The current GOP base had established pretty clearly that NOTHING is more important to them than showing how much they LOVE their Lord and Savior, Donald Trump. Nothing else comes close, not personal moral character, not policies, and certainly not winning elections.
Interestingly, the ONE exception is one you mention above - vaccines. He made a (tepid) pro-vaccine comment at one of his rallies a year or more ago - something to the effect of admitting that he got vaccinated - and actually got booed. That is the only weakness in Trump's teflon armor I've seen with regard to his disciples, which is why he is now attacking the most famous anti-vaxxer in public life as pro-vaccines.
// I'm not sure why the answer is so obvious to you
1) Because Gorsuch & Kavanaugh have been on the bench for about the length of time as Roberts was when he made the Obamacare decision (~7 years?) + all passed the Dobbs litmus test. So unless Barrett turns into Miers in the near future, I think the current trajectory is perfectly reasonable to assume.
2) Because I rather suspect that a majority of principled conservatives are comfortable enough by now to also agree with me on this point. For example - if you were to theoretically poll principled conservatives for an opinion on this, I'd be very surprised if: a) Trump's nominations didn't rank higher than b) Bush's or c) Too Early to Tell.
// Bush's mistake, as correctable as it was
IMHO - only thanks to Krauthammer, who I really wish were still around to bail out conservatives on such poor decisions (among many other reasons).
// Would you have preferred a bunch of pointless partisan posturing?
Personally, no. But at the same time - you could understand that in our current environment, many conservatives view that vote more as a statement & would consequently trust Romney less on this issue (sans a preview list). Impossible to know for sure, but I can absolutely envision a circumstance where Romney would've first sought out Susan Collins for an approved candidate, especially given the razor-thin margins at Kavanaugh's time, for example. The other part of this answer would be a much longer discussion than we already have, getting into Romney's psychology of why he can't effectively defend himself (let alone others) from even the most ridiculous, baseless accusations. It just doesn't lend itself to thinking he has a strong enough spine when the heat turns up. You can certainly disagree, but it's still perfectly logical to conclude IMO.
I suppose what baffles me the most here is that you seem to think my couple opinions here aren't shared by a rather significant number of even principled conservatives.
>>Because Gorsuch & Kavanaugh have been on the bench for about the length of time as Roberts was when he made the Obamacare decision (~7 years?)
Just so I understand, your argument is that because Roberts (not Alito) -- 7 years into his Supreme Court tenure -- made a highly consequential judicial decision that you (and I) disagreed with, and that so far Gorsuch & Kavanaugh haven't done something that bad, and because there's some comparative argument to be made between Miers (who was withdrawn) and Barrett (who wasn't) that I'm honestly not following, it should go without saying, in your view, that the Supreme Court legacies of the five justices in question can now be determined, and accurately compared, in proportion with the presidents who nominated them?
If that's your argument, maybe you feel comfortable looking at that convoluted thesis and drawing a grand conclusion, but I'm not. And frankly, it's not a meaningful exercise to me anyway. I supported the nominations of all five of these people, and while Roberts has disappointed me at times, other conservative judges have done so in the past, and more assuredly will in the future.
>>IMHO - only thanks to Krauthammer,
Krauthammer definitely presented an easy, face-saving way out, but Miers' name would have been withdrawn regardless.
>>who I really wish were still around to bail out conservatives on such poor decisions (among many other reasons).
I miss the guy terribly. Unfortunately (though unsurprisingly), the MAGA-right hated him, and if he were still with us, he'd be as widely disdained by today's Republican Party as Liz Cheney is. He definitely wouldn't' be on Fox anymore.
By the way, I met Krauthammer and listened to him speak at his last non-televised public appearance. Among other things, he argued that SCOTUS nominees weren't worth electing Trump.
>>many conservatives view that vote more as a statement & would consequently trust Romney less on this issue (sans a preview list).
I don't recall many actual conservatives being offended by Romney's vote. Lots of MAGA-hacks were, of course, but that's pretty much true across the board. It used to be quite normal for the opposition party to help confirm minimally acceptable SCOTUS nominees.
>>I can absolutely envision a circumstance where Romney would've first sought out Susan Collins for an approved candidate
I have no idea why you think he would consult Susan Collins on his Supreme Court nomination.
>>why he can't effectively defend himself (let alone others) from even the most ridiculous, baseless accusations. It just doesn't lend itself to thinking he has a strong enough spine when the heat turns up. You can certainly disagree, but it's still perfectly logical to conclude IMO.
Oh, I think he's proven quite capable of defending himself and taking courageous positions, perhaps more so than any prominent politician of the last 8 years or so... just not in the way the MAGA-verse wants. It's so interesting to me that those on the right who define him as a wimp or failure always go back to a couple debate exchanges in 2012, and a loss to a popular, historically-significant incumbent... while giving a complete pass to the always-whining guy, who gave Democrats all kinds of things they wanted, and who lost as an incumbent to someone as unimpressive as Joe Biden, and handed Republicans their most epic political losses in 70 years.
>>I suppose what baffles me the most here is that you seem to think my couple opinions here aren't shared by a rather significant number of even principled conservatives.
I said no such thing. I was offering my view. That said, I'm guessing we probably have different definitions of "principled conservative."
John, the legacy of George Washington is still being debated; so I can just as easily call your length-of-time thesis convoluted. What I'm simply saying is that, ~7 years in, I believe I know enough to conclude who nominated the better Supreme Court Justices. And yes, landmark cases certainly lend more weight.
I don't believe it's pointless at all, as it's very important to know what future GOP will do & confirm they've actually learned lessons (to your earlier point). I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to extensively review recent Justice mistakes (including even Reagan's & certainly HW's) to determine whether there was indeed a lesson to be learned. Conclusion could simply be "Justices are just human & unpredictable" or maybe the Federalist Society already does that exercise & is now REALLY good at vetting candidates. If so - fantastic. But all the same - release a list. Bc conversely - I can't think of a recent Dem-appointed Justice or nominee who turned more Conservative over time. Perhaps laughable now, but I even recall Garland being thought of as too conservative at the time. So why do Dems always get it right & the GOP often doesn't? A question worth thinking about IMO.
// He definitely wouldn't be on Fox anymore
Perhaps not; but I also could not see him ending up on CNN or MSNBC.
// he's proven quite capable of defending himself
This opinion pre-dates MAGA; so I'm unclear why you inserted Trump here, as if that is the only alternative to effectively defending oneself? Romney certainly has a higher degree of integrity & is more courageous than your average politician. But I would argue his weakness (real or perceived) is a view shared by many independents & non-MAGA. There is a reason for that. There is also a middle-ground between Romney & Trump that many prefer. For example, the defense-style of DeSantis: direct, effective, coherent, strong, yet mostly not personal or unsolicited. In fact, I would go even further & suggest Haley's rise, was due in no small part to precisely that reason - her effective defenses.
// I'm guessing we probably have different definitions of "principled conservative."
And John - just a humble request here. When someone clearly disagrees with one of your points on merit, please stop straw-manning or mentioning Trump/MAGA in every response ("the MAGA-right hated him", "wouldn't be on FOX anymore", "Lots of MAGA-hacks were", "not in the way the MAGA-verse wants", "always-whining guy", etc etc). It frankly comes across as if you pick this one unrelated thing to invalidate someone's opinion or try to draw them out as a suspected closet-MAGA.
>>the legacy of George Washington is still being debated; so I can just as easily call your length-of-time thesis convoluted.
I'm comfortable evaluating a Supreme Court justice's legacy once they've left the bench.
>>What I'm simply saying is that, ~7 years in, I believe I know enough to conclude who nominated the better Supreme Court Justices
Congrats. I've seen enough shifts over the years to wait.
>>Perhaps not; but I also could not see him ending up on CNN or MSNBC.
I could see him on CNN. Other principled conservatives landed there.
>>so I'm unclear why you inserted Trump here,
Because Trump has proven to be an outstanding litmus test for evaluating a Republican politician's courage and capacity to stand up for the right things.
>>And John - just a humble request here.
