Donald Trump is the Anti-George Washington. The two men embody a fearful symmetry embedded in the life of our Republic. When the country tried to make Washington king he refused and did everything he could to move us towards democracy. As this country refuses to allow Trump to act like a king he is doing everything he can to move us away from it. The greatest irony within this tragedy is that those who are most ably aiding and abetting Trump in achieving his ambition incessantly claim to be devoted to the principles established by our founders and to honoring their legacy in as authentic (original) a manner as possible. I have no doubt if he were among us Washington, to name but one founder, well-mannered and tolerant as he was, would insist, sadly without satisfaction, that Trump meet him on the field of honor at dawn.
2
There is talk that Justice Kennedy was bought off by Trump to retire early. Is there any truth to this rumor? What have you heard?
2
As Rob Reiner said, wherever you come down on any of these issues, we can all agree as Americans that we should not have a potential criminal choosing our next supreme court justices - that's what it comes down to.
But then we are all just venting here. We should all email and/or call each congresswoman starting with L.Murkowski and S.Collins and urge them as an American, a US Senator and a woman to do the right thing and NOT allow Trump pick our next supreme court justice(s) mainly and simply because he is a potential criminal!
Mr President: You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency.
1
Judge Barrett "once argued that Catholic judges should sometimes recuse themselves from sentencing in death penalty cases." By that logic, and given Church views on human conception, shouldn't Catholic judges like Judge Barrett also recuse themselves when it comes to the question of abortion?
1
It is almost certain that Trump will get his choice IF HE WAITS FOR THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS. Republicans have a 99% chance to keep the Senate, which will confirm whomever he chooses. It would be a great strategy for Trump to wait until after November in order to reduce the drama. It would be to his political advantage to wait, but I don't expect him to want to "reduce the drama." He thrives on it, and wants to spike the ball by ramming through his choice and putting our system in disarray. It is his nature.
3
Amy Coney Barrett has stated that as a practicing devout Catholic, she cannot sentence anyone to death. One has to presume that she would see any abortion as a death penalty, which is prohibited because the Catholic Church says so. Since when does the Catholic Church (or any religious body) make or define US law? The First Amendment prohiits such religious interference.
The death penalty is mandated by law for certain Federal offenses. Such cases can be expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
That implies that if Amy Coney Barrett were to be seated as a Justice of the Supreme Court, she would be a guaranteed vote on one side of any such appeal based on her beliefs, before any brief is presented or any argument is heard. That is improper.
Either she would have to recuse herself, or she would be BIASED if she heard the case. Such a sitution is preposterous if based on one's personal beliefs and opinions, rather than on the MERITS and the CIRCUMSTANCES of a case.
A person is entitled to her reigious belief. However, she is NOT QUALIFIED to be a Justice of a court where it is foreseeable that cases will have to be heard where her religious beliefs would determine her vote.
If you can't do the job, you should not get the job. PERIOD.
3
Even though Trump gets to nominate a Supreme Court justice, it's not the same as appointing one. And that ticks him off.
Donald cries himself to sleep, wishing he could get Justice Ivanka through the Senate.
They are all cookie-cutter conservatives, with the caveat that two of them have little experience on the bench. For Trump, however, the main criterion is whether they will be "loyal" to him when his criminal behavior is finally revealed. He is not concerned with the nation, not concerned with social justice. He is only concerned with himself, his "reputation," his popularity with the MAGA-heads and his "get out of jail free card" in this choice.
Even the Roe v. Wade decision is utterly incidental to Trump's overwhelming need to serve his own selfish interests.
4
The only hope for Democrats is to try and wait out the last two years of Trump's administration. Focus furiously on securing and retaining majorities in both Congressional houses, and then legislate like fury to protect our human rights. Trump is sacrificing them wholesale to his rabid racist, xenophobic, homophobic and misogynist base--a minority in America!
Let's be clear: Democrats have lost this battle. The chances of Democrats taking the Senate is next to nil. If the Red State Democratic Senators vote for Trump's candidate they will lose their own base. If they vote against, they will face furious opposition from Republicans--the majority in their States. Either way they are likely to lose.
If by some miracle Trump's first candidate is rejected (and it would really be a miracle), he has a list of 25 fire-breathing radical conservatives in the waiting. After the election when Republicans still hold the Senate, he will present an even worse candidate for confirmation.
In some ways it would be better to confirm the first candidate, who Trump and his supporters probably view as potential cannon fodder, to draw the fury of the left. Then wait to potentially appoint the real radical-for-the-ages who will outlive most of us, until after the election when he will still have a majority to confirm this despicable justice.
Does anyone have any doubt that we are on the path to fascism?
3
I hope Trump takes the time to give thoughtful, deep and serious consideration in this matter and cancels his tee time if necessary. The implications will effect decades of American life.
the SCOTUS constitutional crisis happened when McConell (elected by about 450,000 voters in KY) ABROGATED his & Senate's responsibility by not giving Garland a hearing. Unacceptable for one person to throw out the Constitution for his own purposes.
6
You do realize that McConnell did what Schumer, Biden, and Reid said they would for the last TWO years of Bush43's administration. If you want to identify the culprit, look no further than Harry Reid. When he chose to go nuclear for lower federal court nominees. McConnell warned him that they would not always be in power and there would be consequences. Let there be no doubt that Reid would have gone nuclear over the supreme court nominees if he was still in power.
