Posted on 06/30/2018 8:56:10 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
President Donald Trump is driving to execute the same playbook in selecting a new Supreme Court nominee that last year delivered swift confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch, following a methodical course in hopes of avoiding the lurching disorder that so often engulfs his White House.
As Trump looks to reorient the nation's high court with a replacement for retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, he has left himself little room for improvisation - in part because he has delegated and outsourced much of the spadework.
Using Gorsuch as a model, the president has said his next nominee will be chosen from a preselected list of 25 candidates, most of them already fixtures on the federal courts who have been subject to public and internal vetting.
The interview process for a half-dozen or so finalists is beginning, including private sit-downs with Trump starting this weekend at his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf course, as well as sessions with White House Counsel Donald McGahn and formal FBI background checks. An announcement date has also been set: July 9, the first Monday after the July 4 holiday and the day before Trump jets to Brussels for a week-long European trip....
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
I do believe you are correct there! That is how I feel. I don't feel like we will get a squishy candidate!
Why does the SC keep making bad rulings? Because the justices are all from the same schools with the same liberal law school professors:
The Harvard-Yalification Of The Supreme Court
Yale, Harvard Law Taking Over Supreme Court
How to diversify the Ivy League club that is the Supreme Court
Harvard and Yale Ascendant: The Legal Education of the Justices from Holmes to Kagan
I’d make a good justice, mostly because I find it to be a joke. My only litmus test would be if something is in line with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
It’s absolutely mind-blowing to hear the leftists’ fantasies about packing the court with 11 or 15 Justices next time they control all 3 branches. Are they really that stupid, deranged or both? (My money’s on both). Sure, it’s legally possible to increase the number of SCOTUS judges and pack withe court, but, then why shouldn’t the GOP do the same damned thing right now? And why couldn’t the GOP then bump the size of the court up 21 when they get back in power? Heck, any new administration (with party control of congress) would simply add as new Justices as it saw fit, and after a few administrations, there could be 50, 75, 100 Justices. The sky’s the limit. Heck, why not just get it over with and admit that the Court has become a 3rd legislative branch?
The Left will go absolutely INSANE when they know there is no way to STOP the GOP from nominating another Conservative
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Jewish women have strong genes. My buddies mom lived to be 101.
Excessive delegation was a charge leveled at reagan iirc. Is this what happens when theinitial chsrges by the msm of gross incompetence dissipate due to being at variance with facts as measured by results?
If trump was incompetent as iirc the msm initially maintained, then liberals woul imho have nothing to fear from 4 years of his presidency. What am i missing...
Absolutely reading the constitution is easy.
What is hard is distorting it to mean things it does not mean and making up silly excuses for doing so.
We would have at least half as many government agencies if the court was a constitutional court.
Agree - we are sometimes to ready to keep attacking even when someone we despise is doing us a good turn....
3
Has anyone seen a list of who has visited Bedminster? If not, think about that in regards to the day after 11/17/16 when Rogers showed up unannounced at Trump Tower and what transpired immediately afterwards.
Lazy was Barry’s most redeeming quality. Can you imagine what further of a mess this country would be in if he hadn’t been?
I have no idea who has Collins' and Murkowski's ear on abortion. They are pro-choice. BUT: it is appropriate today to remember the classic Krauthammer position on abortion. Sir Charles was pro-choice but still argued that Roe was wrongly decided. He argued further that the establishment of the abortion license by illegitimate means had profoundly corrupted American jurisprudence, because it lashed the left to the "make it up as you go along" school of constitutional interpretation. There are 1001 issues that get tangled up in the debate over originalism and strict construction, but abortion is the one that makes the subject a ritual purity test for the left.
So: the question is whether Collins and/or Murkowski are prepared to make the Krauthammer argument. If they are, they can carve out a major historical niche. I would hope this is a discussion that serious pro-life people have had with them over the years. If such a relationship and conversation have been cultivated, this could be a defining moment.
Neither Murkowski nor Collins can be bullied on this. Try to break them with scorched earth politics and they will go independent or switch parties outright. The same logic in reverse applies to the handful of Democrats who might be persuaded to break ranks.
Whatever your stance on abortion, Roe was wrongly decided. It's time to remove the poisoned dagger from judicial politics. If the SC reverses Roe, the issue reverts to state legislatures. Are Democrats really terrified that New York, Illinois and California are going to become strict right to life states? The dems need to be called on this, and the best person to do it would be a pro-choice Senator who understands that Roe was wrong.
Everything that I've seen about her is solid.
She's also only 40.
DJT has some real good names on that list.
I'm not saying that Grant is the best, but if Trump wants a woman in this seat she'd be a good one to look at.
“...he has left himself little room for improvisation - in part because he has delegated and outsourced much of the spadework.”
uh..ya...that’s kinda how the office of President works.
He applies his principles in establishing objectives and policy and directs his subject matter experts on execution.
This is a GREAT LIST:
“Hardiman is believed to be a contender this time as well. Trump’s shortlist also is said to possibly include U.S. Appeals Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana; U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh of Maryland, a former Kennedy law clerk; U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, who was a finalist last year; and U.S. Appeals Court Judge Amul Thapar of Kentucky.”
And, Trump will likely have the opportunity to seat MOST of them, given the current vacancy and the the fact that Ginsberg, Breyer, and Thomas will likely ‘vacate’, during Trump’s term.
With the retirement of Justice Kennedy, Pres Trump is a hairbreadth away from sealing his legacy going down in history as one of the most influential and magnificent presidents in American history.
Trump’s greatest legacy..... sticking it to liberals every which way but loose.......man, I love it.
Trump’s makeover of the USSC strongly suggests that the court will be:
<><> a bastion of ultra-right doctrine,
<><>hostile to lamebrain progressive causes of all sorts.
<><> be determined to protect the unborn
<><> will slap down offensive “reproductive rights,”
<><> starve unions,
<><> will look askance at affirmative action,
<><> will toss the ugliness of “diversity” into the dustbin of history
<><> uphold America’s sacrosanct voting rights,
<><> keep criminal defendants in their place.
<><> keep the peace through enhanced L/E,
<><> keep capitalism alive,
<><> reinforce businesses large and small,
<><> uphold the First Amendment, and,
<><> elevate the Second Amendment to new legal heights.
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.