« Michael McConnell on the Ninth Amendment
Mike Rappaport
| Main | Lee Strang: State Court Judges are Not Bound by Nonoriginalist Supreme Court Interpretations
Michael Ramsey »


Trump's Justices [Updated with a Comment on the Senate's Duty]
Michael Ramsey

As has been widely reported, Donald Trump released a list of prospective Supreme Court nominees.  Here's the list (with links, via Powerline):

Steven Colloton (8th Cir.)
Allison Eid (Colorado Sup. Court)
Raymond Gruender (8th Cir.)
Thomas Hardiman (3d. Cir.)
Raymond Kethledge (6th Cir.)
Joan Larsen (Mich. Sup. Court)
Thomas Rex Lee (Utah Sup. Court and brother of Sen. Mike Lee)
William Pryor (11th Cir.)
David Stras (Minnesota Sup. Court)
Diane Sykes (7th Cir.)
Don Willett (Texas Supreme Court)

Positive reactions come from Eugene Volokh, Ilya Shapiro ["Donald Trump's Terrific List of Fabulous Judges"], and Paul Mirengoff and John Hinderaker [Powerline] -- a good cross-section of conservative/libertarian thinking.

I'm only familiar with the judicial philosophy of Diane Sykes, William Pryor and (to a lesser extent) Tom Lee, but all three have  strong originalist/textualist orientations.  As Eugene Volokh points out, three (Eid, Lee and Stras) are former Clarence Thomas clerks, and Joan Larsen is a former Scalia clerk.

Notably, these are mostly not names that would come to mind for a non-lawyer not much interested in courts, and yet all seem plausible picks likely to be broadly acceptable in conservative/libertarian circles.  I conclude that Trump has some very thoughtful legal conservatives advising him on this.  (Of course, whether in the end he would listen to them is another question).

UPDATE:  Judiciary Chair Grassley likes the list.

So, for those who think the Senate has a constitutional duty to offer advice on presidential nominations, why isn't this advice (offered through a duly designated officer)?  The Senate's message to the President is, pick someone from this list (or someone similar).  Of course, the President won't, and needn't -- but surely there's no obligation to offer welcome advice.

And for those who think the Senate has a constitutional duty to "consider" the nomination of Judge Garland, why isn't this "considering" it?  The Senate [through a duly designated officer] has concluded, after considering the matter, that Judge Garland is not similar in judicial philosophy to the people on the Trump list.

FURTHER UPDATE:  Josh Blackman is "cautiously optimistic" about the list, at NRO.