President Donald Trump’s team is already gearing up for a potential Supreme Court vacancy that could lock in conservative values for generations.
According to AOL, With three and a half years left in Trump’s second term, White House officials and conservative legal minds are quietly laying the groundwork to fill a possible opening on the nation’s highest court with a staunch defender of traditional constitutional principles.
Let’s rewind to Trump’s first term, where, with a Republican-controlled Senate, he reshaped the judiciary by appointing Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—names that still resonate in conservative circles as champions of originalist thought. That trio cemented a right-leaning majority, delivering rulings like the recent one curbing judges’ power to block Trump’s policies nationwide. It’s a legacy many on the right hope to build upon.
Now, with the Senate still in Republican hands, Trump’s advisors are laser-focused on finding a nominee cut from the same cloth as Justices Samuel Alito, 75, and Clarence Thomas, 77—jurists known for their strict reading of the Constitution and robust support for executive authority. “We are looking for people in the mold of Alito, Clarence Thomas, and the late Scalia,” a White House official noted. If that’s not a clear signal of intent to sidestep the progressive agenda, what is?
Yet, not everyone’s thrilled with past picks—some in the MAGA camp are fuming over Justice Barrett occasionally siding with the liberal bloc on key decisions. “There’s a lot of anger at Amy Coney Barrett coming from the MAGA movement,” observed Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of Lawfare. Anger or not, it’s a reminder that consistency matters, and Trump’s team seems determined to avoid another ideological wild card.
This time, the goal is a drama-free confirmation, steering clear of the chaos surrounding Kavanaugh’s 2018 hearing over serious allegations. Advisors are vetting candidates early, circulating shortlists among trusted allies to ensure the next pick is a long-term fit for the conservative wing. It’s strategic, it’s deliberate, and it’s classic Trump-world planning.
Who’s pulling the strings behind the scenes? Heavyweights like Attorney General Pam Bondi, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, White House Counsel David Warrington, and Deputy Counsel Steve Kenny are deeply involved in sifting through potential names. These are folks who know the stakes and aren’t about to let a progressive-leaning judge slip through.
Then there’s Mike Davis, a conservative lawyer and founder of the Article III Project, who’s emerged as a loud voice in this process. “Justice Thomas and Justice Alito are irreplaceable and I hope they do not retire anytime soon,” Davis declared, signaling his reverence for the court’s right flank while keeping his recommended list under wraps. His influence, though, is undeniable, and his push for “bold and fearless” nominees could shape the final call.
Let’s not forget the Heritage Foundation, tied to Project 2025, which is poised to weigh in heavily on Trump’s decision. John Malcolm, a vice president at Heritage, has floated over 10 circuit court judges as solid picks and even endorsed Senator Mike Lee of Utah for his unapologetic textualist stance. “While Lee isn’t a sitting judge, he isn’t afraid to speak his mind,” Malcolm said, and in today’s polarized climate, that kind of backbone is music to conservative ears.
So, who’s in the running if a seat opens up? Frontrunners include Andrew Oldham, a 5th Circuit judge from Texas with ties to Justice Alito, and Neomi Rao, a D.C. Circuit judge who clerked for Thomas and could make history as the first Asian-American on the court. These are names that signal not just experience, but a deep alignment with conservative judicial philosophy.
Other contenders are stirring interest too, like Aileen Cannon, a Florida district judge who ruled in Trump’s favor in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, alongside James Ho from Texas, and Raymond M. Kethledge and Amul R. Thapar from Ohio’s 6th Circuit. Each brings a record that could resonate with those wary of judicial overreach into executive power. It’s a lineup that promises to keep the court tilted right for decades.
Critics, of course, are already sounding alarms about loyalty over principle. “I assume the competition here would be to have shown greatest loyalty to Trump,” Wittes quipped, hinting at fears of a politicized pick. While loyalty to a leader isn’t inherently wrong, the court must remain a bastion of independent thought, not a rubber stamp for any administration.
Ultimately, the decision rests with Trump himself, as Davis emphasized: “The President and the President alone will decide his judicial nominees.” That’s a reassuring nod to those who trust Trump’s instincts to prioritize constitutional fidelity over fleeting cultural trends. It’s his court to shape, after all.
Reflecting on Trump’s first-term reliance on The Federalist Society for nominations, which led to landmark decisions like overturning nationwide abortion protections, it’s clear his team knows how to pick fighters for the conservative cause. This time, though, there’s a sharper edge—avoiding nominees who waver when the pressure’s on. The stakes couldn’t be higher to counter what many see as a creeping progressive influence in the judiciary.
As this process unfolds over the remaining years of Trump’s term, one thing is certain: the battle for the Supreme Court isn’t just about one seat—it’s about safeguarding a vision of America rooted in original intent and limited government. Conservatives are watching closely, hoping for a nominee who’ll stand firm against judicial activism. Will Trump deliver another win for the right? Only time will tell.
