FReegards!
Posted on 06/28/2018 5:04:33 PM PDT by Elderberry
On Wednesday’s “Hannity” opening monologue, a list of judges on President Trump’s list to replace retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy was presented in a fast-running backdrop. A complete list can be found here.
Kennedy’s retirement, announced earlier on Wednesday, immediately spurred discussion as to who Trump might nominate to his seat. Constitutionally, all potential cabinet members and federal court nominees must be confirmed by a majority of the U.S. Senate.
The Senate currently consists of 51 Republicans, 47 Democrats, and two Independents. In November, one-third of the chamber will face re-election or replacement.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is unlikely to cast a vote, as he has been absent from the Senate for several months due to serious illness.
At present, minus Kennedy, the Supreme Court contains what many view as four “liberal” justices and four “conservative” justices. Kennedy was often referred to as “the swing vote,” as the way he would opine on any given issue could not always be discerned in advance.
Early last year, Trump nominated Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Justice Neil Gorsuch to the high court. Gorsuch’s seating has been touted by Trump as one of his greatest accomplishments thus far.
One of the names on the list is Sen. Mike Lee (R) of Utah, another is Thomas Hardiman, who was reportedly on Trump’s “short list” of contenders when Gorsuch was chosen.
Hardiman currently sits on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and was one of a three-judge panel which rejected as “frivolous” an appeal in a case dealing with the issue of presidential eligibility stemming from the election of Barack Hussein Obama in 2008.
The appeal, submitted by plaintiffs’ attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey, consisted of a 95-page brief challenging a lower court’s finding that the question of presidential eligibility is a “political” one.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
I’d say SCOTUS has done a good job recently
Plus the fact that fidelity to the constitution is what we want
I don’t trust Lee. His Mormonism is no better than if he were a muslim
I tend to agree, but maybe we should save her for Ruth Buzzi’s replacement?
I agree that we have more than enough women right now.
I agree. Or he’s vegetative and on
life support. I’m wondering what
political game the left is
planning with his demise.
Ping to potential SCOTUS pick who attempted to sanction Mario Apuzzo during an appeal of Barry’s NBC eligibility for making a frivolous appeal!
“Hardiman currently sits on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and was one of a three-judge panel which rejected as ‘frivolous’ an appeal in a case dealing with the issue of presidential eligibility stemming from the election of Barack Hussein Obama in 2008.”
Here is my pick:
Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
********************************************************
She’d be my pick also.
+1
Thumbs up! I agree.
I don’t trust Lee. His Mormonism is no better than if he were a muslim
*************************************
I tend to agree. Flake has proven that and Lee is right behind him. ....Saw an item on FR yesterday that was quoting Lee stating things that were clearly anti-Trump a couple of years ago. ....Don’t understand why Cruz is a Lee supporter...
bkmk
No. I’d rather Trump stick it to the Dim’s early with a female he knows they hate. And she’s the youngest on his list. And she’s a Federalist member. Trump could replace Ginzberg later with a man and then watch them scream again. 1st because he gave us a woman they hate, and then because he does not recognize a seat as “reserved” for a particular “racial”, “minority” or gender category. I say “disrupt” the judicial order, because WE ARE THE RESISTANCE.
“But what are her position about 2nd amendment? And judicial legislating?”
1. Do you know what the positions on those issues are for any of the other candidates.
2. I know she is a member of the Federalist Society. I know the Federalist Society is made up of folks with majorities in the Scalia mold. You can look them up and check out their positions.
Good points all. I agree, we need to go full Kurt Schlichter on them.
I hate the word litmus test as it has been misused but we do need to know if the nominee has ever had or been around guns, if they believe that the 2nd amend is equal to 1st. Even Scalia was a bit conflicting on this. Too many of our east coast and city judges have never had a gun, are too easy to minimize the 2nd amendment. Otherwise Heller, for example would have been used to knock down the gun control laws now in place and being enacted.
I do not know the author of this piece, meaning I do not know whether she is a reliable conservative commentator or not.
I read the whole piece, and did not see any analysis of why the attempt to sanction was undertaken, except for the nebulous “standing” issue. What I would like to know is whether the standing issue was part of the original dismissal (at trial level), and whether the sanction would have been supported in law at the appeals level. Only the complainant’s viewpoint was included in this article, so I have no information to determine whether the sanction was judicial activism, or whether is was well within the established boundaries of the law as applied at the appellate level.
Defending “gun rights” does not require any experience with guns. The issue is the Second Amendment, fealty to what the Constitution says, respecting the separation of powers and not legislating from the bench. Those are Conservative legal values a good Conservative judge weaves into their jurisprudence on any case before them, whether it be “gun rights” or something else. To a good Surpreme Court judge, gun rights, or abortion, or eminent domain, or others are not entirely unrelated issues as far as how they should view the CONSTITUTIONAL aspect of issues.
A very good question to ask is “Do you believe in something called the “living Constitution”? That is an invention of Leftist activist judges to defend their denial of our written Constitution to instead favor their own mondern view. To a Conservative legal mind, the “living Constitution” is disrespectful of the only approved Constitution - the one we the people adopted including all the amendments we the people adopted, and it is a denial of the separation of powers demanded by the Constitution, because changing that Constitution is not given to judges, it must come up from the people and enacted in our legislative processes.
If a legal person says to me they deny the so-called “living Constitution”, I have some confidence they accept the 2nd Amendment as you and I think of it.
Let’s see if any of our GOP Senators have the gonads to stick to the Dims by asking our judicial nominees “do you believe in the so-called living Constitution”.
FReegards!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.