Trump says he'll release list of judges to ease concerns

Associated Press ^ | Mar 20, 2016 10:06 PM EDT | Jill Colvin

[Olog-hai]

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump says he’s planning to release a list of judges that he would select from to fill Supreme Court vacancies if he’s elected president in an effort to ease concerns about his picks.

“I am going to give a list of either five or 10 judges that I will pick, 100 percent pick, that I will put in for nomination. Because some of the people that are against me say: ‘We don’t know if he’s going to pick the right judge. Supposing he picks a liberal judge or supposing he picks a pro-choice judge,’” Trump told a local gathering of Republicans in Palm Beach, Florida Sunday night.

He says the list would include judges “that everybody respects, likes and totally admires” — “great conservative judges, great intellects, the people that you want.” …

[JJ_Folderol]

He should put Cruz on that list.

The reaction might be quite amusing.

[nickcarraway]

Wow, he’s poisoning the well for future Republican.

[mabelkitty]

Unbelievably brilliant strategy.
I cannot freaking believe that we didn’t demand this from a candidate before.

We are all in an abusive relationship and just happy with the scraps the GOPe throw our way and thank them for the stale bread.

[Pollster1]

He should put Cruz on that list. The reaction might be quite amusing.

I was going to say the same thing. First, Cruz has the right judicial philosophy and temperament for the Court, and second it would reassure Cruz supporters about Trump's claim to conservatism. Cruz is my top pick for the White House (although I will vote Trump because anything other than a first round nomination for Trump or Cruz will go to a brokered convention with a potential traitorous RINO victor), but I would rather have him on the Court for 20+ years than in the White House for 8 years.

[exit82]

We are all in an abusive relationship and just happy with the scraps the GOPe throw our way and thank them for the stale bread.Exactly right. And that includes our minders in the media who have proven worthless lately.

I shudder to think where we would be if Donald Trump did not ride that escalator down on June 16th with Melania.

Probably watching the coronation of Low Energy Jeb.

Nutz.

[DeathBeforeDishonor1]

Brilliant move. Show the people what is beyond the GOP and Obamas choice.

[Sacajaweau]

I'd put it on even if I wasn't even considering the guy.

But then again.....we have to remember Cruz's BFF, Roberts is Chief Justice.

But then again, I know this is Trump at his best...and t leave Cruz's name off might just inflame Cruz...who knows that he would be the best judge in the universe.

Of course, he didn't do so well on promoting his BFF.

Now, let's get down to reality. Cruz argued a case before the Supremes....and Justice Roberts, speaking for the majority, gave Cruz the win. It was really kind of a dumb case.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

But wait a minute. This can't be. I thought because Trump took his picture with the Clintons in the 90s, he's going to nominate some liberal?

This is it! Trump's poll numbers will tank now, I tell ya!

[Georgia Girl 2]

Good idea.

[Sacajaweau]

http://www.texastribune.org/2016/01/24/ted-cruz-supreme-court-cases/

[RIghtwardHo]

Because he is SO trustworthy and NEVER flip flops like a fish out of water.

[nickcarraway]

Cruz is not, and will never be, a judge.

[zedee]

Terrible idea. There is a reason Presidents and Presidential candidate don't name potential nominees before they are nominated. First, an enormous amount of time goes into vetting potential nominees, so as to avoid (or hopefully avoid, at least) any embarrassment or scandal. Second, and more importantly, putting a sitting judge on an official, public short list for a higher judicial office compromises the judge's neutrality (or perceived neutrality, at least). Anyone who comes out at the losing end of a decision made by the judge (especially in a criminal case) will argue on appeal that the judge's decision was influenced by his desire to stay on Trump's short list. And, before that point, many litigants would argue that the judge should recuse himself for the same reason.

Publicly releasing a list like this risks creating a YUGE mess. And risks effectively ending the judicial career of anyone on the list.

[knarf]

I’ve been clamoring for Cruz on the SC since ... I don’t know ... a year ?

[JimRed]

And, before that point, many litigants would argue that the judge should recuse himself for the same reason.

I don't recall anyone arguing that the homosexual judges on the court should recuse themselves on the homosexual "marriage" issue.

[Sacajaweau]

Just a little diversion for Hillary's researchers.

Trump can do his nomination on Day 1.

And....assuming we keep the senate, ten days is sufficient for an up and down vote.

I'm guessing he and Sessions have already discussed this thoroughly.

[mabelkitty]

Not so.
There are judges sitting there right now who rule based on a potential pick for a higher bench. That is nothing new.

There is no reason, other than politics, to hide potential nominees to the Supreme Court.

[zedee]

There are judges sitting there right now who rule based on a potential pick for a higher bench. That is nothing new.

There is a difference between that and a judge making a decision after having been named as a potential nominee by a specific candidate (who has a specific platform, etc).

[omega4412]

Sorry, illegal. The same issue came up during the Romney campaign.

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 29, Section 599, U.S. Code

Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.