Ranking Trump's SCOTUS Shortlist (Mainly) by Their Writings

You may have seen these names before, but you have not seen this type of analysis

Trump’s Potential Vacancy Scenario

Republican strategists are already gaming out the possibility that a second-term President Trump could replace a member of the Court’s center-right bloc. The choice would not merely cement a 6-3 conservative majority; it could nudge the Court’s median vote toward Justices Alito and Thomas for a generation. In that context, every résumé line and every turn of phrase in lower-court opinions becomes a tea-leaf for how a nominee might steer the Court on abortion, guns, the post-Chevron administrative law terrain, and the scope of executive power now dominating the headlines.

In a prior post on Empirical SCOTUS I looked at the five nominees that were likely candidates for a possible SCOTUS nomination. I’ve since seen several respected outlets (for example Original Jurisdiction by David Lat and for NBC News) bring Ninth Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay’s name into the fray so I added him to this analysis along with the five judges I previously examined (Judges Ho (CA5), Oldham (CA5), Thapar (CA6), Rao (CADC), and Cannon (SDFL)).

To understand how each of these judges might shape the future of the Court and consequently their potential value as nominees, this analysis examines focuses on these judges’ outputs – specifically at nine randomly sampled published opinions from each nominee.¹ The article is in several parts. After a quick snapshot of the judges, the next part looks at how closely their language mirrors that of Trump’s past picks or Justices Alito and Thomas. After that the article evaluates writing style, from readability to rhetorical heat. This is followed by a section creating scores for résumé and network capital, including clerkships, DOJ roles, and visibility. The final section blends those elements into a Trump Alignment Index. The result is a side-by-side comparison that goes beyond speculation, rooted in what these judges have already written.

Commission year = elevation to current court; Senate-vote column shown for context only—these numbers will not enter the alignment score.

What the topline tells us:

• Age & longevity: All six would be serviceable for 15-25 years, but Cannon (44) and Bumatay/Oldham (47) offer the longest runway.

• Paper trail: Ho and Oldham have the thickest Fifth-Circuit record, rich with en-banc culture-war dissents that delight movement conservatives. Cannon’s notoriety flows from a handful of Mar-a-Lago orders rather than an appellate corpus.

• Trump-world capital: Thomas-clerk pedigree (Ho, Rao) and Texas SG experience (Ho, Oldham) have proven golden tickets in prior Trump vetting cycles. Rao pairs that pedigree with direct stewardship of the administrative-state kill switch—OIRA—aligning with Trump’s anti-bureaucracy push.

• Regional politics: Two Fifth-Circuit judges appeal to the Texas delegation; Cannon brings Florida’s senior senators to the table; Bumatay offers demographic diversity from the Ninth; Thapar remains Mitch McConnell’s personal favorite (although this has less relevance now than in Trump’s previous term of office).

This matrix sets the ground rules: every subsequent metric—semantic similarity to Barrett/Kavanaugh/Gorsuch, Thomas-Alito doctrinal overlap, issue-outcome alignment, executive-power deference, and résumé soft-capital—will build on the profiles sketched here. In the remainder of the article I’ll translate the 54-opinion corpus into numbers that show who sounds like Trump’s past picks, who votes like Alito and Thomas, and who most reliably advances the policy agenda.

Measuring Opinion Language (Steps)

1. Compare the tone. Does this sound more like the writings of Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch—or more like Alito and Thomas?

Trump has said he wants “more justices like the ones I already picked” and also admires Alito and Thomas although he recently pushed back against his previous picks.

2. Check the word choices. I counted “hot-button” words ( tyranny, freedom, overreach ) the way a news editor counts headline buzzwords, and looked at sentence length (short and punchy vs. long and filled with legalese).

Rhetoric that fires up Trump’s base often uses vivid language; Barrett’s style, by contrast, is long but calm.

3. Note which cases they lean on. Every citation to Dobbs, Bruen, or a Thomas concurrence is a breadcrumb.

Judges who already rely on the same precedents as Trump’s favorites are easier to sell to the base.

4. Measure trust in presidential power. Whenever an opinion talked about the President or federal agencies, I looked at the surrounding sentences. Helpful tone (“broad authority”) added points; limiting tone (“must be restrained”) subtracted.

Trump openly says he wants justices who “let a President do his job.”

I left out American Bar Association ratings; Trump does not use these as selling points.

Who sounds most like Trump’s first-term justices—or like Alito and Thomas?

Methodology:

• Convert the language into numbers: I used a pre-trained model (Sentence-BERT) to encode each paragraph into a vector that captures the meaning and style of the text.

• Average by judge: Each judge’s opinions were aggregated into a single "language fingerprint" vector by averaging all their paragraph embeddings.

• Compare to anchor group: I did the same with a known set of Supreme Court opinions by: Trump picks (Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch); Alito and Thomas

• Then I measured cosine similarity between each judge’s vector and the anchor group vectors. That produces a number between 0 (totally different) and 1 (identical).

What this shows:
Oldham’s linguistic choices are quite close to those of Barrett and Kavanaugh draft; Ho’s is even nearer to Alito and Thomas. Cannon’s district-court orders read differently—plainer, shorter, fewer constitutional flourishes—so the model finds less overlap.

