Why aren't 2020 Democrats publishing a list of Supreme Court nominees?

Yes, it's early, but the Democrat base is being kept in the dark about the names under consideration for the Supreme Court.

Back in March 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump published such a list.  I'm sure you remember the uproar when it became public that Mr. Trump had worked with The Federalist and the Heritage Foundation to create the list of names.

For me, not someone convinced by Mr. Trump at that point of the primary, the list was a sign confirming that he was serious about nominating the right judges.  It made me feel a lot better about eventually supporting him.

So far, the Democrats are not talking about their lists, as we read in this post from Josh Shepherd:

As the dust settles after the two-night Democratic debates, the political world continues to analyze what the 20 candidates said.  Meanwhile, in a new major ad campaign, one conservative advocacy group aims to expose what the Democratic candidates didn't say and why it matters.

Airing on national news networks, including NBC during the debate telecast, the $1.1 million ad buy from Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) emphasizes the importance of candidates' potential Supreme Court picks to voters.  Their new ad references New York Times reporting that liberal activist group Alliance for Justice has launched an initiative called #BuildingTheBench to advise Democratic candidates.

"Their goal is to come up with a list of judges that the next Democratic president could then have ready to appoint to the court," said Carrie Severino, chief counsel for JCN, in a phone interview.  "Yet this list is being kept secret.  They fail to see that transparency was key to Trump's success on the Supreme Court." 

Further reporting has revealed that of the 20-plus candidates, only Washington State Gov. Jay Inslee has committed to releasing a list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Attorney Phillip Jauregui, founder of Judicial Action Group, which advocates for constitutional originalism, explains why the courts have become so imperative in elections.  "The truth is, the role of a judge is simply to decide a case according to the law," said Jauregui via phone.  "For five decades, we've seen judicial nominees who want to remake the law according to their own political worldview. Our ability as citizens to impact the laws we live under has been dictated by the Supreme Court. As the last election showed us, the American people consider the courts a big issue."

Frankly, I'm surprised that the candidates have not released a list of the names of some people they'd consider.  I'm surprised for two reasons:

1. The Judiciary is where liberals go to get their way.  They are better at finding a friendly judge than getting voters to follow them.

2. President Trump is remaking the Judiciary, from the Supreme Court to putting 100-something people on the bench.

The candidates will eventually tell us.  However, I'm surprised that they're not all jumping ahead on this.

PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Yes, it's early, but the Democrat base is being kept in the dark about the names under consideration for the Supreme Court.

Back in March 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump published such a list.  I'm sure you remember the uproar when it became public that Mr. Trump had worked with The Federalist and the Heritage Foundation to create the list of names.

For me, not someone convinced by Mr. Trump at that point of the primary, the list was a sign confirming that he was serious about nominating the right judges.  It made me feel a lot better about eventually supporting him.

So far, the Democrats are not talking about their lists, as we read in this post from Josh Shepherd:

As the dust settles after the two-night Democratic debates, the political world continues to analyze what the 20 candidates said.  Meanwhile, in a new major ad campaign, one conservative advocacy group aims to expose what the Democratic candidates didn't say and why it matters.

Airing on national news networks, including NBC during the debate telecast, the $1.1 million ad buy from Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) emphasizes the importance of candidates' potential Supreme Court picks to voters.  Their new ad references New York Times reporting that liberal activist group Alliance for Justice has launched an initiative called #BuildingTheBench to advise Democratic candidates.

"Their goal is to come up with a list of judges that the next Democratic president could then have ready to appoint to the court," said Carrie Severino, chief counsel for JCN, in a phone interview.  "Yet this list is being kept secret.  They fail to see that transparency was key to Trump's success on the Supreme Court." 

Further reporting has revealed that of the 20-plus candidates, only Washington State Gov. Jay Inslee has committed to releasing a list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Attorney Phillip Jauregui, founder of Judicial Action Group, which advocates for constitutional originalism, explains why the courts have become so imperative in elections.  "The truth is, the role of a judge is simply to decide a case according to the law," said Jauregui via phone.  "For five decades, we've seen judicial nominees who want to remake the law according to their own political worldview. Our ability as citizens to impact the laws we live under has been dictated by the Supreme Court. As the last election showed us, the American people consider the courts a big issue."

Frankly, I'm surprised that the candidates have not released a list of the names of some people they'd consider.  I'm surprised for two reasons:

1. The Judiciary is where liberals go to get their way.  They are better at finding a friendly judge than getting voters to follow them.

2. President Trump is remaking the Judiciary, from the Supreme Court to putting 100-something people on the bench.

The candidates will eventually tell us.  However, I'm surprised that they're not all jumping ahead on this.

PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.