Actually there is one question Trump could appropriately ask these candidates: will each confirm our legal and moral obligations to the International Court in its trials of anyone charged with Crimes Against Humanity? Sounds like a no-brainer, and yet:
Kidnapping or forcible removal of children from their parents is specifically listed as a Crime Against Humanity. We don't even need to wait for proof of Trump's apparent electoral collusion (conspiracy) with Russia or obstruction of justice to begin impeachment proceedings or invoking the 25th Amend.Sec.4.
2
In Fisher v Texas, the University of Texas defended its use of racial and ethnic preference at its Austin campus as necessary to create diversity. The University of Texas at Austin is:
• White: 40%
• Hispanic: 25%
• Asian: 22%
• Black: 5%
• Foreign: 4%
• Multiracial: 3%
• American Indian: Less than 1%
• Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: Less than 1%
• Unknown: 1%
Yet the University of Texas is working to strengthen its “Hispanic Outreach” at its El Paso campus, which is already nearly 100 percent Hispanic. The University of Texas at El Paso student body is:
• 82.8% Hispanic,
• 6.7% white,
• 5.5% Foreign National (Mexican)
• 5% Black, Other or Unknown
The university doesn’t explain why diversity is important in Austin but not in El Paso
2
The President won't make a decision until Stuttering Joe calls in with his recommendation.
I can just imagine the thought and planning that Trump put into this. Speed dating SCOTUS.
Does he know he can't fire them?
3
Re: Judge Barrett
>>Deeply religious...<<
Just how deeply religious? She goes to church on Sundays and recites her morning and evening prayers?
What happened to that infamous Wake-Up call America got on on 9/11/01? Many friends and colleagues of mine swore they would begin to take their lives more seriously, not take their democracy for granted, nor our politicians from Dubya' to Giuliani who promised to protect US, yet failed miserably.
After the dust cleared, Bush pledged to hunt down the terrorists, and not stop until Justice was served. He invaded Iraq. Bush gave up, but Barack Obama didn't. He saw that Justice was done.
I remember vividly that famous photo: of President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Mission accomplished, Then came 2016 and how these leaders were paid back. The American Electorate chose, with the complicity of what should be a long-ago abolished Electoral College, an egotistical madman as president.
It took but sixteen years for America to forget. Americans now said anyone can do the job, no experience required.
When the next 9/11/01 hits, and you know it will as sure as the sun rises in the East, America will have a complete imbecile leading US.
Heck, why should any terrorist organization even bother plotting? With a befuddled CINC, who takes orders from Russia, why bother attacking. Trump has already done more damage than Bin Laden ever could imagine, while Trump stays up late watching the FOX and thinking of new insults to tweet about.
Making America great? Not a snowball's chance in July.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
He'll appoint the jurisprudential equivalent of Justice Thomas. Why agonize over it? It is a harsh lesson that apathetic voters need to learn the hard way. Elect a racist and misogynist, and you are shocked that he appoints racist and misogynistic judges? Look at who this buffoon has appointed thus far. Now, welcome to thirty years of a judiciary hostile to non-whites, women, the environment, and the poor. Back to your Starbucks and your iPhone, people. It is difficult to muster much pity. You did it to yourselves.
3
Senator Schumer’s tweets about Judge Amy Coney Barrett were despicable. It was clearly a veiled tirade against her for being a Roman Catholic. The Democrat Party tried this once with Judege Barrett, and got slapped down from many legal scholars, including the President of Princeton. If the left is going to try to destroy a judge of impeccable credentials, then millions of Catholic voters, especially in n swing districts and the MidWest will be watching. No religious tests. Senator Schumer should be ashamed of himself.
4
I'm sure the Heritage Foundation had the list all ready to go...
1
These interviews are just window dressing and distraction. He has already decided who he wants and has already interviewed him and probably bribed him (I doubt it would be a her).
This vengeful, spiteful President only wants someone that will turn back the clock to the time before Trump's father was indicted, before the time that his company was cited for discrimination in housing, before the time when politicians and others called him out for what he was, a grifter and misogynist.
The President IS the Manchurian Candidate, supported in full by his cohort. If there is any doubt, watch who his selection is. Then watch how easily he sails by the selection process with all his hidden agendas neatly ignored. The 200 year experiment is over.
2
Democrats clearly have a litmus test: unlimited abortion. And they were the ones who objected to it.
1
America has become a laughingstock for the world. Trump is potentially under criminal investigation as to how he became President, and this could go to the Supreme Court to decide the case, and Trump gets to stack the court with his people! What a joke American has become so quickly. This is what happens when you take democracy for granted and only half the people vote ..... All the intelligent people of America need to rise up and go into he streets and not allow this would be dictator his power.
3
What's with the inaccurate smear of Michigan Law School in this article?
Michigan Law School is absolutely one of the top law schools in the country and has been for over 100 years. Multiple candidates on Trump's SCOTUS list have either attended Michigan or were professors there.
Sounds like East Coast elitism to me.
2
There is still time for Trump to hold auditions on live TV. Stretch it out over the fall TV season. Sell broadcast rights to Fox and RT. Presto, a new Supreme vetted through that most American institution, Reality Court TV.
A recent poll published by NBC indicates that 60% of those polled want Trump's Supreme Court nominee to be voted on before the November elections. How can so many Americans want an ignorant, racist and sexual predator like Donald Trump put anyone on the Supreme Court for the next 40 years??!!