Heat level and writing style

“Hot-button words” are short, emotionally laden terms that tend to show up in culture-war or anti-establishment writing—especially in conservative legal rhetoric. Here are some examples and explanations

Word / phrase

• tyranny, tyrannical: Evokes government oppression.

• war on … (war on faith, war on guns): Frames policy disputes as existential battles.

• weapon(ize), weaponization: Ex. “weaponized DOJ” rhetoric.

• culture, cultural: As in “culture war,” “cultural elites.”

• assault (outside literal assault crimes) :“Assault on liberty.”

• enemy, enemies: “Enemies of the Constitution.”

• overreach, power grab: Standard critique of agencies or courts.

• elite, elitist: Anti-Ivory Tower signal.

• freedom, liberty: Positive rally words

• constitution (when used as a flourish, not just a citation): E.g., “Our Constitution forbids such tyranny.”

• original, textual: As in “original meaning,” “textual fidelity”—markers of originalism/textualism.

• tradition, history: Key terms after Bruen; signal “history-and-tradition” methodology.

What this shows:
Oldham and Ho lace their writing with these kinds of buzzwords that light up the media. Cannon and Thapar write long, explanatory sentences—closer to Barrett’s classroom voice. Rao is the calmest: short sentences, almost no rhetorical fireworks.

Favorite precedents

(A larger sample was used through Westlaw searches for the next several queries)

“X” means the case appears often in that judge’s opinions (out of nine). Note that the results here may be more dependent on the sampled cases than on the judges’ styles.

What this shows:
Rao is the go-to critic of federal agencies; Ho and Oldham signal allegiance to Thomas both by quoting him and by leaning on Bruen and Dobbs.

Founding-era touchstones

Quote to 18th-century sources (Federalist Papers, Blackstone, etc.)

Ho: 8, Oldham: 6, Rao: 4, Thapar: 2, Bumatay: 1, Cannon: 0

Ex. Judge Ho from Horvath: “At the time of the Founding, every state except Connecticut provided constitutional protection for religious freedom.”

Trust in presidential power

Methodology: I searched every opinion for mentions of terms:

• “President”

• “executive power”

• “executive branch”

• “Article II”

• “separation of powers”

• “agency discretion”

• “administration”

Then I ran those sentences through a sentiment analysis tool to examine:

• positive toward executive power (e.g., “broad authority,” “discretionary,” “entrusted by Congress”)

• neutral

• negative or limiting (e.g., “must be constrained,” “subject to judicial review,” “overreach”)

Quote density & direction

I also counted citations to:

• Seila Law (pro–unitary executive)

• Trump v. Hawaii (pro–executive deference)

• Youngstown (restrictive)

• Humphrey’s Executor (agency independence)

Judges who relied more on the Seila/Trump line of cases scored higher.

Judge-level score
For each judge, I calculated a composite score based on:

• % of sentences that took a deferential tone

• ratio of pro-executive to anti-executive language

• presence or absence of key citations

Then I rescaled to a range of –1 to +1, though all six judges landed in the positive range.

(-1 = rein in the President; +1 = give wide latitude)

Judge /Score

• Rao /+0.92

• Oldham/ +0.85

• Ho / +0.73

• Thapar / +0.60

• Cannon / +0.55

• Bumatay / +0.42

What this shows:
Rao and Oldham most often write passages that let a President act freely — for example: Rao in Muthana v. Pompeo (2021) : “Just as the President is vested with the “exclusive” power to recognize foreign governments…his “action in ... receiving ... diplomatic representatives is conclusive on all domestic courts” and Oldham in Collins v. Mnuchin (2019) / concurring in part): “We should therefore be especially hesitant to interfere with an executive power that was exercised, unfettered by Congress, for over 75 years.”

How They Write—and Why Style Matters

Why bother with writing style?

Presidents don’t just pick votes; they pick voices. A justice who writes crisp, quotable opinions (think Gorsuch) can rally public opinion. One who wraps every idea in 300-word sentences (think Kennedy) can lose the room. So I measured three reader-facing traits in the 54-opinion set:

What the numbers really mean

• If Trump wants a headline maker
  Oldham is the clear choice—nearly 10 hot button words per thousand—and still sticks the landing at a high-school senior reading level. Ho follows with moral-charge language (“dignity,” “tyranny”).

• If he wants a teacher-in-robes
  Rao writes at the lowest grade level—roughly sophomore high-school—while keeping sentences short and passive voice low. That mirrors Justice Barrett’s “reader first” ethos.

• If he wants long-form persuasion
  Thapar uses the longest sentences (31 words on average) but embeds folksy asides and historical vignettes—a style that charmed McConnell when he shepherded Thapar’s elevation. It risks losing impatient readers yet plays well in book-length dissents.

Why Senators May Care

• Sound bites for hearings. Quotes like Ho’s “To keep your job, you must violate your faith,” and “This is a district court — not a Denny’s” will be flashed on committee screens—either as proof of constitutional fidelity or as evidence of activist zeal.

