The nomination of Eric Tung, a Los Angeles County attorney, to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is moving forward, potentially shifting the court further to the right. Tung, who has never held public office or served as a judge, was approached by the White House Counsel’s Office on March 28 to succeed Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta.

Mike Davis,an advisor to President Trump on judicial selections,reportedly supported tung’s nomination. According to the New York Post, Davis had identified Tung as a potential successor to Ikuta in March.

“Eric is a Tough Patriot, who will uphold the Rule of Law in the most RADICAL, Leftist States like California, Oregon, and Washington,” trump wrote on Truth Social following the announcement of tung’s nomination in July.

Sen. Alex Padilla voiced strong opposition, stating, “Mr. Tung believes in a conception of the Constitution that rejects equality and liberty,and that would turn back the clock and continue to exclude vast sections of the American public from enjoying equal justice under the law.”

Tung has maintained a low profile during the nomination process and did not respond to requests for comment.

A native of Woodland Hills, Tung is known for his expertise in cryptocurrency law and his advocacy for constitutional originalism.He is a graduate of Yale and the University of Chicago Law School and clerked for Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch.He later joined the law firm Jones Day.

Carrie Campbell Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said, “Eric is the epitome of grace under pressure, as was evidenced …when she and Eric had to evacuate their home during the California wildfires, only days after welcoming their first child. She’s worked at the highest levels, from the White House to the executive team at Walmart, and her talent is matched only by her kindness and love for her family.”

“you’re willing to tell us you beleive Loving was correctly decided, but you’re not willing to say the other decisions were correctly decided,”

During his confirmation hearings, Tung declined to answer whether he believed IVF was protected by the Constitution when asked by Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware.

Democratic members of the Senate judiciary Commitee have criticized Tung for providing what they described as “sham answers” to their questions.

Sen. adam schiff questioned Tung on his views on landmark cases such as Obergefell vs. Hodges and Lawrence vs. Texas, after justice Clarence Thomas suggested those privacy rights precedents should be reconsidered. Schiff also inquired about Loving vs. Virginia, the 1967 case that legalized interracial marriage.

“Was that wrongly decided?” the California lawmaker asked.

“Senator, my wife and I are an interracial couple, so if that case were wrongly decided I would be in big trouble,” Tung responded.

“You’re willing to tell us you believe Loving was correctly decided, but you’re not willing to say the other decisions were correctly decided,” Schiff said. “That seems less originalist and more situational.”