It is shocking. Are they all living in Fox News La La land? Apparently the American population is unaware that we are fighting for the survival of our democracy..a struggle that apparently has no interest for far too many.
2
Susan Collins -- you can't just talk the talk. You need to follow through and walk the walk, if necessary. You KNOW Donnochio & co will say absolutely anything they think might be needed to perpetuate their grip on power and position.
Find your spine in this one.
1
Four words:
Associate Justice Ted Cruz.
Remember where you read them first. Anything else is just noise.
1
EVERY TACTIC should be employed by the Dems to BLOCK Trump's pick from getting on the court...take a cue from McConnell.
3
This should be televised on NBC. It's The Apprentice--with robes.
1
Why do liberal and conservatives get a say. What about those of us in the middle, who votes within the 9 for the rest of us who do not see the world one way? It is a despicable way of going and I am frankly sick of it. Extremes do not build consensus.
1
First of all, Trump has to find a nominee who won't choke when asked by the Senate what "motion in limine" means.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/15/us/politics/matthew-petersen-senator-...
Ho can Sanders claim “He’s looking for individuals that have the right intellect, the right temperament and that will uphold the Constitution,” when he doesn't even know what's IN the Constitution?
I have complete trust that President Trump will prevail in choosing the very best candidate deserving of the open seat on the SCOTUS.
He's making a list and checking it twice
We're about to find out who's naughty or nice...
He's not making a list. He's using a list from an uber conservative group. He can't even be bothered to have his staff make a list let alone do it himself
Remember, Trump chooses only the best . . . .
And remember, too, that many of his choices for his administration were gone within a year. Why do we allow this incompetent president choose any position that offers lifetime tenure?
Let's be honest: Trump can't pick people who will stay for a year, and he can't pick people who won't flip on him (see Cohen, Tillerson, Kelly). So how can he pretend that his Court choice will hold to the values that that candidate professes in interviews with Trump?
3
Democrats must block, stonewall, delay, this for the same reason Trump blocked Obama's pick....because the midterms likely to toss out the Republicans.
4
The Republicans had control of the senate and refused to consider Obama's pick. It was essentially a pocket veto. The Democrats don't have control and can't delay the confirmation hearings. The best they can hope for is a Republican defector. But it's likely that some Democrats will feel obligated to approve a judge with a good record and impeccable legal credentials. Litmus tests don't count. Ask RBG.
I can hear the laughter from the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation all the way up here in Canada. When the Bork is mentioned I remember Mr Bork who whenever he opened his mouth you knew he was not an American judge, he was a an advocate for the wealthy and powerful and justice was the last thing on his mind. Merrick Garland understands the role of the judiciary and what a justice is supposed to do. Judge Garland when he opens his mouth everyone, Republican and Democrat understands how much your country has failed since Mr Scalia cast a blight on your Supreme Court.
To mention Bork and Garland in the same breathe does injustice to all that believe in government of the people by the people and for the people.
2
For all of you who think that Susan Collins hold all the cards, please understand that there are 3-4 red state Democrat Senators who will be hard pressed to vote against a qualified Trump nominee. All of Trump's finalist SCOTUS nominees are Circuit Court Judges who have already been confirmed by the Senate. Do the "requirements" change for considering a SCOTUS nominee? Sure, to some extent, but not enough to really change the conclusion. The President of the United States gets to nominate SCOTUS Justices, and he will nominate someone whose judicial philosophy is aligned with his/her party. Currently, the Senate is held by the Republicans, with a few Democrats who are currently up for election in Red States. If Trump's pick is rejected by the Senate, those Red State Senators who are up for election will lose and they will lose big. So, Democrats have to ask themselves the following question: is it worth having the Senate fall further into Republican hands to stop Trump's next SCOTUS pick, when that means that Trump could just nominate that person again (or a different equally conservative Judge) in January when Republicans have an even bigger majority in the Senate?
4
I just hope Trump picks someone with more judicial experience than Obama's last Supreme Court nominee.
4
I hope this is sarcasm Tony. Because Merrick Garland practiced law from 1979-1993, and has been a federal judge since 1993.
By my count that is approximately 37 years of legal experience, including 23 years as a federal judge, at the time Obama chose him to be his “last” SC nominee in 2016.
4
Elena Kagan, zero judicial experience.
1
Why is Trump getting involved with selecting a Supreme Court
nominee?
Trump is being criminally investigated by the Russia investigation for conspiracy with a foreign enemy,
and is also being investigated for the obstruction of justice.
What if?
What if Trump is found guilty then what?
Everything that he has been involved in must be investigated and reversed.
Trump is using this Supreme Court vacancy as a propaganda
deflection away from Mueller and the Russian criminal investigation, especially when reports are due to be published soon.
5
The Constitutional crisis is here - it's now.
5
Since song lyrics have set precedent on the topic:
"Oh what a beautiful feeling
Everything's going [Trump's] way" ~R&H~
Why oh why is the news about Justice Kennedy's son not front and center in every article about this "rush" nominate a replacement??!! To be sure, Kennedy's retirement was unexpected and there is a reason: his son's involvement with Deutsche Bank/Russian loans. The NYTimes ran an article this connection a few days ago, but it was buried toward the end of the piece. Come on, wake up! There is yet another crooked plan in the works. Nothing about this administration can be taken at face value.
