Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Donald Trump Wants Peter Thiel On The Supreme Court, Sources Say
The Huff 'n Puff Post ^ | 09/15/2016 | Ben Walsh

Posted on 09/15/2016 7:52:04 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum

The eccentric billionaire endorsed Trump in a speech at the Republican National Convention this summer.

Billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel spoke at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland this summer. Sources say GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump would nominate Thiel to the Supreme Court.

Donald Trump has made it clear he will nominate Peter Thiel to the Supreme Court if he wins the presidency, Thiel has told friends, according to a source close to the PayPal co-founder.

Trump “deeply loves Peter Thiel,” and people in the real estate mogul’s inner circle are talking about Thiel as a Supreme Court nominee, a separate source close to Trump told The Huffington Post. That source, who has not spoken to Trump directly about Thiel being nominated to the Court, cautioned that Trump’s offers often fail to materialize in real life.

It’s not clear whether Trump has indeed offered to nominate Thiel ― only that Thiel has said Trump would nominate him and that Trump’s team has discussed Thiel as a possible nominee. Both sources requested anonymity, given that Trump and Thiel have each demonstrated a willingness to seek revenge against parties they feel have wronged them. In Thiel’s case, he secretly financed lawsuits against Gawker.com with the intention of destroying the publication. He succeeded, and his role in the assault was only revealed in the final stages.

(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: thiel; trumpscotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: E. Pluribus Unum

I try to believe all rumors started by unnamed “sources”! / s


41 posted on 09/15/2016 10:39:49 AM PDT by nclaurel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

How else would we know whose hands are in our pockets?


42 posted on 09/15/2016 10:44:42 AM PDT by Albion Wilde (We will be one People, under one God, saluting one American flag. (standing ovation) --Donald Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

I think you have to stick with someone who has a firm grasp of the judicial system. That means the person should have been a judge and have a sterling track record.

We need to know their views on the Constitution, and that they have judged in accordance with it.

I understand your thinking, but I think you’re off base a bit.


43 posted on 09/15/2016 11:03:20 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Fifty-five days until we take measures to end this nightmare. Trump, for the Free World...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
Actually I am all for appointing some non-attorneys to SCOTUS.

That institution must be broken out of its groupthink bubble.

I think Justice Scalia rejected that idea. His point was that laymen such as you and I think of SCOTUS justices as either philosopher king wannabes, or not philosopher king wannabes. But on a daily, hourly basis, the job is legal work, for which legal training is essential for effectiveness.

Maybe you could name an autodidact who would learn anything and do any job well. Thomas Sowell, for example. But it would be a problem until he got up to speed (and Sowell himself is in his late eighties).


44 posted on 09/15/2016 12:04:11 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion ('Liberalism' is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion; Buckeye McFrog

.
Legal training may be necessary for the proper writing of opinions, but it is an impediment to the job of the supreme court judge.

The constitution is written in plain clear language, and any law not so written should be rejected by the court as contrary to the principles of this nation.
.


45 posted on 09/15/2016 1:48:15 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: FenwickBabbitt; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; Arthur Wildfire! March
Trump may have joked about this to Thiel,

That's my guess as to the origin of this nonsense.

46 posted on 09/15/2016 2:28:10 PM PDT by Impy (Never Shillery, Never Schumer, Never Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Impy; fieldmarshaldj; GOPsterinMA; NFHale; ExTexasRedhead; stephenjohnbanker

I’m inclined to agree, it was an inside joke between Trump and Thiel and it’s being reported as absolute truth. Trump likes Thiel and respects his business savvy, but this isn’t going to happen.


47 posted on 09/15/2016 3:34:02 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (The barbarians are inside because there are no gates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

Thank you.

Yes, I had noticed a few posts on the thread saying that this story had been denied by the Trump people and by someone speaking for Thiel.

As someone on the thread — possibly you — said, this is just HuffPo attempting to influence Trump voters.


48 posted on 09/15/2016 4:15:28 PM PDT by Bigg Red (Go away, Satan! -- Fr.Jacques Hamel (R.I.P., martyr))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

Went back and looked, and, yes, it was you who said it.


49 posted on 09/15/2016 4:17:54 PM PDT by Bigg Red (Go away, Satan! -- Fr.Jacques Hamel (R.I.P., martyr))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red

seems that way, yes.

I think Trump is smarter than that, anyway

smile smile


50 posted on 09/15/2016 4:19:04 PM PDT by faithhopecharity ("Politicians are not born. They're excreted." Marcus Tullius Cicero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red

BINGO!

smile
smile


51 posted on 09/15/2016 4:19:29 PM PDT by faithhopecharity ("Politicians are not born. They're excreted." Marcus Tullius Cicero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: mumblypeg

There are NO specific educational requirements to be a supreme court justice and that includes a law degree!


52 posted on 10/30/2016 11:20:41 PM PDT by SFmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SFmom; mumblypeg
There are NO specific educational requirements to be a supreme court justice and that includes a law degree!

For example, Chief Justice Earl Warren did not have a law degree.

53 posted on 10/30/2016 11:27:33 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde
The internet does have its good points, does it not?

The internet is the biggest thing to hit media since Gutenberg.

54 posted on 10/30/2016 11:34:42 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
Actually I am all for appointing some non-attorneys to SCOTUS.

That was my first thought, too.

However, it turns out Thiel graduated from Stanford Law School and clerked for Judge James Edmondson of the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Judge Edmondson is a Reagan appointee.

55 posted on 10/30/2016 11:44:45 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: okie01
For example, Chief Justice Earl Warren did not have a law degree.

He earned a J.D. at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) in 1914.

56 posted on 10/30/2016 11:48:33 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
Damn! I thought I'd learned that Warren didn't have a law degree from an authoritative source (like Life magazine) at the time of his appointment.

Maybe the point was that he'd never practiced law before Ike appointed him.

57 posted on 10/31/2016 1:44:07 AM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I hope not. Homosexual. Wouldn’t be prudent.


58 posted on 10/31/2016 1:49:43 AM PDT by MayflowerMadam (Rev. Jeffress re Trump: "He may not be like us, but he likes us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Maybe the point was that he'd never practiced law before Ike appointed him.

By the time Ike appointed him, he was long past the practice of law, having been a politician for many years.

However, he got his start in politics as District Attorney of Alameda County. He served three four-year terms, starting in 1925, after which he graduated to California Attorney General in 1938, followed by Governor for three terms. He lost out as Dewey's VP in 1948 (they were ahead in the polls).

In 1953, Eisenhower appointed him Chief Justice.

59 posted on 10/31/2016 2:02:36 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I heard DJT specifically state that he will select SC judge nominees ONLY from the 20 names in his published list of SC candidates.

I don’t recall seeing Thiel’s name on this list.

Therefore, the article is disinformation.


60 posted on 10/31/2016 2:06:17 AM PDT by Right-wing Librarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson