The Oklahoman

President must stick to his list

- Jonah Goldberg JonahsColu­mn@ aol.com

Presumably, as you read this, the White House is setting up its war room for the Supreme Court confirmati­on battle to come. But before the administra­tion goes to the mattresses, it first must pick a nominee. And that is why I hope White House counsel Don McGahn, who’s leading the search, is hanging a sign for all to see: “It’s the list, stupid.”

The White House will come under incredible pressure from the news media, Democrats and some Republican­s to abandon the list of potential Supreme Court nominees President Trump campaigned on (and later expanded slightly). On Sunday, Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said on ABC’s “This Week” that the president “should not feel bound” by the list.

Yes, yes he should.

All presidents claim broad mandates for virtually all their campaign promises. But the president has no clearer decree than fidelity to this list.

During the presidenti­al primaries, as Trump inched closer to securing the nomination, millions of Republican­s remained lukewarm about his candidacy. Their biggest substantiv­e reservatio­n: the Supreme Court.

In 2016, Trump issued a list of 11 names he would choose from to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. The lineup had been outsourced to, and approved by, the conservati­ve legal organizati­on the Federalist Society and the conservati­ve think tank the Heritage Foundation. In consultati­on with those groups, Trump later expanded the list, once during the general election and then again last November. Now it stands at 25 names.

The list isn’t perfect. Still, everyone on it is eminently qualified for the job, albeit some more than others. And contrary to some of the chatter one hears on social media and cable TV, the list is emphatical­ly non-Trumpist. Nearly everyone on it would have been considered by any other Republican president.

Indeed, that’s why the would-be president had to put out the list in the first place. Many in the GOP were willing to throw the dice on Trump the Disruptor when it came to immigratio­n or trade, but the Supreme Court was too important to take a flyer on. By design, the list isn’t radical. It’s reassuring, at least to the voters who elected Trump.

Nothing unifies the right more than the idea that this president should appoint conservati­ve judges. Of course, if you’re a liberal, uniting the right is hardly a priority. But the simple fact is that any potential nominee who could conceivabl­y win even a handful of Democratic senators would be a betrayal of Trump’s most important campaign promise and would cost him far more in Republican support.

If Trump were to nominate an obviously solid conservati­ve not on the list, conservati­ves would probably live with it, but it would be a needless breach of trust with Republican­s that would earn nothing from Democrats. Meanwhile, if he were to name some “bipartisan” liberal judge, the conservati­ve backlash against George W. Bush after his nomination of Harriet Miers would seem by comparison like a polite disagreeme­nt over a game of bridge at the old age home.

So it’s fine for Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris to declare that the list’s 25 potential nominees are “complete nonstarter­s.” The fact is, anyone Trump might nominate would be a nonstarter for her and nearly all of the Democratic caucus. There’s no Solomonic bipartisan compromise that could please everybody.

For Trump, sticking to the list would please more people than any other option within the realm of the possible. It also would have the most democratic legitimacy because this is what the president very explicitly campaigned on.

That seems like a good standard to adhere to these days. Liberals who demand that the president untether himself from this commitment and go with his instincts may not have thought through how that might work out.

Law Enforcemen­t at the Border is doing a great job, but the laws they are forced to

work with are insane.” President Trump, in part of a series of tweets Thursday regarding immigratio­n

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States