Tom Cotton Says He Took Himself Out Of Consideration For Supreme Court

Forbes ^ | September 20, 2020 | Andrew Solender

[Georgia Girl 2]

It’s got to be a woman. Barrett or Lagoa. Lagoa will be a faster confirmation. Trump can save ACB in case Thomas retires in the next several years.

[Impy]

I think his pishadeel took him out of the running when Trump said it would be a woman.

[BillyBoy]

I actually agree with Trump’s approach here — I would also likely narrow the search to women, mainly for PR purposes (picking a man just gives the Dems ammo during the election to say Trump is anti-woman and deliberately picked a dude because he wants to “take us back to a time when only men were in power” ). Of course, if he does pick a woman, they will still play the racist/homophobic/xenophobic angle anyway. Also, it was pointless to publicly announce he would choose a woman beforehand. He should have just said he will pick the most qualified person and he is open to everyone.

[BillyBoy]

Another idea I’d probably toy with if I was in Trump’s shoes is picking a DINO for Ginsburg seat. Again, just for the public relations angle, he can claim he’s respecting the “balance” of the court and replacing a Dem with another Dem, and the cry foul if the RATs oppose the nominee anyway. The main problem is that’s probably not a viable option. I’d need an undisputed well qualified candidate who is also indisputably a lifelong, card-carrying RAT, and I’d need to be CERTAIN they hold sincere conservative views on issues like gun rights, abortion, illegal immigration, etc. Such creatures are virtually extinct in the modern day RAT party. The best bet would probably be some RAT judge from the deep South (Alabama or so?) who is a member of a group with a name like “Baptists for Babies” and a hardcore gun rights organization. Even then, the “conservative” RAT judge would probably only vote with the GOP bloc 20-30% of the time. Still, that would a significant “upgrade” from Darth Bader, and move the court rightward.

[scrabblehack]

They’re going to need every vote they can get.

There was a time when a sitting senator could get easy confirmation but those days are probably gone.

[Impy]

I’d settle for an 8 but not a like a 3 who would vote to let Biden steal the election, lol. Hard no!

[Impy]

Only as a last ditch if we lose the election and can’t get someone good though in a lame duck would something that be a desperation option.

[BillyBoy]

Well, as I already noted, I believe there is probably a 0% chance of the Senate confirming a judge BEFORE election day. Another FReeper (can't remember which post) said there aren't even enough calender days the Senate is in session to make it to a flood vote, even without RAT obstruction. So in the event of a contested election, it would be a 4-4 court anyway (but a 5-3 GOP advantage on the court, at least on paper). You are probably right that a "compromise" RAT nominee would be a better option for an 11th hour last ditch scenario if Biden was elected and they needed some kind of deal to let Trump make the pick instead. And I seriously doubt there would be ANY suitable "conservative” RATS anyway.

But I'd at least look into the option. Also, Trump needs to stop narrowing his candidates to 90% career federal judges. There are PLENTY of qualified candidates who haven't spent a single day as a federal judge. Weird that Trump's fan club is always yapping about the deep state and draining the swamp, but they think all the SCOTUS candidates should come from that environment

[Impy]

I’m not a Senate time expert but over a month is plenty for me, RAM RAM RAM IT IN.

If nothing happens and we win, there is of course no urgency at all.

[BillyBoy]

>> RAM RAM RAM IT IN <<

In this environment, trying to "RAM IT IN", is basically the equivalent of a porn star director instructing his male lead to copulate with a brick wall.

Don't say you weren't warned.

[Impy]

Experts seem to value federal service, probably for good reason. You like to know how they deal with federal cases.

Who was the last one who was JUST a State Supreme? Wasn’t it damn Souter, the ultimate foul-up? How much top-shelf ideological indicating stuff ends without reaching federal court?

A conservative Senator though, I would trust.

[Impy]

This is not appropriate but you set me up ;)

[BillyBoy]

>> Experts seem to value federal service, probably for good reason. <<

"Experts", true, for the same reason the CDC are "Experts" on Covid-19, so lots of Americans listen to their advise.

But one wonders why so many "Trump administration insiders" and Trump fanboys have so much of a fetish for picking among career federal judges, to the point where 95% of the people on their "short list" fit that background? They constantly howl about "swamp creatures" and the "deep state", but seem perfectly content to fill the Supreme Court with people from that background. I find it weird.

I inherently distrust judges who have been in the beltway too long and surrounded by DC cocktail parties and an echo chamber of liberal elites.

Remember how they howled about William Barr being a "swamp creature", but if he was hypothetically on the Supreme Court, he would written FAR more forceful conservative majority rulings, concurrences, and dissents, than either of Trump's two so-called "originalist" judges. Of course, that's a pure hypothetical, I'm aware Barr would be a non-starter for a SCOTUS nomination now, being a 70 year old bland white guy.

>> Who was the last one who was JUST a State Supreme? Wasn’t it damn Souter, the ultimate foul-up? <<

Yeah, the clear example against my argument would be Souter, but he was a screwup precisely because he had only been on the New Hampshire Supreme Court for something like 6 months at the time of his nomination to SCOTUS, and hadn't written decisions on ANY important cases yet. Bush was trying to get "Bork without a paper trail" Big mistake.

During the GWB era, one such judge that I would have seriously considered elevating to SCOTUS would be someone like Justice Bob Thomas of the Illinois Supreme Court, a "celebrity" former Bears player and undeniably a solid, proven conservative. I suppose it would be weird to have two Supreme Court judges named "Thomas" though (and both picked for the job by a "President Bush").

A FReeper favorite around here at that time was Janice Rogers Brown, who was a California Supreme Court judge at the time.

>> How much top-shelf ideological indicating stuff ends without reaching federal court? <<

Lots of this stuff makes it way thru state Supreme Courts as the final stop before it lands in the Supreme Court's lap. State Supreme Court judges deal with constitutional questions all the time and are well versed in applying constitutional standards.

>> A conservative Senator though, I would trust. <<

True, although Trump pretty much eliminated that possibility when he announced beforehand he would name a woman for this seat. I cross checked it, and the only female GOP Senator with a law degree is Lisa MurCOWski. Puke.

There are plenty of other avenues for finding well qualified SCOTUS candidates though. For example, Rehnquist had never spent a day on the federal bench when Nixon nominated for him for SCOTUS. At the time, Nixon was Associate Attorney General, which made him the #3 guy in the Justice Department. Nobody doubted his qualifications.

Think outside the box.

[Impy]

Quite frankly the states are “swamps” too. Government service itself is the swamp. And lots of people like many “Dr. Candidates” or “Tea Party Outsider Businessmen” are born swamp creatures just trying to get where they think they belong. “Draining” it (what does that even mean?) is a bunch of bull, citizen legislator George Washington fantasies aren’t walking through that door.

The “Deep State” is another matter, those are the GD unelected bureaucrats.

Barr seems like a home run AG pick. Coming from a Bush alum that is a surprise (I never said a word against him though).