Posted on 07/07/2018 10:12:37 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
President Trump is slated to announce his highly anticipated pick to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court on Monday night after narrowing down a list of potential nominees to just three likely names.
As the president prepares to make his selection, which comes less than four months before the midterm elections, conservative activists are publicly urging him to consider a number of picks that look likely to push the balance of the court toward conservatives for decades.
Trump has reportedly narrowed his list of seven interviewed candidates to just three federals appeals court judges: Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge and Amy Coney Barrett. He is set to unveil his pick at the White House in prime time on Monday night.
Democrats and some Republicans are pressuring Trump to pick a nominee who in their view is not intent on overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that legalized abortion across the country in 1973. Trump has said recently that he will not ask candidates about their stance on the case as he prepares to make his decision....
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The Hill’s selection of “top conservatives” bears no resemblance to my own.
“Top conservatives” here seems to mean “celebrities who call themselves conservative”. I respect them more when they try to persuade us, not when they pretend to represent us.
I want justices who don’t hold stare decisis as the way to approach every case.
Boy howdy! Where’s Bill Kristol, Egg McMuffin and the new Mexican president?
Interesting choices. I don’t trust Hardiman.
You have a basic misunderstanding of stare decisis and the role it plays in resolving legal issues in our civil justice system. The Supreme Court respects, but is not, hidebound by stare decisis. Lower courts are bound by the precedent set by higher courts. without this principle of law every court at every level would be deciding every case based on real, imaginary or totally different and inconsistent principles of law. Chaos would result. No lawyer would be able to advise you of what the law is, which is what you mostly consult a lawyer to find out. Stare decisis is integral to a smooth runnng, consistent legal system while still allowingbthe High Court to overrule prior decisiions that determine were wrong. Both England And America use case law in determining current case principles.
Next thing they will consult the fake gop panelists on MSNBC and CNN.
Perhaps the Q folks can tell us who the Pres.Will pick since they have the inside track on info.
good information - thanks.
Since Trump gave ya Gorsuch I trust him
Who cares? I trust DJT
I know there is place for stare decisis, but only when it’s a result from a fundamentally good decision. They may not be hidebound, but I’ve heard plenty of judges and justices who depend on precedence, no matter what the basis of that precedence is. Democrats demand stare decisis about Roe v. Wade when it was fundamentally flawed to start with.
#MeToo
No. He shouldn’t ask the judges, they could really screw it up. he’s taking the right approach, I think — I’m sure he has a few very perceptive conservative advisors who are being honest with him (actually, I don’t think Trump needs anyone’s help) and making sure we don’t get a dud.
Those other justices don’t need to like or “work with” the new person. As long as they come down on the right decision — and they will all have their own approach — we are fine. In fact I actually like it when several justices who come down on the same side still take the time to write their own individual opinions. We need that.
Can’t wait to see who’s going to cause the Dims to light their hair on fire. Monday will be a lost day, far too busy, but when I get home I’ll watch all about it. I’ve already got the popcorn.
Ann Coulter’s going all out for Kavanaugh...She’s been tweeting about it tonight.
“Chaos would result”
Like we have now. No one upholding their oaths to the Constitution. The Constitution rules supreme not stare decisis.
“Stare decisis” is lefty shorthand for “don’t mess with Roe v. Wade” or any other decision we like.
The legal principle is separate from the political principle.
I am not a lawyer, but when a squish Republican Senator in years past argued for “super stare decisis”, he was arguing that Roe v. Wade should never be revisited.
Please keep in mind that non-lawyers hear the words, understand the intent of those words, and then equate the words with the intent. In this case, “stare decisis” is used politically to mean “we can kill all the babies we want to”.
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.