Since you're all entitled to my opinion, here goes:
First note: Three white dudes.
Although far-right culture warriors love him, Pryor is way too far out of the mainstream on social issues. His nomination would be a non-starter, unless Trump is only looking to have an ugly fight to fill up the news cycle. Which may very well be his choice, given the series of dumpster fires he has set over the last week and a half.
I don't know much about Gorsuch's jurisprudence, other than he is generally opposed to current Supreme Court doctrine that demands judicial deference to administrative agencies' rule-making interpretations of statutes. (His position on that question works fine for me in my own practice, although I see where it could cause serious disruption in heavily regulated sectors.)
Hardiman is a pretty traditional conservative and not a firebrand on any particular issues, as far as I have seen. The Third Circuit is my "home court," so I tend to keep up on the judges here; I have had one case before Hardiman (Maryanne Trump Barry and Dorothy Sloviter were also on the panel). I thought he actually listened to the oral argument and understood the issues before ultimately writing the opinion ruling against me (which, BTW, now allows the government to shake down little old ladies, but I digress).
All I can tell is that although conservative, Hardiman probably isn't evil incarnate. Then again, I don't think he's ruled on any hot-button constitutional issues, either, so hard to say.
Anyone else listening to the chatter?