9
I am one American citizen whom is wholly convinced that Trump is purposefully trying to harm our country both politically and economically. In fact, his aides have been so embarrassed by Trump's actions it is undoubtedly the motive for why we keep hearing leaks regarding Trump's lack of motivation, to read, study, or learn anything at all about being President.
The only thing I give him credit for is knowing how to protect himself from being held accountable, and learning new ways to defraud payment for his lifestyle with taxpayer dollars. Trump is focused like a laser in his Supreme Court interviews only to solicit views of Presidential power, along with subpoenas and Indictments. It is no wonder why he has no need to read or prepare for interviews as Trump's only concern is what will happen when he gets fully exposed by the Special Counsel for his unholy alliance with Russia.
In my opinion, Trump is by far the worst President in our country's history. Everything Trump does or says is by his tested model of lying, deflecting, denying, or accusing others to evade accountability.
8
Watch Democrats, liberals and progressives pull every card out of their dirty tricks book to fight whichever candidate Trump nominates to the Supreme Court. And remember what they did to tar and feather Robert Bork, who was eminently qualified to join the Court, but who was smeared up, down and sideways, lead by that Democrat paragon of virtue Ted Kennedy. Fortunately we now have a president who is ready to play hardball with them. Bring it on.
9
Yes. Kennedy's claim that Bork desired a return to segregated lunch counters was ludicrous and contemptible demagoguery. It was the first nuclear bomb of the confirmation process and it has poisoned things since.
3
I am impressed with judge Amy Coney Barrett for being a person tied to the constitution without allowing her faith or her personal opinion from influencing her judgment. I have no doubt that she will NOT be foolish enough to advocate for reversing Roe vs Wade or preventing women from having an option to undergo safe abortion. She could be a judge who could survive into her 80s like judge Ginsburg and be benched for more 40 years. I am sure the whole country is waiting for Monday announcement.
5
What in Judge Barrett's background lead you to this conclusion? Have you read any of her written opinions?
I would think ANY Judge who is nominated by Trump will never disclose his or her personal opinions on Roe vs. Wade. No one in the entire country will know unless of course he or she has written an opinion pro or con that has been published. The whole point of this "fake" exercise is to first get confirmed, and second to join what will then be the majority of non-caring right wing Judges in violating what is known as “Stare decisis”, which literally translates as “to stand by decided matters”.
5
As a devout Catholic, Judge Barrett is clearly swayed by mythology and superstition. As a woman, she is obviously happy that the RC church makes females second class citizens. Has she ever spoken out about the appalling sexual abuse by priests? Probably not. It would be so refreshing to have a Justice who advocates freedom from religion.
5
How crass of you to assume that because she is Catholic she is swayed by mythology and superstition. Was JFK swayed by his beliefs. How about Ted and Robert Kennedy? Nancy Pelosi is a debut Catholic, as is Joe Biden who said, “Some of it relates to ritual, some of it relates to just comfort in what you’ve done your whole life. I go to Mass and I’m able to just be alone, even in the crowd. I say the rosary, I find it to be incredibly comforting.”
1
We hear so much about freedom. Freedom to not buy health insurance, freedom to not serve customers, freedom to not pay taxes, freedom to amass large numbers of guns. But when it's somebody else's freedom, it's a very different story. When Trump is finished, I'll be suprised if women are allowed to wear pants.
7
The 2nd Amendment is very important to the majority of the United States. It's only 8 states that think that the 2nd Amendment is only for the elite and not the average citizen.
Liberals, please keep making gun control a banner issue and continue to watch your support fade away.
3
As a kid in Colorado in the 60s, I saw the NRA stand for training, safety and respect, for one's gun and for other people. Far as I know, it still does, although it necessarily had to harden itself to confront those who would like to see it go away.
It's not NRA members who are committing these abominable crimes. I do believe, however, it has to take some responsibility for perpetuating easy access to them.
3
What do you think the people who wrote the Second Amendment would've said if they witnessed what people with semi-automatic weapons and arsenals of ammo have done to innocent children? I'm very anti-gun, but if you want to clarify the Amendment so that each non-felon, mentally sound adult can have one handgun and one non-repeating hunting rifle, subject to reasonable regulations, I'd respect that. It's the idiocy that allows people to arm themselves like the guy in Las Vegas that makes us the clowns of the world.
1
Dear Trump Supporters,
Only you will know who you vote for when you enter the voting booth this fall. You don't need to tell your friends and family that you now realize that the president is doing much more harm than good.
It's ok to cover yourself and tell your family and friends you voted for the most conservative people on the ballot. We don't care.
What we do care about is preserving our civility, our democracy, our rights, and our national security.
So, do what you have to do to save face, but please do the right thing in Nov.
Thank you.
6
Surely it doesn’t take 45 minutes to ask for a pledge of loyalty/fealty from the prospective candidate as Trump did with Comey. I can’t imagine there’s anything else Trump would want to know.
4
It took an entire, private dinner with Comey.
1
It's just baffling that this TV executive producer gets to pick judicial nominees. He has no experience on which to base his decision.
Ah, but he does have a list.... The people who made that list -- Heritage and The Federalist Society -- have found the most reactionary judges in the country, people far outside the mainstream of western jurisprudence, to stock the courts.
It should surprise no one that the Supreme Court is already one of the most conservative in history. After this nomination, it will be a reactionary outlier court, lacking the confidence of the world's legal scholars.
