#The chance for a conservative Supreme Court is now

President Trump has thus far had two successfully appointed Supreme Court nominees. Trump’s first nominee, Neil Gorsuch, had a solid record on the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit — including multiple robust opinions in defense of religious liberty — although it was a record not nearly as lengthy, distinguished, and conservative as those of Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia or Samuel Alito.

Justice Gorsuch’s first two terms on the Court were mostly good, but only time will tell what kind of justice Neil Gorsuch will ultimately become. History, alas, has shown that these questions are measured in decades, and not merely in a few years.

Sadly, this past June — in the most notable decision of his short tenure — we’ve already seen Justice Gorsuch joining Chief Justice John Roberts and voting with the four liberals in a landmark decision, where the Court concluded that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination “because of … sex,” also covers sexual orientation and gender identity. As a policy matter, you might believe Gorsuch’s position isn’t unreasonable.

Indeed, legislation to protect sexual orientation and gender identity has repeatedly been introduced in Congress, and at different times it has passed both the House and the Senate. But rather than allow elected legislators to make the policy decisions — and to address whatever compromises might be needed to protect free speech, religious liberty and other fundamental rights — the Court just decreed the law was changed. Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Justice Alito put his disapproval in no uncertain terms, writing that “the Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated — the theory that courts should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.”

President Trump’s second nominee, to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, was Brett Kavanaugh. Judge Kavanaugh had a record much like that of Roberts. Indeed, when then-presidential candidate Trump put out his initial list of 11 judges, and subsequently his expanded list of 21 judges, Kavanaugh’s name was deliberately omitted. The reason for this was simple: Kavanaugh, on the DC Circuit, had written an opinion in a case called Seven-Sky v. Holder arguing that the ObamaCare individual mandate was a tax; it was an opinion that many saw as a roadmap for Roberts’ subsequent decision upholding ObamaCare in NFIB v. Sebelius.

Kavanaugh had been a law clerk to Justice Kennedy, and the Washington rumor mill churned with the belief that Kennedy wanted Kavanaugh to replace him and that Kennedy agreed to retire only after the Trump White House made that promise. I don’t know for certain if those rumors are true, but they are certainly plausible.

Kavanaugh, like Roberts, has often sought to avoid controversy. It is no small irony, then, that his confirmation hearing was transformed into a brutal and vicious personal smear, driven by the Democrats.

Judge Kavanaugh was previously a senior staffer in the George W. Bush White House, and he was very much a DC insider. He’s smart, affable and gregarious. Had Jeb Bush won the 2016 presidential nomination and become president, Brett Kavanaugh almost certainly would have been Jeb’s first nominee. Personally, I like Brett, but when President Trump nominated him after the urging of many longtime voices in Washington, I worried about the jurisprudential consequences.

What kind of justice Brett Kavanaugh will be is a question that will take many years to assess. John Roberts has already become the new Sandra Day O’Connor, and some observers fear Kavanaugh may join him as the new Anthony Kennedy, together as the swing justices and arbiters in the middle of the Court. And, as the recent Title VII case illustrated — just as it would vary whether it was Kennedy or O’Connor siding with the liberals — it could also sometimes be Gorsuch doing so. It’s too early to make that conclusion, but time will tell. I fervently hope that’s not the case.

Both nominees will no doubt prove better than the nominees Hillary Clinton would have put on the Court. But Republican presidents must do better than our record the past 70 years.

With the next nominee, the most important criteria that I believe should be applied is whether that individual (1) has a demonstrated proven record of being faithful to the Constitution and (2) has endured pounding criticism — has paid a price for holding that line. Had I been able to choose between Edith Jones and David Souter, I would readily have chosen Judge Jones. Had I been able to choose between John Roberts and Mike Luttig, I would have enthusiastically chosen Judge Luttig. Had I been able to choose between Brett Kavanaugh and Mike Lee, or Neil Gorsuch and Mike Lee, I would have unhesitatingly chosen Mike Lee.

All for the same reason. The stakes are too high — too many critical issues are hanging in the balance. Every single time, without exception, that Republicans nominate a justice who lacks a serious proven record of going through the crucible, that justice has proven a disappointment.

Clerks often emulate their justices. We need more former clerks for Thomas and Scalia (such as Amy Coney Barrett), and fewer Kennedy clerks. Justices “in the mold of Scalia and Thomas” should mean just that.

In the world of Washington, there are always trusted insiders, graybeards who will tell a president, “I know so and so,” and even though their record doesn’t demonstrate it, “trust me,” deep down in their heart, they’re going to be conservative. History teaches us that those siren promises are always, always, always wrong. If a judicial nominee does not have a demonstrated proven record, if we cannot be confident he or she will withstand the praise and punishment, the carrot and stick of the press and the academy, then they should not be named to the Supreme Court. The stakes are simply too high. After all, we’re just one vote away.

This essay is excerpted from Sen. Ted Cruz’s book “One Vote Away: How a Single Supreme Court Seat Can Change History” (Regnery Publishing), out Tuesday.