Ryan, my point is that you presented that argument as if principled conservatives are still well represented in today's politics. They're not.
// Trump picked the names from a list provided by a conservative think tank
So? By not answering my question - you answered it. Trump's method (whatever it was) worked better than W's, for example. I'm old enough to remember the Harriet Miers fiasco, which Krauthammer bailed him out on. And Roberts, well, a mixed bag for sure. Trump also stuck with Kavanaugh, which others may not have done. It's entirely possible that a Haley or DeSantis would nominate similar caliber candidates as Trump; but Romney & several others wouldn't. Even for Republican primaries - I'd advise submitting a list from a conservative think tank, just as Trump did. A brilliant move that others should copy, if you ask me.
You generally got this right; in fact, you could even make the case a stronger GOP establishment leader would've delivered additional achievements, like health care reform, for example.
But this part is just wrong
// any establishment Republican president would have delivered...his Supreme Court nominees
I have zero confidence Romney, for example, would've nominated Trump's caliber of Supreme Court candidates. He'd have selected more moderate Justices OR would have rescinded a Kavanaugh the very moment Candy Crowley criticized him. My advice to future GOP establishment candidates (that none will likely take) - do EXACTLY what Trump previously did & give a preview list of Justices you'd nominate. To further the point, ask yourself this simple question: who nominated better Supreme Court Justices: W or Trump?
As John D pointed out in his article, Trump picked the names from a list provided by a conservative think tank. He didn't put any real thought into it (he didn't really need to). It was a campaign promise to the Evangelical wing of the GOP, which to Trump's credit, he honored. Also, as John D mentions, credit for getting those nominations through the Senate goes to McConnell, not Trump.
>>You could even make the case a stronger GOP establishment leader would've delivered additional achievements,
Yep, and I've made that case in the past.
>>I have zero confidence Romney, for example, would've nominated Trump's caliber of Supreme Court candidates. He'd have selected more moderate Justices OR would have rescinded a Kavanaugh the very moment Candy Crowley criticized him.
That's silly. Trump chose Republican-establishment picks from the Federalist Society, the same type of judges Romney campaigned for president on. Romney was a vocal supporter of Kavanaugh (though he wasn't yet in the Senate to be able to vote for him).
>>ask yourself this simple question: who nominated better Supreme Court Justices: W or Trump?
Both Roberts and Alito were from the Federalist Society too. If your point is that Roberts disappoints at times, I agree. But no one on the right foresaw his shift at the time. This has happened a number of times over the years with conservative justices, unfortunately, and it may well happen again with some of Trump's picks. If you're instead referring to Harriet Miers, she was a bad pick for sure. Luckily, it happened at a time when the Republican party still had principled conservatives who called it out quickly, and compelled Bush to reconsider.
1) The simple questions was - according to John Daly, who nominated better Supreme Court Justices - W or Trump? Since you won't directly answer, I can - Trump did. The reason that matters is that, based on the actual evidence we have, it directly refutes your basic point here - that any establishment GOP candidate would've made the same caliber of Justice picks as Trump did.
2) As for Romney - not sure why you consider it "silly" whether principled conservatives would fully trust a Romney-like figure on Justices. It's not as obvious to me that Romney wouldn't be more inclined to choose a Susan Collins-approved candidate than a Federalist Society-approved one. For example - what does the Federalist Society think of Romney's Yea vote on Ketanji Brown Jackson?
I 100% share your concern over future choices from Trump. The main point here being - any future GOP candidate (establishment or Trump himself) should take a page from Trump's own playbook: give a preview list of Justice candidates.
Seriously, Ryan? My point was that Bush's final nominee has been on the Supreme Court more than a decade longer than Trump's first nominee. We have lots more SCOTUS ruling from which to assess Roberts and Alito than we do Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Again, I was happy with all five of these picks (all Federalist Society judges), and I'm entirely open to the possibility that when all's said and done, Trump's nominees, on average, will have performed better than Bush's. But for now, I don't know... and I'm not sure why the answer is so obvious to you this early in the second group's tenures. Like I said, a number of justices over the years, who were believed to have been (and probably actually were) rock-ribbed conservatives, changed on the bench over time.