5
Abortion rights are not the only issues here. What about free speech, immigration, unions, health care, campaign funding? Don't we want to know where the nominee stands on these issues too? Don't we want someone who is qualified and who is impartial? As someone who has watched the process of selecting a justice go from being non-political to emphasizing the political I'm dismayed to realize that we can get someone who dots all the i's and crosses all the t's that either side wants and still have someone who is not the top of their field.
While Collins considers Roe v Wade established law, I don't think that those opposed to it do. Nor do they consider rights that the majority take for granted as rights the LGBTQ community, African Americans, Hispanics, or even children can take for granted. What isn't screened for or asked about is prejudice and the ability to set it aside and look at the issues rather than skin color or ethnicity. The law in America skews white and male. No matter who Trump selects and Congress approves someone needs to look at what laws will improve our lives, what can be done to equalize opportunities, and how to end the increasing incarceration and criminalization of children, minorities, and women. We have one of the highest prison populations in the world.
5
The news is making me physically ill these days.
9
Trump sent 45 minutes with each candidate? I think I was interviewed longer for my first waitressing job. He didn't learn a thing about them as people. He is relying entirely on the briefing bullets he's been given -we know he is not interested in the Constitution or rule of law, so there are litmus tests they had to past to get there. Little else matters.
He is loving his capacity to disrupt institutions. His way of snubbing his nose at the people who always thought he was a tacky loudmouth developer --and all of the rest of us.
I wonder if the loyalty question was raised in any way?
7
This is just a dog and pony show. Trump is going through the motions of interviews and will pick one for any or no reason. Everyone on his list has been vetted by aides and advisors, and all potential nominees will do the bidding of the Republican hard-right agenda, so it does not make much difference who he picks, even if he flips a coin.
They are probably highly concerned about health and prospective longevity of their nominees, so that their agenda survives well into the century via the SC.
4
Dear Senator Collins,
Please don't get played by Mitch McConnell like you did over healthcare. How you perform your duties in the months to come will determine your legacy as a member of Congress and as part of the human(e) race.
Pro-choice is not simply a domestic issue, but a global one. The way the U.S. government treats women's rights has a massive impact on women the world over.
Ms. Collins, you have a very real responsibility to women everywhere, especially those in Maine. Do what you were elected to do -- the right thing for your constituents.
Sincerely,
Americans for Choice
6
Attention elected officials of every political persuasion.
DO NOT APPROVE ANY OF THE CON DON'S NOMINEES.
He and his Robber Baron brethren - with the Koch brothers, Peter Thiel, Steve Bannon and fox so-called news leading the charge - are trying to destroy OUR governments at every level. Do not let them do it.
Forget your "office". Forget your political allegiance and pledges. Forget everything except preserving/restoring true democracy in OUR United States of America.
Otherwise WE THE PEOPLE will throw you out on your ears.
3
All that matters is that he appoints someone who will revere and defend the Constitution, specifically the separation of powers and Federalism. For all the illiterate out there, our founding fathers were hip to the radical socialists and the dangers of faction politics. Better a Trump pick than the alternative incoherent and invalid ramblings of "feelings" Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. Meanwhile lefties are considering a name change to the Democrat Socialist Party.
10
Can the president be subject to criminal charges? If not can he be subpoenaed in a criminal case? If he ignores a subpoena can he be found in contempt? Can a president obstruct justice at all, or can he use his executive power in any way he chooses? If a president conspired with a hostile foreign power to defraud the US during his election, are the results of an electronic based on fraud legitimate? If a president was elected through fraudulent means, are his executive orders, signatures on bills or agency and court appointments valid?
These questions and more may be up before the court, will his appointees recuse themselves in cases that could lead to calls for their removal?
8
I agree with Justice Gorsuch and Justice Ginsburg who believe making any kind of a decision on a case before you have actually seen the case is improper. Such an action would negatively effect objectivity and taint any decision with unnecessary bias. Best to play it close to the vest as the Court has always done.
Trump wrongly believes any Justice he appoints is beholden to him. Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Justices may be conservative or liberal, originalist or progressive but are always independent, of their own mind and enamored of the law not politics or ideology. That is the way it should be. Trump is not the entire government and is not "the boss" in the same way he would be as CEO, chairman of the Board and majority stockholder of Trump Inc. There are two other branches of government that should serve as a check on Presidential power and there is a major opposition Party that needs to be heard from too. The idea in a democracy is not to "take over" and impose your will but to try to compromise and reach an agreed upon decision. Trump's "bull in a china shop" style does not fit well in a democracy and hearkens to the authoritarian rule of Trump's good buddies and role models Putin and Kim. Is Trump so interested in Kim and Putin because he's looking for advice on how to be a dictator?
Always beware America of Trump bearing deals. Remember this is the author of the con game Trump University. Why should we expect anything different from Trump now?
6
None of these four satisfies the needs to protect the freedom of choice in female reproduction and equal protection and justice for all regardless of race, religion, and color. I am sure there are qualified candidates even in the Republican camp. Just try harder and think out of the box. Surprise us, president Trump!
2
All four of these candidates easily cross the threshold for "qualified to be a Supreme Court justice"
I don't care if a nominee leans left, right or centre. If he or she is qualified the president, no matter what party he or she belongs to, should get their nominee confirmed
13
Glad you agree that Judge Garland should have been confirmed.
