As all who care are aware, liberal-leaning Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer recently announced that he is retiring from the Court at the end of its term in June.  President Joe Biden has already indicated that he intends to nominate an African-American woman to Justice Breyer’s seat, fulfilling a campaign pledge.  I have seen electronic and print media accounts listing U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit Ketanji Brown Jackson, 51, California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, 45, U.S. SC District Judge Julianna Michelle Childs, 55, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago) Candace Rae Jackson-Akiwumi, 43, and U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Second Circuit (New York) Eunice Cheryl Lee, 51, as potential nominees.  The names of other black women jurists will undoubtedly surface.  I have no knowledge of any of these candidates, but have seen brief reports that Justice Kruger and Judge Childs are relatively more moderate (i.e., less progressive) in their judicial philosophies.  U.S. SC Rep. James Clyburn, an extremely influential supporter of Mr. Biden, has already stated his support for Judge Childs.  U.S. SC Republican Sens. Lindsay Graham and Tim Scott have also already announced their support for Judge Childs, seemingly all but ensuring that absent now-unforeseen factors, she would have a straightforward and relatively uncontentious Senate confirmation process.

In past notes addressing other Presidential nominations, I have set forth an admittedly simple – and some would suggest, in these partisan days, archaic  😉 — two-factor framework that I submit that each Senator should apply when determining whether to vote to confirm a nominee:   Is the nominee objectively qualified for the position?  If so, is there any other objective factor that should nonetheless disqualify him/her from the position for which s/he has been nominated (e.g., established current drug abuse problem)?  Since the Constitution provides our President the power to nominate whom s/he considers appropriate, I don’t believe that a nominee’s substantive philosophies or policy positions (if within the bounds of law) should be part of the equation.  I would now add a third factor, addressed further in Part II of this note, which shouldn’t be necessary but is, given the mindlessly-contentious environment in which we exist today:  a candidate’s ability to maintain poise in the face of attack, at least during the televised Senate confirmation hearings.

As I indicated ad nauseam in these pages in years past, I consider then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s scuttling of former President Barack Obama’s nomination of then-Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court to have been a despicable dereliction of duty.  At the same time, while there are a thousand things for which I fault former President Donald Trump, his Supreme Court nominations are not among them.  During his term he was presented with three Supreme Court vacancies; it was his role under the Constitution to present the Senate with nominees; in accord with his political preferences, his choices were extremely judicially conservative, but no one questions their judicial competence. 

An aside:  I philosophically disagree with “diversity” picks.  I believe that a President should nominate the candidate, without regard to factors of gender, race, ethnicity, creed, sexual persuasion, or such like, that s/he thinks is most able and suited (albeit liberal or conservative, aligned with the inclinations of the given President) for each of our respective most sophisticated governmental posts.  That said, my sentiments on this issue and their underlying rationales are much broader than Presidential nominations and are better left to another note.  Having pledged during the campaign to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court if he was elected, it is both the appropriate and politically expedient course for Mr. Biden, although his having so explicitly narrowed the candidate field will inevitably make race a focal point of this nomination exercise.

As in all these processes, the Administration will ultimately narrow the field to a few liberal-leaning jurist finalists. The vetting process will undoubtedly involve grilling each candidate about embarrassing incidents that might not appear on a background check.  Any candidate able enough to warrant nomination has to know that if there are any such incidents in her past, the Republicans will find them.  Even if she is ultimately confirmed, any foreseeable possibility that a stigma would be attached to her during the confirmation process akin to those borne by Associate Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh would make any sensible person doubt that the game is worth the candle.  Less important but notable:  determining that she has no peccadillos, such as a past college romance with her school’s campus Republican president, that will inflame progressives always looking for a reason to be offended and more than willing to bite their own.

The yammering has clearly already begun from the right and the left regarding the qualities each expects in the nominee.  In order to keep these posts to manageable length, I’ll defer what I would recommend if advising Mr. Biden to Part II.