A point I should have expanded on about Miers is that I believe Bush's mistake, as correctable as it was, was so glaring that it not only taught Bush an important lesson, but also a lesson to any future Republican president. Again, Trump's picks (and Bush's picks as for that matter) weren't radical right-wingers. They were mainstream establishment-Republican types. The notion that Romney, who was a vocal supporter of Kavanaugh, and who is far more conservative than Trump, would not have nominated Kavanaugh or someone like him, or that he would have kicked Kavanaugh to the curb at the first sign of controversy, just doesn't track with me. Kavanaugh had the full backing of the Republican establishment, including George W. Bush who was working hard behind the scenes as a Kavanaugh advocate.
>>what does the Federalist Society think of Romney's Yea vote on Ketanji Brown Jackson?
Likely nothing. With Joe Biden doing the nominating, there's was zero chance of him picking a Federalist Society judge. And with the Democrats controlling the Senate (thanks to Donald Trump) any nominee he chose, who wasn't objectivity a lunatic, was going to make it through. Would you have preferred a bunch of pointless partisan posturing, with the end result the same?
>>any future GOP candidate (establishment or Trump himself) should take a page from Trump's own playbook: give a preview list of Justice candidates.
I agree. Whoever convinced Trump that he needed to do that (instead of continuing to promote his liberal sister for the position) did him a real political service.
I once took a course in 1900 Russian history . One of the books we were required to read was "Why Lenin? Why Stalin?" or something like that. The author argued that, first and foremost, Lenin and Stalin came to power by riding and sharpening the focus of deeply entrenched mass sentiment.
Someday, a historian should write a book titled "Why Trump?"
And no, I'm not comparing what Trump does and tries to do with what Lenin and Stalin did. I'm saying that Trump's socio-political hold is due to his ability to grasp certain deeply entrenched socio-political sentiments and to ride them. Accordingly, Trump helped to sharpen these sentiments and also has been influenced by them.
The current GOP base had established pretty clearly that NOTHING is more important to them than showing how much they LOVE their Lord and Savior, Donald Trump. Nothing else comes close, not personal moral character, not policies, and certainly not winning elections.
Interestingly, the ONE exception is one you mention above - vaccines. He made a (tepid) pro-vaccine comment at one of his rallies a year or more ago - something to the effect of admitting that he got vaccinated - and actually got booed. That is the only weakness in Trump's teflon armor I've seen with regard to his disciples, which is why he is now attacking the most famous anti-vaxxer in public life as pro-vaccines.
// I'm not sure why the answer is so obvious to you
1) Because Gorsuch & Kavanaugh have been on the bench for about the length of time as Roberts was when he made the Obamacare decision (~7 years?) + all passed the Dobbs litmus test. So unless Barrett turns into Miers in the near future, I think the current trajectory is perfectly reasonable to assume.
2) Because I rather suspect that a majority of principled conservatives are comfortable enough by now to also agree with me on this point. For example - if you were to theoretically poll principled conservatives for an opinion on this, I'd be very surprised if: a) Trump's nominations didn't rank higher than b) Bush's or c) Too Early to Tell.
// Bush's mistake, as correctable as it was
IMHO - only thanks to Krauthammer, who I really wish were still around to bail out conservatives on such poor decisions (among many other reasons).
// Would you have preferred a bunch of pointless partisan posturing?
Personally, no. But at the same time - you could understand that in our current environment, many conservatives view that vote more as a statement & would consequently trust Romney less on this issue (sans a preview list). Impossible to know for sure, but I can absolutely envision a circumstance where Romney would've first sought out Susan Collins for an approved candidate, especially given the razor-thin margins at Kavanaugh's time, for example. The other part of this answer would be a much longer discussion than we already have, getting into Romney's psychology of why he can't effectively defend himself (let alone others) from even the most ridiculous, baseless accusations. It just doesn't lend itself to thinking he has a strong enough spine when the heat turns up. You can certainly disagree, but it's still perfectly logical to conclude IMO.
