It is now official that White House Counsel Don McGahn will depart once the Kavanaugh nomination is wrapped up. He has been there most of two years, not an unusual length of time to hold the position.
In the WSJ, Michael Bender has this article on Mr. McGahn's departure and possible successors, and the paper has this editorial titled: "Don McGahn's Quiet Achievement: The departing White House counsel helped remake the judiciary."
Mr. Trump promised to be "the law-and-order President," and among the most important and longest-lasting steps toward fulfilling that promise is appointing judges with a sufficient appreciation of the public-safety implications of court rulings. That applies to the lower courts as well as the Supreme Court. I do not expect the President personally to be paying a lot of attention to the lower court choices, so it is vital that the White House Counsel be someone who keeps law enforcement front and center in making selections.
I thought what was paramount was that judges "follow the law" rather than "legislate or make policy from the bench" based on matters like the "public-safety implications" of following the law.
I am being slightly tongue-in-cheek here, Kent, but I think you usefully reveal here that the real issue is never whether judges "follow the law" or "make policy" but rather whether and how, when they "judge," they prioritize certain values (like public safety or free speech or gun ownership) over other completing values.
Yes, that is paramount, but I don't doubt that this Administration will continue to appoint judges with an overall originalist view of the Constitution. So then we go to the second level of priorities.
Some provisions of the Constitution and of statutes are written in general terms, such as "unreasonable searches and seizures." A judge who lacks an understanding of the impact of a rule on law enforcement may come to wrong conclusions about what is reasonable.
No, I haven't "revealed" anything about "the real issue." Fidelity to the Constitution the people ratified remains the "real" and primary consideration. I don't think I need to repeat that in every post before discussing other considerations.
Fair enough, Kent, and I was just eager to note that everyone with an interest in the work of courts is inclined to be most supportive of judges who bring certain policy "priorities" to their work.
Of course.