Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thelawlorfaithful

Trump's finalists for SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

Get ready liberals, Trump is going in dry.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/us/politics/supreme-court-nominees-trump.html?0p19G=c

Judge Gorsuch, 49, appointed to the appeals court by President George W. Bush in 2006, was not initially thought to be a top contender. His name did not appear on the first list of 11 potential nominees circulated by the Trump campaign in May, though he did make a second list of an additional 10 names issued in September.

Judge Gorsuch’s best-known votes came in decisions concerning regulations under the Affordable Care Act requiring employers to provide free contraception coverage. He voted to accommodate religious objections to the regulations, a position largely upheld by the Supreme Court.

In general, Judge Gorsuch’s approach to the law mirrors that of Justice Scalia. He is an originalist, meaning he tries to interpret the Constitution consistently with the understanding of those who drafted and adopted it. And he is a textualist, focusing on the language of statutes rather than what lawmakers have had to say about them.

Judge Pryor is a protégé of Senator Jeff Sessions, Mr. Trump’s nominee for attorney general. When Mr. Sessions was Alabama’s attorney general, Mr. Pryor served as his deputy, succeeding him when he joined the Senate.

Representing Alabama, Mr. Pryor in 2003 filed a supporting brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold a Texas law that made gay sex a crime. The position of the gay men challenging the law, Mr. Pryor wrote, “must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia.”

“The states should not be required to accept, as a matter of constitutional doctrine, that homosexual activity is harmless and does not expose both the individual and the public to deleterious spiritual and physical consequences,” Mr. Pryor wrote in the brief.

At his 2003 confirmation hearing, he stood by an earlier statement that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, was “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.”

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump should nominate Garland just to piss off McConnell. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Get ready liberals, Trump is going in dry.

 

That's funny...

CSU AD Jack Graham - “If you get outside our borders, no one knows who we are. I was in Phoenix (last week) for the Mountain West meetings and there was a reception with all of the athletic directors. The bartender said to me, ‘Colorado State, where are you guys, Boulder?’ I’ve gotten that all my career. No one knows us outside our own boundaries."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Trump should nominate Garland just to piss off McConnell. 

I think McConnel is the one driving this. It's a message to Schumer. You can have a Scalia on the court, or a Sessions.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, toonkee said:

I'm just glad they actually have legal experience.

Things are looking up already!

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems you left off Thomas Hardiman....

"During his nearly ten years as a federal appeals court judge, Hardiman has weighed in on a variety of hot-button topics important to Republicans, and his votes in these cases have consistently been conservative. For example, the gun rights cases in which Hardiman has participated reflect an originalist approach to the Second Amendment right to bear arms."

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-thomas-hardiman/

CSU AD Jack Graham - “If you get outside our borders, no one knows who we are. I was in Phoenix (last week) for the Mountain West meetings and there was a reception with all of the athletic directors. The bartender said to me, ‘Colorado State, where are you guys, Boulder?’ I’ve gotten that all my career. No one knows us outside our own boundaries."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think GOrsuch is an decent pick. Thought Garland was a good middle of the road pick that high rankining members of both parties had endorsed at one point but since that ship has sailed and with the climate the way it is, looks like Gorsuch is about as good as can be asked for. If it is Pryor nominated things will get ugly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pryor seems to be more of a "hey, we have this dangling out here" piece. 

Regarding the other two... it would seem that we replace a Scalia with a (dumber) Scalia, and it preserves the Court.  But still, if I'm the Democrats, I think I filibuster and force McConnell to go nuclear.  Fuck him.  He had a perfectly good judge sitting there for about a year without a hearing.  I think this is an okay nominee to press McConnell's hand without suffering too much in 2018. 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, WyomingCoog said:

Seems you left off Thomas Hardiman....

"During his nearly ten years as a federal appeals court judge, Hardiman has weighed in on a variety of hot-button topics important to Republicans, and his votes in these cases have consistently been conservative. For example, the gun rights cases in which Hardiman has participated reflect an originalist approach to the Second Amendment right to bear arms."

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-thomas-hardiman/

You're right. The Times article was just posted anf they cited an anonymous administration official saying these were the two favorites, so I went with that. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

You're right. The Times article was just posted anf they cited an anonymous administration official saying these were the two favorites, so I went with that. 

Not your fault....more surprised The Times didn't include him in the article. Everything I read besides your link claims it's a 3 man race. 

CSU AD Jack Graham - “If you get outside our borders, no one knows who we are. I was in Phoenix (last week) for the Mountain West meetings and there was a reception with all of the athletic directors. The bartender said to me, ‘Colorado State, where are you guys, Boulder?’ I’ve gotten that all my career. No one knows us outside our own boundaries."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jwherb said:

Pryor seems to be more of a "hey, we have this dangling out here" piece. 

Regarding the other two... it would seem that we replace a Scalia with a (dumber) Scalia, and it preserves the Court.  But still, if I'm the Democrats, I think I filibuster and force McConnell to go nuclear.  +++++ him.  He had a perfectly good judge sitting there for about a year without a hearing.  I think this is an okay nominee to press McConnell's hand without suffering too much in 2018. 

Yep. That is all but guaranteed to happen. McConnell will deserve it, as much as it would sicken me that the process will be further damaged.

My dream scenario is that the Dems act like adults and give whoever it is a fair hearing ... and if that nominee is confirmed he ends up doing a Harry Blackmun. Because +++++ McConnell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Yep. That is all but guaranteed to happen. McConnell will deserve it, as much as it would sicken me that the process will be further damaged.

My dream scenario is that the Dems act like adults and give whoever it is a fair hearing ... and if that nominee is confirmed he ends up doing a Harry Blackmun. Because +++++ McConnell.

I think a fair hearing is warranted for any nominee, but frankly a SCOTUS pick is just something there will never be agreement on, and the consequences are much more significant than a cabinet nomination or even the damn president. 

I think a very thorough, detailed, nuanced hearing should be in order.  I think full explanations of his judicial philosophy are important, but really they're just cursory.  The meat is when you get into the ideological discussion of the issues that will be extremely important to the Democrats, including (and probably especially) cases that have already been decided. 

 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...