Gorsuch has been a godsend so far. But the fight over this one is guaranteed to be a barnburner.
Via Daily Wire:
According to Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, the White House has narrowed down its list of potential Supreme Court nominees to a top five: Brett Kavanaugh, 53, of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; Amul Thapar, 49, of the 6th Circuit; Amy Barrett, 46, of the 7th Circuit; Thomas Hardiman, 52, of the 3rd Circuit; and Raymond Kethledge, 51, of the 6th Circuit.
Here’s what we know about them.
Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh is a former clerk for Justice Kennedy. He was elevated to the federal bench in 2006, after a three-year delay. His nomination was delayed thanks to Democratic upset over the fact that Kavanaugh worked for Kenneth Starr in the office of the Solicitor General, and had the temerity to say that the Clinton administration targeted Starr. Kavanaugh has been on the court for quite a while, and has a long record — he’s authored nearly 300 decisions. He recently dissented when the circuit decided that a 17-year-old illegal immigrant detainee had a right to an abortion (he explained that the decision was “based on a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong”), and held in 2011 that the Washington, D.C. ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement were unconstitutional under Heller. He also held that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau structure was unconstitutional. Kavanaugh, like Chief Justice Roberts, is known for working across the aisle. Kavanaugh is, on the downside, a general believer in Chevron deference — the notion that administrative agencies ought to be granted deference by the judicial branch. Kavanaugh reportedly does not use textualist methods nearly as much as conservatives might wish. Worst, Kavanaugh upheld Obamacare in Sissel v. Department of Health and Human Services as well as in Seven-Sky v. Holder, in which he stated that the Obamacare penalties were actually “taxes.” Kavanaugh seems far more likely to be a second Roberts than a second Gorsuch.
Amul Thapar. Thapar is relatively new to the appellate courts. He voted to uphold Ohio’s method of lethal injection, and a Michigan government meeting’s opening with a Christian prayer. Thapar has ruled that monetary donations are a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. Because Thapar’s record is relatively thin, there’s not much to go on with regard to major hot-button issues like abortion and religious freedom. With that said, Professor Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School describes Thapar as “very Scalia-like and Thomas-like.” Indeed, Thapar has criticized Richard Posner’s “pragmatism” in judicial theory because using pragmatism rather than text “would elevate judges to the position of ‘co-legislator.’” He is a textualist who has praised Scalia himself.