1
Judge Garland was snookered by the Biden Rule. You know, by the guy who was the two term sitting Vice President of the country, and likely presidential candidate, at the time Merrick was nominated.
Democrats continue to profess surprise at the law of unintended consequences. Such naifs. They need to study the law more carefully. I mean, was it really such a good idea to deep-six the filibuster for judicial nominees?
1
Law is not fair nor just moral nor objective.
Law is gender, color aka race, ethnicity, national origin, faith, socioeconomics, politics and education plus history and arithmetic. Both black African enslavement and separate and unequal black African Jim Crow were legal.
The fact that the bias of any person nominated to the Supreme Court matters in their opinions exposes the law at it's callous corrupt cruel and cynical inhumane hypocritical worst.
While the fact that there is no Associate Justice Merrick Garland on the SCOTUS is reason enough to disregard and disrespect the rulings of the least democratic branch of our divided limited power constitutional republic of united states.
13
No president under federal investigation for such crimes as treason,obstruction of justice,bigotry,self dealing[see trump univ.
settlement..25 million and current investigation into the trump foundation]and hourly lying should be able to nominate anybody for anything especially the supreme court.He should have been removed 500 days ago for running afoul of the 25th amendment.He should not be able to enact any legislation of any sort or meet with any world leaders.He never should have been allowed to run for president w/o releasing his tax returns.Whatever this horrid man is found guilty of,so goes the GOP.
21
So well reasoned. Sign me up for your brand of government!
1
Ypur imagination is running wild. Trump has not been named a target, or even a " person of interest", in Mueller's investigation. And as time goes by, it appears less and less likely.
If investigation of one's subordinates merited removal, Bill would have been gone at the first whiff of trouble for Web Hibbell. Certainly when Starr was investigating his perjury.
1
trump does only for himself. kushner is moving his business to New Jersey, don jr. is getting divorced and is more than likely already hiding his money, trump's rampant financial crimes span the globe and their friends are swindlers as well. (I can't even capitalize their names!) No abortion is a cookie for his supporters and nothing more. This is all designed to keep him walking the streets rather than being jailed for his extensive crimes. Discussing this is a big waste of time and further evidence of his distraction technique. Not falling for it.
7
Don't worry, whoever Trump nominates will tell elected officials whatever they want to hear during hearings. Then, once sitting on SCOTUS, he will behave as every conservative expects him to do: overturning Roe vs. Wade included, and protecting Trump once his legal problems turn up in front to the SCOTUS.
Remember how Neil Gorsuch promised to respect precedents during the auditions and seemed nice and neutral, and look how he veered to the right once at the court.
7
In my extremely cynical estimates, the Democrats should fight for a moderate choice, but do so knowing that it's a lost cause. From the perspective of overturning Roe, let them. In the states where it is legal on the books, it will be legal after its overturned. In states that still have bans in place, they've managed to out enough restrictions on the procedure that it's effectively outlawed anyway. Let them vote before the election; if they vote after, the Conservatives will see the midterm as a national referendum on abortion. Let them vote beforehand for a ridiculous right wing caricature, and use it to fire the Left's base: "We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to uphold civil rights, we must rely on passing sound legislation, so vote for liberal Senators and Representatives"
6
I still cannot fathom why we are letting a President who appears to have colluded with Russia to win the election, and who has already generated guilty pleas and indictments from both his campaign and his administration, pick Lifetime Appointments to the bench on a rushed timetable.
These Justices may well vote on whether or not he can be indicted and whether the President can pardon himself. Will they recuse themselves?
What is the rush here exactly, other then pure politics?
Let's hear from Robert Mueller first.
14
The rush is Kennedy's son/Deutsche Bank/Russia. This story should be consistent headline news.
1
The Supreme Court was not supposed to be the assembly of a small group of hypocrites, but it seems to have become one. The personal prejudice of those individuals should force the American taxpayers to have each one of them tried for treason as they have, like Trump, assumed that they are above the rest of us and hence they have the right to make our choices and remove this nation from a small democratic focus to the oligarchy, a choice being made by those in office which is very evident today. Without question the founding fathers are turning over down there wherever they are. Where did they go wrong?
1
I assume you are only talking about the conservative majority. In that case I fully agree.
1
This would be a great time for the Dems to educate the country on the Federalist Society, which amounts to a collection of regressive, religious zealots funded by billionaires looking to escape regulation. Republicans will attempt to downplay abortion at this point, but no way anyone makes their list without being unalterably anti-abortion.
A president who lost the popular vote and is under criminal investigation is about to select a Supreme Court justice from a list drawn up by the Federalist Society - this choice will undoubtedly overturn Roe v Wade, strike down further gun control, allow greater gerrymandering and voter suppression, and expand Citizens United. The public overwhelming disagrees with Republicans on all of these issues.
The Republicans have the votes to get this through, but Dems should vociferously oppose it with the above arguments to heighten political interest in November - it will help to re-gain the Senate and prevent any further Supreme Court damage by Trump.
7
Really Frank, the Dems should attempt to counter what Trump and the Republicans are doing -- with a history lesson?
This is tribal warfare. Republicans are in power and the Dems have no power. By being two clever by halves last election.
The only thing the Dems have in their favor is numbers. The Dems outnumber the Repubs. All they have to do is motivate their tribe members to consolidate and vote, begin to re-gain power, and eventually wield it to impose the agenda most in the country support.