I suppose what baffles me the most here is that you seem to think my couple opinions here aren't shared by a rather significant number of even principled conservatives.
>>Because Gorsuch & Kavanaugh have been on the bench for about the length of time as Roberts was when he made the Obamacare decision (~7 years?)
Just so I understand, your argument is that because Roberts (not Alito) -- 7 years into his Supreme Court tenure -- made a highly consequential judicial decision that you (and I) disagreed with, and that so far Gorsuch & Kavanaugh haven't done something that bad, and because there's some comparative argument to be made between Miers (who was withdrawn) and Barrett (who wasn't) that I'm honestly not following, it should go without saying, in your view, that the Supreme Court legacies of the five justices in question can now be determined, and accurately compared, in proportion with the presidents who nominated them?
If that's your argument, maybe you feel comfortable looking at that convoluted thesis and drawing a grand conclusion, but I'm not. And frankly, it's not a meaningful exercise to me anyway. I supported the nominations of all five of these people, and while Roberts has disappointed me at times, other conservative judges have done so in the past, and more assuredly will in the future.
>>IMHO - only thanks to Krauthammer,
Krauthammer definitely presented an easy, face-saving way out, but Miers' name would have been withdrawn regardless.
>>who I really wish were still around to bail out conservatives on such poor decisions (among many other reasons).
I miss the guy terribly. Unfortunately (though unsurprisingly), the MAGA-right hated him, and if he were still with us, he'd be as widely disdained by today's Republican Party as Liz Cheney is. He definitely wouldn't' be on Fox anymore.
By the way, I met Krauthammer and listened to him speak at his last non-televised public appearance. Among other things, he argued that SCOTUS nominees weren't worth electing Trump.
>>many conservatives view that vote more as a statement & would consequently trust Romney less on this issue (sans a preview list).
I don't recall many actual conservatives being offended by Romney's vote. Lots of MAGA-hacks were, of course, but that's pretty much true across the board. It used to be quite normal for the opposition party to help confirm minimally acceptable SCOTUS nominees.
>>I can absolutely envision a circumstance where Romney would've first sought out Susan Collins for an approved candidate
I have no idea why you think he would consult Susan Collins on his Supreme Court nomination.
>>why he can't effectively defend himself (let alone others) from even the most ridiculous, baseless accusations. It just doesn't lend itself to thinking he has a strong enough spine when the heat turns up. You can certainly disagree, but it's still perfectly logical to conclude IMO.
Oh, I think he's proven quite capable of defending himself and taking courageous positions, perhaps more so than any prominent politician of the last 8 years or so... just not in the way the MAGA-verse wants. It's so interesting to me that those on the right who define him as a wimp or failure always go back to a couple debate exchanges in 2012, and a loss to a popular, historically-significant incumbent... while giving a complete pass to the always-whining guy, who gave Democrats all kinds of things they wanted, and who lost as an incumbent to someone as unimpressive as Joe Biden, and handed Republicans their most epic political losses in 70 years.
>>I suppose what baffles me the most here is that you seem to think my couple opinions here aren't shared by a rather significant number of even principled conservatives.
I said no such thing. I was offering my view. That said, I'm guessing we probably have different definitions of "principled conservative."
// your argument
John, the legacy of George Washington is still being debated; so I can just as easily call your length-of-time thesis convoluted. What I'm simply saying is that, ~7 years in, I believe I know enough to conclude who nominated the better Supreme Court Justices. And yes, landmark cases certainly lend more weight.
I don't believe it's pointless at all, as it's very important to know what future GOP will do & confirm they've actually learned lessons (to your earlier point). I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to extensively review recent Justice mistakes (including even Reagan's & certainly HW's) to determine whether there was indeed a lesson to be learned. Conclusion could simply be "Justices are just human & unpredictable" or maybe the Federalist Society already does that exercise & is now REALLY good at vetting candidates. If so - fantastic. But all the same - release a list. Bc conversely - I can't think of a recent Dem-appointed Justice or nominee who turned more Conservative over time. Perhaps laughable now, but I even recall Garland being thought of as too conservative at the time. So why do Dems always get it right & the GOP often doesn't? A question worth thinking about IMO.
