Will Clarence Thomas Take One For The Team?

The recent news that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has suffered a recurrence of cancer raises the question of whether there's a wild card in the deck of presidential election playing cards: a Senate confirmation battle royal before the Court reconvenes this fall and voters cast their ballots.

But are we focusing on the right justice who might be replaced?

Ginsburg, because of her frail health and advanced age naturally draws the attention of court-observers. She turned 87 in March; by year's end, she'll pass Roger Taney (of Dred Scott fame) for the honor of the third oldest sitting justice ever.

After that, vacancy speculation usually turns to Justice Stephen Breyer (like Ginsburg, a Bill Clinton appointee), who turns 82 next month.

And then whom?

We can eliminate a super-majority of the justices from retirement talk. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Sonia Sotomayor all have served less than two decades. Add Ginsburg and Breyer and that's eight justices.

Who does this leave?

Justice Clarence Thomas, who just might be the tonic to what ails President Trump's re-election effort.

This October marks 29 years since Thomas first joined the Supreme nonet after a remarkably bitter confirmation battle that featured a younger Joe Biden leading Senate Judiciary Democrats in their assault on Thomas' character (Biden's since said he owes Anita Hill an apology for not backing her up; others suggest it's Thomas who's owed an apology for what the nominee famously characterized as "a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who on any way deign to think for themselves").

So why should Thomas shock the world by announcing his retirement, which he'd have to do soon in order to set the confirmation wheels in motion — beginning, we can safely assume, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell explaining why 2020 is not 2016 and a court replacement is allowable as Trump is a viable candidate whereas Barack Obama was a lame duck?

Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

One reason: with nearly three decades of court experience, Thomas already is in exclusive company — and well past other justices' points of retirement. 114 men and women have served as a Supreme Court justice; only 14 did so for three decades (the late Antonin Scalia, whose February 2016 death sparked the controversy that led to Gorsuch joining the Court a year later, served 29 years, 140 days).

Then again, Thomas might have an eye on judicial history and understands that, at age 72 and should he remain in good health, he can break the Supreme Court's record for longevity (that would be William O. Douglas, who served 36 years and seven months).

But to surpass that mark, Thomas would have to stay in Washington until the year 2028, which guarantees Trump won't be the one choosing his successor. By then, it might be a Democrat in the White House. Imagine a scenario in which an 80-year-old Justice Thomas retires the same year in which an 85-year-old Joe Biden finishes his second term. How would a Republican-controlled Senate react? Welcome back to 2016-plus-12-years . . . with an 86-year-old Mitch McConnell still calling the shots(?).

None of that happens if Thomas decides to retire this summer. But that's assuming Thomas is ready to turn in his robe.

It also assumes that Thomas thinks politically — appreciating not only the significance of adding a younger conservative to maintain the Court's ideological composition, but also as a needed boost to Trump's flagging campaign fortunes.

It doesn't take an advanced degree in political science to see that Trump's in trouble, with the election only 100 days away by the week's end. He trails by 8.6 points in the Real Clear Politics Average of national polls. Swing states also are problematic, with Trump trailing in the likes of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

What Trump needs is a game-changer — something to crack the news cycle other than the assorted miseries of the COVID-19 pandemic. And a Thomas retirement might do that. Heads would explode on CNN and MSNBC as McConnell tap dances around the previous election-year standard. The left likely would overplay its hand, as it did in the Kavanaugh (especially, if Trump were to go with a pro-life stalwart like conservative favorite Amy Coney Barrett). Moreover, Biden would have to re-explain his actions during the 1991 Thomas confirmation battle.

And who might be watching all this over-heated bloviating and subsequent Senate confirmation spectacle? Most likely, the same 2016 voters for whom judicial picks were a motivating reason for siding with Trump in the first place.

Per a CNN exit poll, about one in five voters in the last presidential election said the Supreme Court was their lead reason for casting a ballot. Within that motivated group, 56% voted for Trump. Further exit polling showed that 26% of Trump supporters confided that Supreme Court nominees were the most important factor in their voting, versus only 18% for Hillary Clinton.

What this suggests: the question of the Supreme Court's future may motivate Trump's base more so than his opponent's. If it compels the media to start talking about how a Biden president would fill vacancies (the candidate's on record as saying it will be a black woman — i.e., someone from this small pool of possibilities, or California Sen. Kamala Harris as a consolation prize for losing out on the vice presidency), then perhaps it also plays into the law-and-order narrative that Trump would like to play up with independent voters.

Maybe the Trump campaign is holding out for an "October Surprise" that shakes up the election in its final weeks.

Justice Thomas calling it a day and giving Trump his third Supreme Court vacancy would serve the same purpose — well before October.