• Media framing. Cable-news followers love Judge Ho’s catchy phrasing; Rao’s cooler prose may draw less opposition from the left.

• Persuading the public. Lower reading-level scores (Rao, Bumatay) make it easier for ordinary readers—and journalists—to follow a majority opinion, potentially shaping public acceptance of controversial rulings.

Résumé & Network Capital

Why these lines on a résumé matter

Think of this as pertinent to the judicial vetting file tuned to Trump-era priorities:

• A Supreme Court clerkship (especially for Justices Thomas or Alito): insider handshake that says “I’ve already been trained in the conservative playbook.”

• High-level DOJ or White-House service: proof you know how the executive branch really works—critical for a President who wants fewer judicial “roadblocks.”

• State Solicitor General work (arguing big cases for Texas or Kentucky, for example): red-state warrior.

• Law-school credentials and Fed-Soc ties: signals to donors and activists that you’ll speak their language at Federalist Society galas and on cable news although the Federalist Society link is clearly more attenuated now than it was during Trump’s first term..

Six judges, six career checklists (several were mentioned in the top section as well)

(Weights: SCOTUS clerk = 3, elite DOJ/WH = 2, all others = 1.)

D. What these numbers really say

• Ho (9/10) checks every prestige box—Thomas clerkship, Texas SG, fluent Fed-Soc insider. If Trump wants “the next Thomas,” Judge Ho has the résumé.

• Oldham (8/10) mirrors Ho but swaps Thomas for Alito; coupled with his opinion language, he is the movement-conservative full package.

• Rao (8/10) scores thanks to the Thomas clerkship and running OIRA, the nerve center for deregulation.

• Thapar (5/10) rode McConnell’s backing and a U.S. Attorney stint; lack of a SCOTUS clerk year keeps him a tier below.

• Bumatay (4/10) boasts Harvard plus senior DOJ counsel work but no SCOTUS clerk pedigree; still valuable for his conservative output in the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit (although it is less liberal since Trump’s appointments in his first Term).

• Cannon (3/10) offers a straightforward prosecutor résumé; her network capital is thinner, but her Mar-a-Lago visibility could still outweigh the score in the political arena.

The “Trump Alignment Index”

How the index works

1. Deference to presidential power – 25 points
   Higher if the judge’s opinions tend to say, “Let the President act.”

2. Overall language match with Trump’s first picks – 25 points
   Uses computer text-matching to ask: “Does this opinion sound like Barrett, Kavanaugh, or Gorsuch?”

3. Citations and legal heroes – 15 points
   Leaning on Thomas, Alito, Dobbs, Bruen, West Virginia v. EPA, etc.

4. Rhetorical punch and readability – 25 points
   A mix of short sentences, active voice, and rally-friendly buzzwords.

5. Résumé & network capital – 10 points
   SCOTUS clerkships, high-level DOJ roles, FedSoc leadership, elite or strategic law schools.

Each category is scored out of the points shown, then added for a maximum of 100.

---

Wild-card factors the numbers don’t fully capture

• Oldham: Fifth-Circuit docket means more abortion and immigration fights—great for conservative bona fides but ammunition for Senate critics.

• Ho: Public boycott of law clerks from specific institutions ignites the base but could dominate hearing headlines.

• Rao: Only woman on the list and a former Trump appointee in the White House; Democrats will spotlight her role in deregulatory rollbacks.

• Thapar: Mitch McConnell is his loudest booster—helpful if GOP controls the Senate, awkward if McConnell and Trump remain at odds.

• Bumatay: First openly gay conservative on a SCOTUS shortlist; could broaden appeal yet risk friction with parts of the base.

• Cannon: Mar-a-Lago search rulings make her a folk hero in MAGA circles but hand Democrats ready-made attack lines about impartiality.

D. The bottom line

This analysis was based on a small sample of cases. Things could change with a longer list of cases analyzed. This snapshot is a first take at this type of analysis. Also, certain circuits hear different types of cases like regulatory cases in the D.C. Circuit or en banc and denials in the Fifth and Ninth Circuits. While this creates different opportunities for judges to voice their views and rule on the law, the analysis of these opinions does not create additional bias since these are the tools that each judge has at their disposal.

What does this show?

• If Trump wants a sure-thing vote and a Thomas-style pen: Oldham may be the safest bet, with Ho a close second.

• If shrinking the “deep state” is priority #1: Rao’s perfect anti-agency record and White-House experience stand out.

• If Senate math looks rocky: His mild tone could smooth confirmation.

• If Trump wants headline fireworks: Cannon’s notoriety, or Ho’s boycott rhetoric, guarantees wall-to-wall coverage.

My sense still is that Judge Ho is the obvious pick if Justice Thomas is the next justice to step down and Judge Oldham likely gets the nod if Justice Alito is the first to leave SCOTUS as recent history has shown that presidents may look first to a justice’s former clerk to as a replacement if possible.

Everything beyond this point is politics: who’s on the Court when a seat opens, who controls the Senate, and what message the Trump wants to send. But measured strictly by how they rule, how they write, and who mentored them, Oldham, Ho, and Rao form the leading tier of a 2025 Trump shortlist.

---

1