As we inch closer to the 2024 election, legal professionals are likely to show increased interest in possible Supreme Court nominees put forward by political parties. Lately, conservative legal figures have been making public pitches to the Trump campaign about their preferred Supreme Court picks. A stark departure from the traditional selection of highly meticulous jurists, the emerging list is said to favor showmanship over scholastic prowess. With legal minds, including Alina Habba, known for her statement about prioritizing beauty over intelligence, gaining Trump’s trust, the emerging trend appears to favor theatrics over decorum.
History reveals that in 2016, Donald Trump adopted a Federalist Society Supreme Court shortlist to secure conservative support. This strategy proved effective, and even now, he’s reportedly planning to issue a similar list. On this backdrop, the Center for Judicial Renewal, associated with the American Family Association, has released its shortlist of preferred nominees, notable for its decision to refrain from solely relying on the Federalist Society.
The list itself exhibits both intriguing choices and glaring omissions. The fact that James Ho appears on top largely underscores the assertive, media-savvy approach for judicial appointment noticeable of late. Other names include Lawrence VanDyke, infamous for his controversial stance and appointment, and Kristen Waggoner, making headlines for representing a recognized hate group and raising faux outrage at protests. Still, figures such as Morse Tan, who has significantly meaningful experience addressing global genocide and war crimes, are also featured.
Interestingly, there are notable omissions as well. Certain figures who have been quite vocal in courting the right wing are not listed, including Judge Lisa Branch and Judge Andy Oldham. Furthermore, despite her attempts to spark conservative interest, Neomi Rao finds herself absent from the shortlist entirely.
While these choices do not mirror the Federalist Society’s preferences, the proactive strategy adopted by the American Family Association could potentially mold public discourse, putting pressure on the Federalist Society’s choices. High-risk as it may be, the strategy of releasing a Supreme Court wish list ahead of time could shift the dynamics of judicial nominations and the broader legal landscape of America.[1]