Hmmmm. Last week, Donald Trump said he would announce his choice for Supreme Court justice on Thursday, February 2nd. Yesterday, ABC’s Jonathan Karl heard that things have been, um … moved up:

Gee, I wonder what the rush might be? Let’s just say that the Trump administration could use a change of subject after a brutal weekend in the media. They are indeed fortunate to have a handy subject-changer available, and using this announcement for that purpose would be a very smart idea. It’s the equivalent of tweeting out “Die Hard is not a Christmas movie” after committing a faux pas that’s filling up your mentions.  You get the same outcome, but it’s a lot easier to work with.

The media is certainly capable of covering two major stories at a time, but they can only effectively hyperventilate over one at a time. Probably. So which will get the knobs-turned-up-to-eleven approach after this announcement? The direction of the Supreme Court has longer-reaching implications than a 90-day suspension of visa and refugee applications from seven terror-implicated countries, which was a reasonable policy that was poorly executed. This decision will change the court’s direction for decades, or at least change it from what Barack Obama and the Left thought it would take after Antonin Scalia’s passing. If the Left and the media really want to freak out over something meaningful, this should be it.

Don’t count on it, though, and this might be an especially fortuitous turn of events for Trump. Karl also tweeted that it’s come down to the two least provocative names on Trump’s short list:

These two appellate jurists got confirmed by the Senate with no dissenting votes. The Senate didn’t even bother with a roll-call vote for Gorsuch but used unanimous consent instead, and Hardiman got confirmed 95-0. Democrats obstructing either will have to answer why they blithely allowed someone an appellate-level seat who they now think is a Danger To The Republic™, and that’s going to tamp down the outrage machine significantly.

My guess is that it’ll be Hardiman, who would be the only non-Ivy Leaguer on the court (although Georgetown Law isn’t far off from that status), but either one will do for this opening. If the media freakout sticks to the immigration story, the Supreme Court might get its ninth member before the 90-day expiration of Trump’s EO. However, both candidates should bone up on this response to confirmation hearing questions about the so-called “Muslim ban”: It would be inappropriate for me to comment on a case that is likely to come before the court. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Top Picks – Hot Air