by cmsellers » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:20 pm
Based on that very helpful article Jamish found, Hardiman and Kethledge are judges that I would probably confirm if I were in the Senate and not trying to do a tit-for-tat against Yertle, which I admittedly probably would be. The other three I find kind of frightening, with Kavanaugh being the worst, but Hardiman and Kethledge seem like judges I could respect even when I disagree with them, and I'll be much happier with either of them than I was with Gorsuch.
Back under W. I supported Roberts but detested Alito. I believed that Roberts would try to respect precedent and not let his personal beliefs cloud his judgment, while Alito seemed like he'd just be a hack, and I believe both those impressions have been confirmed. Kennedy is also someone who seems to issue rulings based on what he believes, and while his beliefs aren't as offensive to me as Alito's or Gorsuch's, I've still long disliked him.
If it's one of those two who replaces Kennedy, I'll call it a wash. The court will issue rulings I object to more often, but I'll probably be less horrified by their reasoning then I was when Kennedy issued a ruling I didn't like (or often even when he issued one I liked).
Even with Thapar or Barrett I'd be moderately relieved that they're not Kavanaugh. I'm not persuaded that they're actually textualists just because they say they are—they seem to quite often find that the plain meaning of the text says what they want it to say where I get different readings—however the possibility that they might emulate Scalia means that they might occasionally respect the parts of the Constitution which aren't the First and Second Amendments. And because it's Trump picking the nominees, I'm now certain that the nominee will be Kavanaugh.