Posted on 07/07/2018 6:16:30 PM PDT by springwater13
Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, told President Trump this past week that Judges Raymond M. Kethledge and Thomas M. Hardiman presented the fewest obvious obstacles to being confirmed to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court, according to Republican officials briefed on the conversation.
While careful not to directly make the case for any would-be justice, Mr. McConnell made clear in multiple phone calls with Mr. Trump and the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, that the lengthy paper trail of another top contender, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, would pose difficulties for his confirmation.
Mr. McConnell is concerned about the volume of the documents that Judge Kavanaugh has created in his 12 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as well as in his roles as White House staff secretary under President George W. Bush and assistant to Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.
On Saturday afternoon, Mr. Trump was undecided about his pick — which he has said he will reveal in a prime-time address on Monday night — according to three people in contact with him. He went back and forth every few hours between the four options in front of him, with Judge Kethledge getting the least attention, people familiar with his thinking said. It is similar to how Mr. Trump has approached most of his self-imposed deadlines for appointees, toggling between choices until nearly the last moment.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
With McTurtle’s leadership having a Mr. Wizard to call on would be nice.
sight one thing, Gorsuch. How about something else? Zero leadership other than when he is carrying the swamp banner. I don’t read the NYTs but do have a realistic view on Uniparty leadership. I assume you’re a big Ryan fan as well. You Uniparty types are the biggest roadblock to Trump and his conservative agenda.””
No, I cited two issues. Reread my post. Are you aware of tax cuts? What is gained by attacking allies as instructed by the old media? Assume nothing, since you don’t know me. What I understand is the value of allies and so does Trump. I also understand the value in dividing the Rat opposition—that would be the republicans and our president. Does the uniparty consist of republicans, rats, commies, liberfarians and socialists heroes? I am not buying the equivalence memo of all parties are equally evil. Historical evidence does not support such a ridiculous assertion.
Get back in your box Mitch the Bitch!
How dare you try and lecture our outstanding President, a man of genius and courage, who has saved our country!?
The choice for SCOTUS should be purely the purview of President Trump, a man who has not failed us in any way over these wonderful past 3 years !
“Kethledge also reversed a deportation order of a CRIMINAL ALIEN who had lied about a drug conviction and been convicted of grand theft auto, which Kethledge argued was not an aggravated felony. Van Don Nguyen v. Holder, 571 F.3d 524”
Ann Coulter on Twitter.
Thanks FRiend. The SC is a giant scam, a bunch of weirdo politicians in robes trying to make us believe they make decisions based on the Constitution.
They are elitist scumbags from Yale and Harvard and vote the way their party tells them too, unless they are being extorted, like that MF Roberts.
FUMM, you crook.
If that fool supports them, then I am deeply questionable of them. I’d rather have Trump select them. Beside, the stinking RINO party if all voted with their president, would approve his choices. They have more votes than the commies. The only way his choices don’t get approved is the RINOs do not support him.
Lawyers run every branch of federal and state governments. They should be restricted to the judicial branch alone. Every law passed or regulation put in place benefits the legal morass. They get a piece of every business. I’ve been tied up in this legal swamp too many times to not know how crooked the system is. Lawyers are some of the most dishonest people I have ever encountered. This is a stretch, but I’m judging no more than 50% are actually honest.
Thank you for the information.
That’s enough for me... Reject these two. If we can’t get Kavanaugh or Lee now , maybe it’s better to wait when we’ll have a few more R’s and and a couple of RINO’s replaced by conservatives. Better chance after midterms to get one more “scalia-like”
I would think Kavanaugh having a “paper trail” would be a good thing, we don’t want another Souter...or a Kennedy.
Pryor.
A truly pro-life man would not want to be married to a pro-abortion woman.
Here is ScotusBlog on Hardiman on immigration
In immigration cases, Hardiman has generally affirmed – in fairly unremarkable unpublished opinions – decisions going against noncitizens. In a published case, Cazun v. Attorney General, Hardiman concurred in a ruling against a Guatemalan woman who was deported but then tried to return to the United States and claim asylum after she was threatened, tortured and sexually assaulted by the head of a major drug-trafficking gang. The asylum officer agreed that the woman was credible, but concluded that she was ineligible for asylum because the Board of Immigration Appeals had interpreted the Immigration and Nationality Act to bar asylum for a noncitizen who was previously removed from the United States and has had a removal order reinstated. (The woman was, however, eligible for other, less desirable forms of relief, which (unlike asylum) would not give her a potential path to U.S. citizenship or prevent her from being sent to a country other than Guatemala.) The majority concluded that it should defer to the BIA’s interpretation of the INA, but Hardiman wrote separately to emphasize that the INA was not “silent or ambiguous” on the question, a key criterion for agency deference; instead, he would “enforce the statute as written rather than defer to the agency’s interpretation.”
But Hardiman has not hesitated to vacate decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals when he believes that the board has erred. In Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Attorney General, for example, Hardiman was part of a panel that ruled in favor of an asylum applicant, who alleged that he had come to the United States to avoid being involuntarily recruited into a violent gang in his home country of Honduras. The case centered on whether the applicant was being persecuted because of his “membership in a particular social group” within the meaning of federal immigration laws. The panel sent the case back to the BIA, reasoning that two requirements – “social visibility” and “particularity” – imposed by the BIA on asylum-seekers were inconsistent with the board’s earlier decisions. Hardiman concurred in the judgment for the asylum-seeker. He would have held that the BIA can interpret the term “particular social group” “to include whatever requirements it sees fit.” But, he cautioned, the BIA must also acknowledge that the requirements are a departure from its previous position and explain why it is making the change. Here, he observed, “[a]nnouncing a new interpretation while at the same time reaffirming seemingly irreconcilable precedents suggests that the BIA does not recognize or is not being forthright about, the nature of the change its new interpretation effectuates. It also unfairly forces asylum applicants to shoot at a moving target.” And in Di Li Li v. Attorney General, Hardiman joined an opinion that remanded the case to the BIA for reconsideration of a motion to reopen based on changed circumstances when the asylum applicant had become Christian and the BIA had not addressed his argument “as to how conditions have worsened over time” for Christians in China.
Several of the decisions in which Hardiman has participated have made their way to the Supreme Court on the merits. In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, Hardiman wrote for a divided panel in a challenge to a New Jersey jail’s policy of strip-searching arrestees before they join the facility’s general population. The majority reversed the district court’s ruling in favor of the arrestee. Hardiman concluded that, “balancing the Jails’ security interests at the time of intake before arrestees enter the general population against the privacy interests of the inmates,” the strip-search procedures are “reasonable.” By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court affirmed that ruling.
it’s not how uninformed people are that surprises me; it’s how energetically being uninformed is defended.
that sometimes surprises me.
The dems are slow walking, not McConnell. That is why McConnell has the senate working through August. That was a fake post.
Because there are only 51 republican senators and Collins and Murkowski are guaranteed to vote no, so that means 49 votes, not counting Rand Paul who always makes a fuss about something. McCain can’t vote, so that is 48 votes. So, if you do the math, confirming isn’t automatic. I hope you understand.
Oh brother. What an ass kisser.
“The dems are slow walking, not McConnell. “
He’s still a feckless POS! He thinks more of himself and the Senate than he does trying to help bring the rule of law back to this country. If he got hit by a truck tomorrow, we would be infinitely better off.
Lets count the number of demorat senators in states that the President won who are up for reelection this year.
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.