// He definitely wouldn't be on Fox anymore
Perhaps not; but I also could not see him ending up on CNN or MSNBC.
// he's proven quite capable of defending himself
This opinion pre-dates MAGA; so I'm unclear why you inserted Trump here, as if that is the only alternative to effectively defending oneself? Romney certainly has a higher degree of integrity & is more courageous than your average politician. But I would argue his weakness (real or perceived) is a view shared by many independents & non-MAGA. There is a reason for that. There is also a middle-ground between Romney & Trump that many prefer. For example, the defense-style of DeSantis: direct, effective, coherent, strong, yet mostly not personal or unsolicited. In fact, I would go even further & suggest Haley's rise, was due in no small part to precisely that reason - her effective defenses.
// I'm guessing we probably have different definitions of "principled conservative."
And John - just a humble request here. When someone clearly disagrees with one of your points on merit, please stop straw-manning or mentioning Trump/MAGA in every response ("the MAGA-right hated him", "wouldn't be on FOX anymore", "Lots of MAGA-hacks were", "not in the way the MAGA-verse wants", "always-whining guy", etc etc). It frankly comes across as if you pick this one unrelated thing to invalidate someone's opinion or try to draw them out as a suspected closet-MAGA.
>>the legacy of George Washington is still being debated; so I can just as easily call your length-of-time thesis convoluted.
I'm comfortable evaluating a Supreme Court justice's legacy once they've left the bench.
>>What I'm simply saying is that, ~7 years in, I believe I know enough to conclude who nominated the better Supreme Court Justices
Congrats. I've seen enough shifts over the years to wait.
>>Perhaps not; but I also could not see him ending up on CNN or MSNBC.
I could see him on CNN. Other principled conservatives landed there.
>>so I'm unclear why you inserted Trump here,
Because Trump has proven to be an outstanding litmus test for evaluating a Republican politician's courage and capacity to stand up for the right things.
>>And John - just a humble request here.
Ryan, my point is that you presented that argument as if principled conservatives are still well represented in today's politics. They're not.
// Trump picked the names from a list provided by a conservative think tank
So? By not answering my question - you answered it. Trump's method (whatever it was) worked better than W's, for example. I'm old enough to remember the Harriet Miers fiasco, which Krauthammer bailed him out on. And Roberts, well, a mixed bag for sure. Trump also stuck with Kavanaugh, which others may not have done. It's entirely possible that a Haley or DeSantis would nominate similar caliber candidates as Trump; but Romney & several others wouldn't. Even for Republican primaries - I'd advise submitting a list from a conservative think tank, just as Trump did. A brilliant move that others should copy, if you ask me.
You generally got this right; in fact, you could even make the case a stronger GOP establishment leader would've delivered additional achievements, like health care reform, for example.
But this part is just wrong
// any establishment Republican president would have delivered...his Supreme Court nominees
I have zero confidence Romney, for example, would've nominated Trump's caliber of Supreme Court candidates. He'd have selected more moderate Justices OR would have rescinded a Kavanaugh the very moment Candy Crowley criticized him. My advice to future GOP establishment candidates (that none will likely take) - do EXACTLY what Trump previously did & give a preview list of Justices you'd nominate. To further the point, ask yourself this simple question: who nominated better Supreme Court Justices: W or Trump?
As John D pointed out in his article, Trump picked the names from a list provided by a conservative think tank. He didn't put any real thought into it (he didn't really need to). It was a campaign promise to the Evangelical wing of the GOP, which to Trump's credit, he honored. Also, as John D mentions, credit for getting those nominations through the Senate goes to McConnell, not Trump.
>>You could even make the case a stronger GOP establishment leader would've delivered additional achievements,
Yep, and I've made that case in the past.
>>I have zero confidence Romney, for example, would've nominated Trump's caliber of Supreme Court candidates. He'd have selected more moderate Justices OR would have rescinded a Kavanaugh the very moment Candy Crowley criticized him.