In other words, adjust to what Republicans are and have been doing for decades, rather than try to have an "honest debate" with a tribe that just sees that as a weakness to exploit.
2
I personally don't like any of these choices, but why should Kethledge be discounted because she went to Michigan? If anything I think that should be an advantage. The Supreme Court rules on all the US, and someone from a public university Law School seems ideal to me to fit the bill to add a fresh perspective. Also Michigan is one of the finest law schools in the country - any graduate from it should be able to do just fine.
6
Michigan brought us Betsy DeVos. She wants to rip apart public education to privatize and profiling from it, while tying together church and state.
1
Roe v Wade? Abortion rights? Forget it, they are gone after this pick. At this point we might start worrying about the viability of other long-standing SC decisions, like Brown v. Board of Education or even Dred Scott...
3
A bit over the top?
Concentration camps for all POC? And for all whites who do not take a personal oath of allegiance to Donald? And free speech *only* for corporations, the bigger the better.
These are the things that await us if Donald Trump is not impeached, convicted and removed from office by July 15.
It was indeed intended as hyperbole Abbott, but with Trump's attack on academic diversity just a few hours after my post, it might be prescient...
You can make it right Mr. President. Nominate Merrick Garland. That would make the court separate yet equal.
8
Four candidates? David Duke, Joe Arpaio, Kanye West and who else? Only the best for Trumpy!
5
Trump is an original thinker.
Publishing the list was pure genius.
All 25 get talked about. They come from all different backgrounds and parts of the country.
For Democrats to say all are unqualified makes them look foolish.
13
Soooo, Mitch McConnell delays the appointment of Obama's nomination to the court by a full YEAR until after the election—giving us a decidedly ideological court—but now he's rushing to load up Trump's court even more BEFORE the midterm election.
Heck, we haven't even had time to determine if there was collusion between Anthony Kennedy's son to influence his father, the justice, to leave on Trump and McConnell's timetable. And like that... whoosh... the U.S. Constitution is once again being assailed under this so-called administration.
10
Trump: "You can relax. I'm not going to ask you about how you'd rule on Roe v. Wade."
Candidate: "That's good, because that would be highly improper."
Trump: "But if I was to ask you, what would you say?"
3
The media is complicit in selling the Republican diversion. This is not about Roe vs Wade. This appointment is more about Trump having favors returned, if impeachment comes his way. Maybe he decides to be in power longer than eight years. For sure, This appointment will not help the middle class. Look for rulings in favor of reducing safety nets. The court makes decisions based on political idealology, not precidense. What I do know is that Pence casts the final vote, the judge will be a Trump radical and generations of wealthy will benefit. Our economy is owned by China. Our government is owned by Russia. Our country is not United. Be sure to put your little flag out tomorrow, to celebrate the slave owning founding fathers, decree of independence. The grand farce.
3
This article omits one of the most important characteristics of these 4 candidates — their age. Their relative youth is purposeful and telling:
Amy Coney Barrett, 46
Brett M. Kavanaugh, 53
Raymond M. Kethledge, 51
Amul R. Thapar, 49
Anthony Kennedy is now 81. Antonin Scalia was 80 when he died. The math is not hard.
McConnell, who demonstrated constitutional infidelity and disdain by orchestrating the theft from Obama of his constitutional right to appoint Scalia’s replacement, knew that he could preserve the ideology of the Court potentially for decades by stealing that seat. Trump delivered with Neil Gorsuch, who was 49-years old when nominated.
Kennedy’s retirement was the unexpected icing on the cake. An exquisite opportunity to turn that seat from purple to bright red for decades to come.
It is worth mentioning in weighing the GOP’s politicism of this appointment against Obama’s is that Merrick Garland was 63 at the time of his nomination. He was then — and still is — a long-time member of the vaunted D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and one of the country’s most respected jurists. He is also broadly considered a moderate in his jurisprudence and temperament.
So, if you hear from Sarah Sanders that Trump is behaving no more politically than Obama did, and that the Senate should confirm anyone who Trump nominates, regardless of ideology, don’t buy it. It’s just another White House distortion.
11
Dianne Feinstein was criticized as using a “religious test” when she questioned Amy Coney Barrett in her 7th Circuit confirmation hearing about disturbing prior statements that indicate she places her faith before the secular demands of the Constitution. However, it appears that the Republican Party has already established a religious test or preference for Catholics on the bench who will do their bidding when it comes to abortion and the concept of religious “liberty” as a weapon to be used against secular civil rights laws.
4
Reminder: "But, it's OK for Republicans to do it..."
-Just as right-wing media have "alternative facts," the GOP has "alternative rules."
4
sounds like you are saying that is was ok for Feinstein "to do it". A religious test opposing Roe. is still a religious test.
1
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the five-justice majority opinion in Calderon v. Thompson (118 S.Ct. 1489) in 1998 that led directly to the execution of an innocent man, Thomas Thompson, on July 14, 1998 at San Quentin State Prison.
Justice David Souter wrote the four-justice dissenting opinion:
The factors underlying the action of the Court of Appeals in this case were wholly appropriate, the court's stated justification having been to exercise extreme care to counter the malfunction of its own procedural mechanisms where the result otherwise might well be a constitutionally erroneous imposition of the death penalty.
