President Donald Trump is set to announce his Supreme Court nominee tomorrow night at around 9 p.m. Eastern time. Some so-called pundits (usually among the Never Trump GOP cohort) have touted U.S. Senator Mike Lee of Utah. Ted Cruz, who received Lee’s endorsement for president in 2016, also recommended his friend and colleague for the high court.

Trump has demonstrated an ability to find common ground with former foes such as Cruz, Rand Paul, Lindsay Graham, and potentially Mitt Romney. While Lee is on Trump’s list of highly qualified Supreme Court contenders, and who seems to be a fine gentleman, is also a Never Trumper who declined to endorse Trump in the general election and even released a video calling for Trump to drop out of the campaign after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced.

If Lee had gotten his wish, Hillary Clinton would be sitting in the White House (no replacement GOP standard-bearer would have defeated her) and embedding far-left activists in the federal judiciary.

Mike Lee’s naive champions, and they should have their pundit cards revoked, are deluding themselves that he would “sail” through to confirmation because he’s part of the club.  Recall that when Trump nominated Jeff Sessions as U.S. attorney general, the Alabama senator suddenly became a racist and received 47 no votes when he the nomination was narrowly approved by his colleagues.

The Democrats and their media allies have already freaked out without knowing who Trump will tap for the Supreme Court, and the actual nominee when revealed will only increase their hysteria, Mike Lee notwithstanding.

If you can believe the media, the front-runner seems to be Brett Kavanaugh, the appeals court judge on the D.C. Circuit who is getting support from both the Bushies and Ann Coulter, but who knows.

Judges Amy Barrett (who has only been on the 7th Circuit for less than a year) and Raymond Kethledge of the 6th Circuit (who to his credit writes his own opinions rather than delegating the tasks to law clerks) are also supposedly among the finalists, again if news reportage is accurate. Several other men and women are also mentioned.

When you consider all the identity politics permeating the political culture, would it not be better for President Trump to nominate a woman for this vacancy?

Time will tell.

The president has presumably mentioned to those whom he has interviewed that he expects that there will be other SCOTUS vacancies down the road.

With all the doom-and-gloom, sky-is-falling panic among the progressive cohort primarily about the future of Rove v. Wade — the 1973 decision that legalized abortion in all states — being overturned, that outcome seems unlikely.

It’s been often said that pro-life activists need to change the culture first.

In addition, recall that the high court had the votes in hand to throw out Obamacare entirely, but Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly switched sides at the last minute. A similar scenario could play out if an abortion-related case reaches the court after Trump’s nominee, whoever he or she is, is seated.

The media likes to push everyone into either the pro-choice or pro-life camps, moreover, and most people probably are conflicted about the highly personal and sensitive abortion issue. Even liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had implied that the Roe ruling was too sweeping and thus hyper-politicized the controversy.

Apparently Democrats gave up on erroneously claiming that the McConnell rule (previously known as the Biden rule) precludes a Supreme Court conformation in a midterm election year. The Senate confirmed three of the current sitting justices during off-year elections.  The aforementioned precedent only applies during a presidential election year.

It was Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and former majority leader, who in late 2013 eliminated the filibuster rule, and as such, allows judicial nominees to be confirmed by a simple Senate majority.