During the first Trump administration, there were few issues more near and dear to MAGA than the judicial agenda—that is, stacking the federal courts with rock-ribbed conservative constitutionalists. I know here of what I speak: I actually personally and professionally benefited from the Trump 1.0 judicial nominations agenda when, in 2018, I become one of the first four law clerks for Judge James C. Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In my year clerking on the Fifth Circuit, I witnessed this crucial New Orleans-based appeals court shift rightward before my very eyes. It was nothing less than remarkable. Many other lower federal courts had a similar trajectory.

That said, things were not perfect either. Perhaps especially at the level of the U.S. Supreme Court, there is still more work that can be done. None of President Trump's first-term Supreme Court nominees—Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—are anywhere near as bad as botched Republican presidential picks from decades past (hello, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, and David Souter!), but it is also true that none of the members of this black-robed triumvirate is nearly as solid and reliable, case in and case out, as Justices Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito.

Simply put, the new Trump administration can—and must—do even better than it did last time when it comes to judicial nominations.

In an essay last week for TomKlingenstein.com, I outlined four granular factors that I hope the new administration carefully considers when it looks to its prospective judicial nominees. First, do the actual reading and closely research a prospective nominee's record. Second, the administration must verify not merely consistent excellence, but a genuine commitment to full-spectrum, across-the-board conservatism; parochial libertarian or corporatist interests ought to be wholly insufficient. Third, as I noted in my syndicated column last year, "it is imperative that conservatives vet nominees closely for a willingness and eagerness to overrule bad cases and correct course as aggressively as possible." Finally, the prospective judicial nominee's private life must also be closely scrutinized; here, the "spouse test" is particularly important.

The good news is that we now have some real data points to consider. Last week, the White House announced its first federal court of appeals selection: Whitney Hermandorfer will serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. And just yesterday, President Trump announced five new federal district court picks. These early-administration judicial picks are nothing less than exceptional; indeed, I can personally vouch for multiple of them. The imperative now is to keep it up. The recovery of America's constitutional order still has a long way to go. Onward!

To keep up with everything I'm doing, make sure to follow me on Twitter/X, Instagram, and Facebook. You can listen to all episodes of "The Josh Hammer Show" at the Newsweek website or on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts—as well as on select radio stations across the country. And last but certainly not least: If you have not already done so, make sure to order my debut book, which just came out in March, Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West! (Signed copies are also available for purchase!)

Our additional highlighted recent Newsweek op-eds include selections from Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kans.), EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, and Riley Gaines.

Have a great rest of your week! We'll be back next Wednesday.