Posted on 11/18/2016 8:51:37 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
The following piece was posted on the Washington Post site on 11/14/16.
by Jonathan H. Adler
Once he assumes office, President Donald Trump is expected to promptly nominate someone to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. This, along with subsequent nominations to the Supreme Court and lower courts, will be among his most consequential decisions.
During the campaign, Trump initially identified two appellate court judges — Diane Sykes of the 7th Circuit and William Pryor of the 11th Circuit — as the sort of individuals he would name to the high court to replace Scalia. Later during the campaign, Trump released a list of 11 names — later expanded to 21 — of potential nominees.
Senate Democrats are unlikely to be particularly pleased with any Trump nomination, particularly after Senate Republicans refused to consider President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland. Given Republican control of the Senate, however, they may not be able to do much about it. (And, just for the record, let me reiterate that President Obama lacks the power to bypass the Senate on the Garland nomination.)
Back in 2013, after Republicans filibustered Democratic nominees as Democrats had filibustered Republican nominees, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invoked the “nuclear option,” eliminating the filibuster for lower court and executive branch nominees. As a technical matter, Reid’s move (accomplished by a simple, party-line majority vote) left the filibuster in place for Supreme Court nominees, but there was little question that such a filibuster would not last.
Just one month ago, Reid indicated that Senate Democrats — were they to obtain control of the Senate — would not allow Republicans to filibuster...
(Excerpt) Read more at thecoachsteam.com ...
I agree with Adler’s position. But I do so with some trepidation. Because one day, long may it be delayed, we will be again confronted with a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. And in those circumstances the ONLY thing that has prevented absolute catastrophe in the past has been the filibuster.
So yes, I say do away with it. But brace yourselves for that terrible day when the levers of power once again fall into the hands of the militant left.
“Girl Power.” She wanted to be at Hillarys first State of the Union. She wanted to hand her some kind of victory.
Had the Dem nominee been male, I think Ginsberg would’ve called it a day.
“What was Ginsberg thinking? Should’ve retired and been replaced by Obama...”
I honestly think she dislike Obama so much she did not want him to replace her - holding out the hope Clinton would win. Huge shock I’m sure, as she is so frail if she survives another 4 years doubtful she will be doing much actual work.
I was involved in negotiations with a lawyer who worked until the 10 days before she died - at 91. But she seemed in much better health even then than Ginsburg is now.
“why nominate a hard core conservative, who may not get confirmed, occupy lots of coverage, waste time”
That is how we got into the situation we are in. Why put in moderates who will turn liberal. We have played this game before. It is time we stand up and fight to put strong conservatives anywhere we can get them. I am ready to fight and I think Trump is too.
Those three plus Sasse, Collins, Hatch would definitely vote against it. We could probably come up with others.
Hard core conservatives can’t be relied on either.
Roberts was universally celebrated as strict constitutionalist and he was what got Obamacare through.
Moderate conservatives are no less and no more apt to change. You cannot know. There is no point in fighting over someone you can’t be sure of.
Better to fight and put in a hard core conservative who might slip to being a moderate than a moderate who will slide down to a liberal. I see your point, I am just tired of not putting forward a hard core conservative for fear of a little fight.
Roberts WAS a hard core conservative.
It doesn’t work that way . . . re magnitude of slippage. They cast a devastating vote. Like Obamacare. What bigger moment could there have been. Roberts can vote conservative the rest of his life and still be averaged out hard core left wing.
You can’t know. The fight can be harmful. If the reward is uncertain, it’s not a fight worth fighting.
Whoever he nominates will be among the worst persons on Earth. The enemedia will say so.
Moderate, conservative, liberal...none of those is acceptable. CONSTITUTIONALIST is the only acceptable description for a USSC justice.
1. Ginsburg, a Jew, recognizes Obama is a Muslim.
2. She’s lost her husband, her best friend in Scalia, and most of her friends and co-workers. She loves the law and her role, particularly in defending the 4th Amendment.
3. She’s not as frail as people think. She’s looked this way for 30 years.
4. She fell asleep. Law and scholarship are rigorous, tiring, memory-tasking, definitely not 9-to-5 jobs. Every word must be the right one. A judge I knew said in his verdict: Words are not fungible.
5. After Trump gets his pick approved, he should put Roberts on the carpet and ask his resignation. Make Thomas Chief Justice and appoint the youngest conservative to replace Roberts.
I don’t know what most of that means, but Roberts has a lifetime appointment. The chief justice essentially does nothing more than assign which justice (their clerks) write the majority and minority opinions on cases. He has no power, particularly.
You can’t replace Roberts unless he retires.
I stand corrected, Constitutionalist is the way to go.
It means Roberts has a secret(s) that Obama blackmailed him to rule in favor of ObamaCare.
Trump should also blackmail Roberts ala “Where’d you get your ‘adopted’ children, John? Podesta? Silsby? Here’s your resignation already typed up for you.
“Romney gave me your “binder” in exchange of being made Secretary of State. You know how that works, John.”
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.