Source: https://vettingroom.org/tag/thomas-hardiman/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:58:34+00:00

Document:
Judge Thomas Hardiman was almost nominated to the Supreme Court last year to replace Justice Scalia. Hardiman, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, was feted for his “blue-collar credentials” but was ultimately overlooked for the more privileged Judge Neil Gorsuch. This time around, Hardiman is once again a shortlister for a Supreme Court appointment.
Prior Experience: Private Practice in Washington D.C. & Pittsburgh 1989-2003; Judge on U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania 2003-2007.
Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle – In a civil rights action, the plaintiff argued that he was unlawfully arrested for filming a police officer during a traffic stop. Writing for the panel, Hardiman found that, if a First Amendment right to film a police officer existed, it was not clearly established, and that the arresting officer was protected by qualified immunity in the case.
Lodge No. 5 of Fraternal Order of Police v. Philadelphia – In a First Amendment challenge, Hardiman held that the City of Philadelphia could not bar police officers from making campaign contributions to the PAC of the police union.
Drake v. Filko – Under New Jersey law, individuals seeking to carry handguns in public must demonstrate a “justifiable need to carry a handgun.” A 2-1 vote of the Third Circuit upheld this requirement against a Second Amendment challenge. In dissent, Hardiman argued that the law violated the Second Amendment, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decisions in DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago extend the right to bear firearms beyond the home.
Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders – This case involved the challenge to the policy of strip searching all arrestees, regardless of how minor the offenses were. Hardiman wrote for the panel in upholding the policy, holding that officials may strip-search all arrestees even without suspicion of carrying any contraband. This ruling was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote.
Hardiman was almost the Supreme Court nominee last year because, in many ways, he was (and remains) a politically sound nominee. He is from Pittsburgh in the Rust Belt, has a (relatively) less-connected background, and has the support of Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, the President’s sister. Furthermore, Hardiman has a fairly conservative record on the federal bench, while also having two unanimous confirmations under his belt. Additionally, choosing Hardiman as the nominee may put pressure on Democratic Senator Bob Casey, who may choose to back his home-state nominee.
In his current nominee, Trump is looking for ivy league pedigrees and academic writings. Hardiman doesn’t bring either to the table. Furthermore, Hardiman’s opinion in Prowel may alienate social conservatives.
Hardiman’s judicial record can be mined for opposition. Opponents may attack Hardiman, for example, for permitting the strip searching of all arrestees, even those charged with minor violations. They may also raise his dissent in Easton and his opinion in Kelly to suggest that Hardiman would defer to government judgments on First Amendment restrictions.
Additionally, gun control advocates are likely to attack Hardiman as a Second Amendment absolutist, based on his dissent in Drake and his view that Heller and McDonald establish a right to bear firearms outside the home (a right not yet endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court).
Despite the ringing endorsement of Judge Barry, Hardiman was not chosen for the Supreme Court last term. His chances are, if anything, slightly worse this time around. Supreme Court selections are ultimately about chemistry as much as they are about ideology. In 2009, President Obama chose then 2nd Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor based largely on Sotomayor’s strong performance in her personal interview. Given that Trump has already overlooked Hardiman once, his odds may not be as high as those of fresher faces.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.