Christian professional would have represented a culturally important moment.
But alas, it was not to be. Kavanaugh will be an excellent judge. In a more functional political system, he’d win confirmation by an overwhelming majority and not the slim margin he’ll likely receive. I’ll defend him vigorously from unfair critiques tomorrow, but tonight I join many conservatives in a slight sigh of regret. There was a better choice.
I doubt Trump will get another pick this term.
From what I’ve read Kavanaugh will be easier to get confirmed due to his remarkable credentials and this solidifies a conservative court (we hope).
Barrett can be the icing on the cake when the time comes.
Huh?! I didn’t say one word about Mike Lee. I can’t stand hypocrites like him. No, my concern is as big and wide as this country. No one can tell me the only people qualified to be on SCOTUS are those from the Harvard-Yale-DC pipeline.
You strain yourself to hear a voice of reason from the left. This Kristin Willibrand is a nut case. How can people vote for people like this? How? Because the GOP puts up idiots. Surely we can find someone great to run against her in New York.
Save Ms. Barrett for the next spot.
This is as much about this year’s senate races as it is the USSC seat. Rand Paul will piss and moan, then vote for confirmation. By him putting himself in the ‘nay’ column right now, he is teaming with Trump to put pressure on those red state Dem senators, each of whom would be the deciding vote if Paul were to vote no.
Enjoy watching Manchin, et al, squirm. This is the ride we signed on for when we punched Trump’s ticket in 2016.
4D chess,Trump style.
In Trump I Trust
I thought long and hard about that. She would have to move her young family out of nice and safe South Bend into a DC jungle. Find new schools, her husband would have to find a new job. She would no longer be able to teach (as much) in Notre Dame. Her confirmation hearing would be brutal and she would be harassed in public maybe her family too. Can easily see her not wanting the job at this time.
Using a George Will like Baseball analogy, Barrett is the closer.
Am I wrong to think that if RBG bites the dust, Nominating Barrett to replace her would kick off Civil War II? LOL
You can’t be serious. Maybe you should read a few articles before showing your ignorance.
National Review seemed to be pulling for Barrett or Kavanaugh before the announcement. Today they are hailing the choice of Kavanaugh.
If the National Review is opposed, then he must be outstanding.
When an issue of NR with an equally bold cover saying, "We Were Wrong" and filled with articles saying how badly the jerks at NR got it all wrong about Trump, then a skeptical reading of NR opinions may be in order. Until then, they've made their goal clear, they're Against Trump and all they spew is misinformation and misdirection.
That was exactly my thought as I read that sentence. NR just have to have something to bitch about re PDJT or they're not happy are they?
Barrett is 46 years old and has been a circuit judge for about five minutes.
AND
This Senate would never have confirmed her
AND
When she is nominated to replace RBG the liberal tears will create another ocean, so vast will they be.
It’s all good.
RE: If the National Review is opposed, then he must be outstanding.
Did you read the article? It is not an article that opposes him.
The article can be summarized in a few words: HE’s OK BUT WE COULD HAVE DONE BETTER.
“Maybe you should read a few articles before showing your ignorance.”
Maybe you shouldn’t read NR as fact and drink their anti-Trump, anti-Conservative Kool-aid.
That’s just pure stupidity and ignorance on your part.
Rumor has it that Kennedy only agreed to retire if one of his clerks was nominated. Or only if B.K was nominated. Trump is a deal maker so I find this rumor believable. Not saying it is true, just plausible.
Agree. Good analysis.
Trump appears to know what he’s doing.
Haven’t heard much about tariffs either. I suspect the word around the campfire is that Europe will have to cave, and China probably too.
That we’re getting together with Putin is good too. If the entire world can get to competing economically and not militarily, we can begin to pay down all this friggin’ debt.
Never-Trumpers want Trump to lose, and I do think that nominating Barrett would result in the absolute loss of the House bringing the specter of impeachment and who knows what else. To top it all off, there is no way Barrett would get past confirmation in a 50-49 Senate. I cannot help but think that the Never-Trumpers know these things quite well.
The vile and loathsome french needs to drop dead. As for the NeverTrump Natl Review, that rag will go BK as soon as rich dirtbags stop financially supporting those scumbags.
I have a hard time believing that, it's similar to a President making a deal with a potential appointment - I don't think either is appropriate and hope justices are above deal making - but that's just me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.