That's silly. Trump chose Republican-establishment picks from the Federalist Society, the same type of judges Romney campaigned for president on. Romney was a vocal supporter of Kavanaugh (though he wasn't yet in the Senate to be able to vote for him).
>>ask yourself this simple question: who nominated better Supreme Court Justices: W or Trump?
Both Roberts and Alito were from the Federalist Society too. If your point is that Roberts disappoints at times, I agree. But no one on the right foresaw his shift at the time. This has happened a number of times over the years with conservative justices, unfortunately, and it may well happen again with some of Trump's picks. If you're instead referring to Harriet Miers, she was a bad pick for sure. Luckily, it happened at a time when the Republican party still had principled conservatives who called it out quickly, and compelled Bush to reconsider.
1) The simple questions was - according to John Daly, who nominated better Supreme Court Justices - W or Trump? Since you won't directly answer, I can - Trump did. The reason that matters is that, based on the actual evidence we have, it directly refutes your basic point here - that any establishment GOP candidate would've made the same caliber of Justice picks as Trump did.
2) As for Romney - not sure why you consider it "silly" whether principled conservatives would fully trust a Romney-like figure on Justices. It's not as obvious to me that Romney wouldn't be more inclined to choose a Susan Collins-approved candidate than a Federalist Society-approved one. For example - what does the Federalist Society think of Romney's Yea vote on Ketanji Brown Jackson?
I 100% share your concern over future choices from Trump. The main point here being - any future GOP candidate (establishment or Trump himself) should take a page from Trump's own playbook: give a preview list of Justice candidates.
>>Since you won't directly answer
Seriously, Ryan? My point was that Bush's final nominee has been on the Supreme Court more than a decade longer than Trump's first nominee. We have lots more SCOTUS ruling from which to assess Roberts and Alito than we do Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Again, I was happy with all five of these picks (all Federalist Society judges), and I'm entirely open to the possibility that when all's said and done, Trump's nominees, on average, will have performed better than Bush's. But for now, I don't know... and I'm not sure why the answer is so obvious to you this early in the second group's tenures. Like I said, a number of justices over the years, who were believed to have been (and probably actually were) rock-ribbed conservatives, changed on the bench over time.
A point I should have expanded on about Miers is that I believe Bush's mistake, as correctable as it was, was so glaring that it not only taught Bush an important lesson, but also a lesson to any future Republican president. Again, Trump's picks (and Bush's picks as for that matter) weren't radical right-wingers. They were mainstream establishment-Republican types. The notion that Romney, who was a vocal supporter of Kavanaugh, and who is far more conservative than Trump, would not have nominated Kavanaugh or someone like him, or that he would have kicked Kavanaugh to the curb at the first sign of controversy, just doesn't track with me. Kavanaugh had the full backing of the Republican establishment, including George W. Bush who was working hard behind the scenes as a Kavanaugh advocate.
>>what does the Federalist Society think of Romney's Yea vote on Ketanji Brown Jackson?
Likely nothing. With Joe Biden doing the nominating, there's was zero chance of him picking a Federalist Society judge. And with the Democrats controlling the Senate (thanks to Donald Trump) any nominee he chose, who wasn't objectivity a lunatic, was going to make it through. Would you have preferred a bunch of pointless partisan posturing, with the end result the same?
>>any future GOP candidate (establishment or Trump himself) should take a page from Trump's own playbook: give a preview list of Justice candidates.
I agree. Whoever convinced Trump that he needed to do that (instead of continuing to promote his liberal sister for the position) did him a real political service.
I once took a course in 1900 Russian history . One of the books we were required to read was "Why Lenin? Why Stalin?" or something like that. The author argued that, first and foremost, Lenin and Stalin came to power by riding and sharpening the focus of deeply entrenched mass sentiment.
Someday, a historian should write a book titled "Why Trump?"
And no, I'm not comparing what Trump does and tries to do with what Lenin and Stalin did. I'm saying that Trump's socio-political hold is due to his ability to grasp certain deeply entrenched socio-political sentiments and to ride them. Accordingly, Trump helped to sharpen these sentiments and also has been influenced by them.