Posted on 04/30/2017 7:19:34 PM PDT by ForYourChildren
President Trump will stick with the same list of potential nominees for the next Supreme Court vacancy, he told The Washington Times in an exclusive interview in which he also waved aside the lack of a honeymoon from Capitol Hill, saying Republicans are “going to get there” and Democrats are still smarting over losing an election they thought they couldn’t lose.
..
He also said he expects the near-universal opposition to his agenda from congressional Democrats to wane.
“I notice it calming down,” he said.
Reflecting on his first weeks, the businessman turned statesman took pride in having upended traditional procedures in Washington. He said he has already notched foreign policy successes that eluded Mr. Obama — such as the release of Egyptian-American charity worker Aya Hijazi from detention in Egypt — and has made his mark at home with the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.
“You’ll have hundreds of cases decided by 5-4, and you got that. So that’s a great legacy,” the president said, noting that at 49, Justice Gorsuch has decades of important decisions ahead of him.
Mr. Trump shook the election campaign last year when he announced a list of 21 potential Supreme Court nominees, selected with the help of the Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation. The list was an instant hit with conservatives and helped cement the candidate’s support among the Republican base.
“It’s a great list. From the moment I put that list out, it solved that problem. And I was proud to say it was my idea,” he said.
{..snip..}
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Sir, you impune witches!
The list really has no meaning.. reagan learned that lesson.
You dont know until they get on the bench..at least on the conservative side.
Under the original constitution he would not have been in my opinion.
Under this current interpretation, if he could produce evidence of record of birth or initial passport, then he would be.
If he gets to replace both Kennedy and Ginsberg, it will all have been worth it.
The vast majority of SCOTUS cases are 9-0 or 8-1 (Thomas).
It used to be SCOTUS nominees were picked based on area of the country. Much of that ended w Reagan with 2 nominees from AZ.
But he needs to retire while we have a GOP senate and Trump in office. At least we can replace him with a like minded person.
Really? And Thomas?
So I guess it’s several a year that are really big that make all the difference?
Please nominate Ray Gruender, Judge on the 8th Circuit
The list really has no meaning.. reagan learned that lesson.You dont know until they get on the bench..at least on the conservative side.
True enough from the standpoint of mistakes ...
Eisenhower: Warren, Brennan, Stewart, Whittaker
Nixon: Burger, Powell, Blackmun
Ford: Stevens
Reagan: O'Connor, Kennedy
Bush41: Souter
Bush43: Roberts
... and these are just from the (R)epublicrats, add in the (D)ummycrats and its easy to see how the country was lost.
However, the list most certainly does have meaning in that it is a campaign promise and is NOT negotiable ( if that is was you meant, correct me if I'm mistaken ). Those 20 remaining names are pre-vetted by Heritage and Federalist which is a million miles better for us than relying on the alleged genius IQ of John Sununu who gave us Souter.
Going outside that list is NOT an option. It would mean what? Asking for Ivanka and Jared and Priebus ( and Ryan, McCain, Graham ... ) for input? Hell no.
So prepare for war now because the looming battle *after* the Bork/Ginsberg/Kennedy seat is going to be one for the ages, and the survival of the nation itself. It must be won as decisively as the Harriet Miers battle was won.
>>Maybe a real Protestant Christian could be nominated and approved<<
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How about: No ties to Harvard or Yale?
The next confirmation hearing will be messy. Getting someone to accept the nomination and put their family through that limits the pool
The list is public, everyone on it is fully aware of the ramifications. They would no doubt accept or refuse when they get the call from the President, and we'll probably never know they refused. But they already have made up their minds.
The upcoming next opening according to whispers is the Bork/Ginsberg/Kennedy seat, and this will mirror the Scalia/Gorsuch seat in messiness but should be no worse.
However, all the openings that follow that one will be several orders of magnitude worse, especially if they include Ginsburg and Breyer. Those two are clearly on their last legs. At the inauguration Breyer looked like death himself and Ginsburg was sleeping again or hiding her face. Let's pray hard that the good Lord retires them ASAP in case we lose the damn Senate!
“But he needs to retire while we have a GOP senate and Trump in office. At least we can replace him with a like minded person.”
Valid point..
So at least wait until near end Trumps 8 years; at an appropriate time when one of Trumps nominees will make it to the bench (eg. not a Garland type situation).
Eisenhower: Warren, Brennan, Stewart, Whittaker
Nixon: Burger, Powell, Blackmun
Ford: Stevens
Reagan: O’Connor, Kennedy
Bush41: Souter
Bush43: Roberts
Isn’t that list amazing?
“... and these are just from the (R)epublicrats, add in the (D)ummycrats and its easy to see how the country was lost.”
Yep, the court and the country was on the brink. If Hillary won we might not survive. Look what the other courts are doing, imagine if the SCOTUS went totally rogue.
The Notorious RBG is a zombie. Does that help answer your question?
“If Hillary won we might not survive.”
I am pretty certain we would not have survived.
The main reason and full certainty on this one, is that she would have put hardcore gun grabbing gun control people on the supreme court.
Eventually the Supreme court would have a decision that would have made all gun ownership by individuals illegal. And once the government started to try to enforce that one, we would not have survived.
Remember how close we came in 2008?
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Decision 5-4. 5-4!
5-4 Individual right.
What if it gone the other way? 5-4 NOT an individual right. Then what?
And that was in 2008. We were that close back then.
Eisenhower: Warren, Brennan, Stewart, Whittaker
Nixon: Burger, Powell, Blackmun
Ford: Stevens
Reagan: O’Connor, Kennedy
Bush41: Souter
Bush43: RobertsIsn’t that list amazing?
Indeed. And if you study the Court back to the beginning, it has always been a bench of mostly miscreants, some were legendary in their malfeasance and incompetence. And a whole lot of them stayed way past their expiration date even after mentally incapacitation.
That right there is 12 losers appointed by (R)epublicrats post-FDR, and if you add in the 21 appointed by the (D)ummycrats FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Slick Willie and Dumbo, that totals 33 enemies of America installed on the bench to destroy the Constitution by the (D)+(R) Uniparty apparatus since the great Depression.
Over that same timespan we really only can point to 5 Constitutionalists in Harlan II, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and now ( after 10 years of proof ) Alito. God willing, Gorsuch will make it 6 friendlies versus those other 33 enemies.
Its a damn miracle there is any shred of the country remaining at this point. All the more reason to get ready for the battle of our lives with the potential opnings on the horizon. It may be the only battle we actually win considering the enemy Congress is fighting us every step of the way and the television Enemedia is broadcasting propaganda 24/7/365.
Yep, the first 100 days were a success, we saved the country, not bad.
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.