Posted on 06/27/2020 5:24:23 PM PDT by BillyBoy
Josh Hawley warns Trump on Supreme Court disappointments By MARIANNE LEVINE President Donald Trump counts reshaping the judiciary as one of his greatest accomplishments. But some top conservatives say his vaunted process for picking Supreme Court nominees needs to be revamped. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said in an interview that the high court’s latest string of left-leaning rulings suggests Trump should reconsider his vow to release a new list of potential Supreme Court nominees by September in his bid to win over socially conservative voters. “I don’t love the idea of just doing over what we have been doing in the past,” Hawley said. “The idea of issuing a new list, if it’s just going to be the same stuff and the same process, I mean I’m not wild about it. … When it comes to this whole process, we have to ask ourselves, is this vetting process, is this really working?” Trump has made the confirmation of 200 federal judges, including two Supreme Court justices, a significant part of his reelection campaign. But Hawley said religious conservatives right now are “very depressed,” particularly after Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump pick, wrote the decision providing LGBTQ workers with federal workplace protections. The disappointment comes as Trump can’t afford to lose a key part of his base amid fast-sinking polls. And the Supreme Court could deal another blow to conservatives soon in a case centering on a Louisiana anti-abortion law. Hawley said grassroots religious conservatives need to be much more involved in the Supreme Court discussions going forward given their political clout, and he offered a reminder to his friends in “the legal conservative project.” “Who actually goes out and votes for judges?” said Hawley. “It’s conservative Catholics, conservative Jews, evangelicals, Mormons. That coalition of folks is vitally important to the Republican Party. I think they feel just shocked at what's going on with the Supreme Court, so I think it’s vital that they be heard from and involved in this process.” Trump first released a list of possible Supreme Court nominees in May 2016 with input from conservatives affiliated with The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation. The names helped ease concerns about the GOP nominee, and many credit the move with encouraging evangelicals to come to the polls. Hawley, himself a former Supreme Court clerk, has been vocal lately in his criticism of the high court. But unlike other Republicans who share his frustrations and supported Gorsuch, Hawley is the first to take issue with the process employed so far to pick Trump appointments. Hawley’s effort to seize on the issue also offers a window into a possible 2024 presidential campaign that relies on a populist, socially conservative message. Top officials in conservative legal groups counter that religious organizations have always been involved and say that while they disagree with some of the Supreme Court’s decisions, conservatives are seeing a net positive under Trump. They also say Trump should be praised for his transparency in releasing a list, arguing it helped win his 2016 campaign. “There is the more secretive and narrow process of judicial selection that brought us David Souter and John Roberts,” said Leonard Leo, who was involved in the Supreme Court confirmation of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. “And there is the process that President Trump established and created which is to create as much transparency as possible by publishing a list for all conservatives to see and respond to.” Leo, a co-chairman of The Federalist Society, also pushed back on the idea that religious conservatives have been ignored. “I seriously doubt that any thoughtful religious conservative would trade the Supreme Court of today, in spite of some significant disappointing decisions, for the Supreme Court of 25, 30 or 40 years ago,” he said. “As compared with conservative performance in the broader battle over our culture, the conservative legal movement has posted significantly more gains. Obviously, more can be achieved and that’s precisely what the president is trying to accomplish as he enters into the election cycle this November.” The president hasn’t been shy about touting his record on judicial nominees. In a recent interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Trump said it was his top presidential achievement and predicted that close to 300 judges would be confirmed under his administration. But there are some signs of discontent. During his rally in Tulsa, Okla., when Trump touted Gorsuch’s confirmation, the crowd responded with boos. Carrie Severino, president of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, praised Trump’s decision to publicly release a list, calling it a “bold” move. She also defended the vetting process for nominees and predicted Trump’s next list of Supreme Court nominees would also include a new pool of judges: appellate court nominees confirmed under his presidency. “That is a really different type of group than you had when Trump was choosing what to do. He was looking at largely Bush appointees,” Severino said. “Now he would have the opportunity to choose among Trump nominees ... [who] were chosen with specific interest in having a certain level of courage and principle in a way that the Bush administration wasn’t focusing on.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who competed against Trump in 2016 and might seek the White House again one day, praised the president’s "leadership" on judicial nominees. “The last two weeks of decisions from the Court go to show just how important it is for President Trump to continue emphasizing the need to nominate strong justices to the bench who will defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and I look forward to seeing the revised list,” Cruz added. Others on the right, however, say the Supreme Court has accumulated too much power altogether, and that Congress and the administration need to do more to counter disappointing legal decisions through legislation and executive authority. “The future of the movement is going to have to be much more willing to address our political problems through the political process,” said Terry Schilling, executive director of American Principles Project. “Congress needs to be much more engaged. The president needs to be much more engaged.” Gabby Orr contributed to this report.
The GOP senator says the president needs to overhaul his process for picking nominees, in a swipe at top legal conservatives.
Barr talks a good game, but so far we are not seeing any real action.
It’s no longer just Christianity under attack, it’s America itself.
I can’t help but remember that Bill Barr was AG when Ruby Ridge happened.
Lon Horiuchi was protected by the FBI and DOJ, just like they are protecting Strzok and the others today.
Protecting the DOJ is his primary objective, not justice.
Is that you, Sheldon?
https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/speeches/the-third-federalist-society
Sheldon ShiteHouse, scumbag senatrix of Rhode Island, doesn't much like the Federalist Society...
Gorsuch was a former member of the CFR-Council on Foreign Relations. Take all those types off the list, as well as any other globalist promoting organizations.
The laws regarding discrimination never entertained the idea of sexual orientation at all. The court has once again infringed on legislative responsibility.
I’m good with a new/refreshed list of candidates.
But....do NOT use the Heritage Foundation as a ‘resource’ for suggestions.
Nope - they're "non-partisan". Only the Federalist Society is EVIL.
Translation: "effective".
The Federalist Society was created to prevent another Souter from getting on the Supreme Court.
We have Roberts and Gorsuch on the Court now and they supposedly vetted them.
Why should they continue to exist when the failed their entire raison d’etre TWICE?
While no one is perfect, the fact that your entire life is searched through and potential embarrassing life events are sought out. Mitch Daniels didn't want to run for further public office for that very reason!
>> Leonard Leo failed us, despite being a great guy. We need a better process. Trump’s process was an improvement, but we can’t afford screw-ups like Gorsuch. I support Hawley in this general statement. Leonard Leo needs to eat some crow and display some humility. If Leo can’t propose improvements himself, then he needs to get out of the picture and let someone else do the vetting. <<
I agree with cmj328's statement. I think the Federalist Society's "vetting", even if it well intentioned, has had a very poor track record.
I think Leo is simply wrong here claiming the current SCOTUS is "far better" than the Supreme Court we had "25, 30 years ago" and we wouldn't want to trade for the type of Supreme Court we had back then.
If we examine his argument there, going back 25-30 years was the 1990-1995 era during The Rehnquist Court. If THAT Supreme Court came forward in a time machine and had to review the cases on the current SCOTUS's docket, I have doubt they'd give us better decisions. There's no way the 1990s era Supreme Court would have seriously considered the argument that mentally ill transgendered people were what the writers of the 1964 Civil Rights Act had in mind when they wrote the law. They would have looked at any lawyer arguing such a premise like they were crazy. Even some of the "liberal" judges back then wouldn't have drunk that kool-aid, compared to now we have so-called "originalist, strict constructionist, Scalia-like" judges writing that garbage in their decisions.
1992 or so would have been the ideal year: we'd have a Rehnquist court with Scalia and Thomas on his side, could possibly swing O'Connor, Kennedy, AND Byron White to our side, and the marxist wing of the court DIDN'T have Darth Bader Ginsburg on THEIR side yet.
Sorry Leo, after thinking it over, yes, I would trust THAT Supreme Court making decisions over the current one, any day.
I think I read somewhere that the Heritage Foundation "link" to Goolag was just a Lefty smear.
I know that the Senate Judiciary DemoCommies include questions about Heritage Foundation ties in their Spanish Inquisition grillings.
They went after Neomi Rao, hero of The Battle Of Dirty Emmet's Mandamus, pretty hard for her Heritage Foundation ties.
I think Hawley and Cruz would both make excellent Supreme Court Justices....but they are excellent Senators and I don’t want to lose them in that role. The key is to identify faithful strict constructionists and then vet them to make sure there’s nothing in their past that could derail their nomination.
WASHINGTON — Heritage Foundation President Kay C. James, writing for FoxNews.com, says the horrific and needless death of George Floyd must serve as a turning point to make Americans finally end the ugly racism that stains our nation’s history.
James, who was part of the civil rights movement of the 1960s and helped desegregate her school, writes:
“The senseless and completely unjustified killing of George Floyd – an unarmed black man – by a white police officer in Minneapolis on Monday should shock the conscience of America.
“While I understand the frustration and anger, I do not condone the violence spreading across this country in response to Floyd’s horrific killing. Rioting tearing apart Minneapolis and cities coast-to-coast will never lead to anything but more suffering. Those who are committing crimes are distracting us from the even larger group of people who are peacefully demonstrating.
“But we cannot shrug off Floyd’s killing – along with the killings of so many other black Americans throughout our nation’s history and up through today. “How many more black people must die, and how many more times will statements of sympathy have to be issued? How many times will protests have to occur? How many more committees will have to be formed until America admits that racism is still a problem in this country?
“Racism in America is a fatal wound. Every time another incident occurs we put a Band-Aid on it, but the Band-Aid keeps falling off. Band-Aids are not enough to ever stitch this country back together.”
https://www.heritage.org/press/kay-c-james-americans-must-speak-and-reject-racism
It almost worked [would have if Dubya the Spineless had been in the Oval Office], so they'll do it again next time - only harder.
“There are quite a few new Trump Appeals Court and district judges confirmed in 52 - 48 votes. Within that group are a number of VERY good and VERY young potential Supreme Court nominees.”
.........................................................................
Good point. The Dims probably vet the Republican nominees better than the Republicans do. And when every Dim votes against one of the nominees, you have to conclude that candidate is likely to be a very good choice.
*******************************************************************
Britt Grant is a prime example of this group of potential nominees. She was confirmed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2018 by a vote of 52 - 46. She’s 42 years young. I research these potential candidates and she stands out. Following is a link to a speech she gave at Stanford Law School which will give you a flavor of her Judicial thinking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WKhbrghSdE
I don’t know anything about Gorsuch personal life. But he comes across as possible being a queer imo.
There’s this asymmetry between the fairly easy nominations of even the most far left judges under Democratic presidents vs the tortuous, trial-by-(verbal) combat ordeals of right-leaning judges under GOP presidents. It’s as if the GOP were populated mostly by RINO’s.
Senate Judiciary Democrat fanatics are attacking people like this [who are agreeing with Pelosi and Schumer on George Kirby/Floyd Taylor, uh, George Taylor] because they're not dressed in Antifa black and pulling down Abolitionist statues.
So thanks for that.
It tells us that our opponents are beyond rabid, and that we should take that into account during the election.
Trump didn’t pick Roberts, and I think we had one or two bad decisons by Gorsuch. Big deal.
His wife is not guilty.
“... they will be right on everything else.”
Not really. A number of years ago they were doing some political trading between amendments with democrat senators. Lars Larson, local conservative talk show host, quit his life membership because of their shenanigans.
Imagine that... 
Did you ever see the vote counts for Dubya's judges compared to Trump's judges?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_George_W._Bush
Note the number of nominees with "zero votes against".
I might have to do a "controversial judges for Bush/ClownBammy" post after I finish with the Appeals Courts posts.
We're seeing a number of ClownBammy plants rear their ugly Lefty Resistance heads lately.
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.