Posts on politics are like candy:  easy to write, mostly instinct [and thus, if such is possible, perhaps even more rife with Noise than other notes entered here  ;)].  What follows are reactions on three events we can or might anticipate in 2022, and what might result from them.

The almost certain:  that the House of Representatives’ Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol will issue a report setting forth damning evidence showing that in an attempt to retain power, former President Donald Trump and his traitorous cohort sought to overturn the results of a free and fair election and instigated the Capitol insurrection.  I believe that the political ramifications of such a report will be … nil.  While I absolutely support the vital work that the Committee is doing, those citizens with – to paraphrase the Lord – eyes to see and ears to hear already know that Mr. Trump and his acolytes are guilty of sedition.  Those who willfully and steadfastly reject this fundamental and blatantly obvious truth will be unmoved by whatever the Committee brings forth. 

The seemingly probable:  that at some point before June, 2022, the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade and declare that regulation of women’s reproductive rights are best left to the several states.  If such a decision is handed down, it takes no prescience to opine that within the sixty days thereafter, most or all states with Republican governors and legislatures will outlaw abortion within their jurisdictions, either de jure or de facto.  On a purely political handicapping basis, I will venture that if such a holding obtains, it will provoke such a paroxysm of liberal and progressive outrage and generate sufficient unease among Independents and Republican moderates that Democrats, despite all historical trends and the way 2022 political winds now appear to be blowing, will retain their majorities in Congress.  It would be a fitting and final irony to the career of U.S. KY Sen. Mitch McConnell if the hyper-partisan manner in which he wielded his U.S. Senate leadership to place an arch conservative majority on the Supreme Court prevented him from ever regaining what he most desires:  majority leadership in the U.S. Senate.

The perhaps possible:  repeating reflections that I’ve already entered in these pages, that U.S. WY Rep. Liz Cheney, whether or not she retains her seat in the House of Representatives in the 2022 elections, declares her candidacy for the presidency of the United States in 2024.  She has been vilified in and ostracized by her own party – for having the guts to speak the truth – but she remains a Republican.  (I admire U.S. IL Rep. Adam Kinzinger, but he doesn’t have enough political gravitas to mount a credible presidential campaign.)  Since 1950, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump each won the Republican nomination and the presidency while not holding any elective office.  Ms. Cheney’s presence in the Republican nomination race, whether or not Mr. Trump chooses to run again, would create a sufficient schism in the Republican ranks that I would suggest – if the Democrats put up anybody reasonable [who might be “reasonable” to be left to a post on a later date ;)] — it will be difficult for Republicans to sufficiently repair their rupture in enough swing states to claim the presidency.  (Although Ms. Cheney would seemingly have no realistic prospect of securing the 2024 Republican nomination if Mr. Trump runs, her prospects against a field of Trump Wannabes, who would split the pro-Trump vote in the early primaries, are actually a bit intriguing – a reverse of the strategy Mr. Trump himself used to win the Republican nomination in 2016.)  If Mr. Trump runs, debates between him and Ms. Cheney would literally be the most arresting television of all time.  If he doesn’t, Ms. Cheney’s presence on a debate stage would at a minimum require each Trump Wannabe seeking Mr. Trump’s mantle to declare whether s/he believed that the 2020 election was stolen from Mr. Trump and whether the Capitol events of January 6 were an insurrection or a tourist excursion.  In this scenario, if a Trump Wannabe ultimately prevails, it’s hard for me to believe that a sufficient number of Independents and Republican moderates in enough swing states will countenance voting for a candidate that they know is either a liar or a fool for the Republican to win the White House – assuming, again, that Democrats give them a reasonable alternative (and assuming, of course, that swing state Republican governors and legislatures don’t use their newly-minted election laws to award their Electoral College votes to the Republican notwithstanding their states’ actual vote totals).

‘Nuff said.  Omicron – although by virtually all accounts, not mortally dangerous to those vaxxed and boosted – lurks.  Although maintaining protections is now moving from exasperating to aggravating, stay safe.