President Trump has announced that he will be announcing his Supreme Court pick for Justice Antonin Scalia on Tuesday evening. That means that everyone on both sides of the political aisle is gearing up for a battle. Will he pick a firebrand right-winger in the Scalia mold? Will he pick a moderate? Will he choose to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConell’s (R-KY) feet to the fire? Will Democrats filibuster?

There’s truly only one question for Trump: is he picking a clear and open Constitutional originalist?

That’s it.

No matter whom he picks, most of the right will quickly approve. That’s because Trump submitted a list of 21 potential justices months ago, reportedly aggregated with input from the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. That’s a great start – obviously, both of those groups have tremendous expertise in judicial interpretation.

But that isn’t enough.

In 2005, I was one of the only pundits on the right to openly fight against George W. Bush’s pick of John Roberts for the Supreme Court. Here’s what I wrote:

Perhaps Roberts is a safe pick. He's politically conservative and undoubtedly brilliant. He will sail through the Senate without much hassle. But it is shocking to watch many constitutional originalists and textualists abandon their philosophies in favor of cheap politics. Roberts is not an originalist. There is nothing in his very short jurisprudential record to indicate that his judicial philosophy involves strict fidelity to the original meaning of the Constitution. He is not Antonin Scalia, nor is he Clarence Thomas…. There is nothing to indicate that Roberts prioritizes the words of the Constitution above other, more immediate political concerns….Unfortunately, we have no choice but to closely examine Roberts' words, because he has virtually no judicial record….President Bush had the once-in-a-presidency opportunity to nominate a clear originalist. Instead, he abandoned absolute adherence to the Constitution in favor of political expedience.

In other words, no cipher candidates; stealth candidates end up being David Souter far more often than Clarence Thomas. And we can’t afford another David Souter or Anthony Kennedy or Sandra Day O’Connor or John Roberts.

So, here’s what we should be looking for:

1. Somebody With A Clear Judicial Philosophy. Every judicial candidate says the same things in testimony: they respect the power of the legislature and the executive, they don’t want the judiciary to become an activist superlegislature, they rely on precedent. That says nothing about how they will judge cases. We deserve a justice who clearly states, as Scalia did, that the Constitution of the United States – in its original meaning – governs cases, and that texts should be read according to their meaning, not according to mythical “legislative intent.” The Constitution is not a “living document,” a piece of poetry to be interpreted along the moral lines judges wish. It’s not enough to oppose “judicial activism” – judges must oppose attempts to redefine constitutional meaning along the lines of their personal political predilections.

2. Somebody Who Speaks The Truth On Cases. The easiest avoidance strategy in judicial hearings is the statement by judges that they won’t speak about particular hypotheticals or cases. That’s asinine. The left routinely says they use Roe v. Wade as a litmus test – and so should the right. We shouldn’t have to guess whether a judge has an opinion on Roe v. Wade. They all have opinions on Roe v. Wade. That means we should know those opinions. We should use Obergefell as a litmus test. We should use the Obamacare jurisprudence as a litmus test. We should know judges’ opinions on whether transgenderism is covered by the equal protection clause, or whether the right to same-sex marriage trumps the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It’s simply ridiculous to nominate someone who is inscrutable on key issues that will decide the future of the country. The left certainly wouldn’t.

3. Somebody With A Clear Record. It’s not enough to say the right things. We should look for a judge with a clear judicial record of doing the right thing. That means that we shouldn’t have to have a judge with no record on tough issues. We only know what justices will do under pressure if we know what they’ve done under pressure before (cough, cough, Roberts, cough). There is danger in nominating someone who hasn’t been willing to stand up for the Constitution out of fear of losing a nomination somewhere down the road.

Now, President Trump is in a particularly good position. He doesn’t have to negotiate with Democrats. He should be able to strongarm Mitch McConnell into invoking the nuclear option and passing through a Supreme Court justice with Republican votes alone. He shouldn’t be relegated to picking a stealth candidate and then saying “trust me.” I opposed such a strategy back in 2005, for good reason:

To this, some may answer that originalists should simply trust President Bush. I ask: Based on what track record? Republicans have named seven of the last nine Supreme Court appointees. Those justices include anti-originalists Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter. Originalists, take note: President George H.W. Bush believed that Souter would be faithful to the Constitution. In fact, H.W.'s nominating description of Souter sounds virtually identical to his son's in favor of Roberts: "I have selected a person who will interpret the Constitution and, in my view, not legislate from the Federal bench." After a decade of legislating from the bench, it is eminently clear that Souter's stealth candidacy and subsequent decisions have undermined the Constitution and the American system of government as a whole.

No more stealth picks. No more Kennedies or Souters or Stevens or Roberts. Republicans voted in huge numbers for President Trump because they wanted this promise, above all others, to be kept. Time to keep the promise. And we shouldn’t have to cross our fingers.