Whatever policy the Court is pursuing, it is not the policy of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Nor is any other justification apparent. In this particular case, when all else is said, we simply face a recall occasioned by some administrative inadvertence awkwardly corrected; while that appellate process may have left some unfortunate impressions, neither its want of finesse nor AEDPA warrant the majority's decision to jettison the flexible abuse of discretion standard for the sake of solving a systemic problem that does not exist. (Id. at 1507.)
In Trump v. Hawaii, the five-justice majority of the Supreme Court (including Kennedy) overturned the ruling of the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944).
The soul of Thomas Thompson will not rest until justice is done in his case.
1
Since the Federalist Society drew up Trump's list of judicial nominees according to a hard-right ideological test, which includes opposition to Roe, then it is meaningless to ask if anyone needs to violate the norm of not asking judicial nominees for their views on a particular issue. This "no litmus test" rule is as dead as most of the other constitutional norms this president has destroyed.
Susan Collin's pledge to oppose any nominee "hostile to Roe" is also meaningless. Her argument is based more on "judicial activism" and lack of respect for "precedent." All nominees have to do to get Sen. Collins' vote is to deny being a "judicial activist," and to claim they deeply "respect precedent," whatever their actual record. She'll believe it, because she so wants to believe it.
In any case, Collins has already signaled--in the Gorsuch case--what she'll do. Neil Gorsuch told her he respected precedent. And that was enough for Collins.
Sen. Collins is an walking, talking oxymoron, a Republican "moderate." When push comes to shove, she invariably manifests a driving need to be marching in Prussian lock-stop with the rest of the GOP-Trump crowd. Sen. Collins will always find a way.
5
What they say they are going to do in a public interview and what they actually do once given a lifetime appointment.... the real questions are worked out behind closed doors.
2
If the United States was a democracy and Presidents were elected by the popular vote, the following justices would not be on the Supreme Court: John Roberts (GWB), Samuel Alito (GWB) and Neil Gorsuch (Trump) and the new guy who ever he turns out to be (Trump). So the conservative wing of the Supreme Court owes its entire existence to the fact that the United States of America is not a democracy. What Donald Trump does not understand is that the size and composition of the Supreme Court is not in the Constitution, it’s in the Judiciary Act. The Democrats can easily fix the Supreme Court if they the come to power after the 2020 elections by simply increasing the number of justices. Apparently, Mr. Trump has never heard of President Roosevelt.
4
Even the President must recuse himself from nominating a judge that will vote on his own cases coming before the federal courts. He cannot faithfully execute his Art. II duty to take care with such a conflict of interest. Any member of the SCOTUS bar would have standing to protect the integrity of the court to seek an injunction. The remedy would devolve the nomination duty to the VP, whose tie-breaker vote in the Senate would not be a conflict. The case would wend its way through, later than July 31 when Justice Kennedy's resignation s effective, so the court's decision would probably be 4-4, thereby letting stand the decision of the Circuit Court. I'd file it myself, except in New Orleans appeal lies with the 5th Cir. Anyone in the 9th Circuit up for this?
1
I do not believe educated Americans will stand for being governed by a dictatorship of the right wing based in the old confederacy. Since they’ve gamed the political system against us, it is time to flex our economic clout. To the best of my ability, I will cut back on my use of oil and any other products made in the south.
10
What I can't for the life of me understand is how a sitting president, under criminal investigation, has the power to nominate Supreme Court justices, write executive orders, and wreak havoc on the social, economic and political progress our great country has made over the last 60 years? I understand our political system is imperfect, but what the Trump experiment reveals is a system that does not have the checks and balances necessary to stem the tide of tyranny -- beginning with a well-meaning but wholly misguided electoral college system. Tyranny has resurfaced in the form of a carnival barker in chief who conned the less educated, the angry, and the fearful. In the end, the revolt has to come from within his own base -- a group of people who have debased themselves and the Republican party with their hatred and their fear of everything that is not white. I am ashamed to be American in this moment but not for what America is -- I am ashamed to see so many red-staters and backwards thinking folks support "The Donald," who, let's face it folks, is no better than a middling reality TV show host.
15
Watergate, Iran Contra, Whitwater-Lewinsky, Russia
If presidents were forbidden from nominating justices during investigations we wouldn’t have a Supreme Court
7
The opportunity of having a Supreme Court judge of his choice that Trump was desperately looking for seems to have struck his door following Justice Anthony Kennedy's announcement of his retirement this month. Now considering the odds against him including the Mueller investigation and the possible impeachment talks doing rounds his choice for the replacement of Justice Anthony Kennedy will solely be determined by the fact that the nominee picked by him should be completely loyal to him and who could defend him to the hilt in the legal battles ahead, rest of the considerations like the ideological leanings will be secondary now for Trump.
5
In an meaningful sense Donald Trump is the Anti-George Washington. When the country offered to make Washington the king he refused and did everything he could to move us towards democracy Conversely, as this country refuses to allow Trump to act like a king he is doing everything he can to take us away from democracy. The greatest irony within this tragedy is the fact that those most ably aiding and abetting Trump's ambition claim to be devoted to the principles established by our founders. I have no doubt that if he were among us Washington, to name but one founder, well mannered and tolerant as he was, would insist, sadly without satisfaction, that Trump meet him on the field of honor at dawn.
8
Washington: I cannot tell a lie. I chopped down that cherry tree.
Trump: I cannot tell a lie. Obama chopped down that cherry tree.
5
The notion that somehow the Supreme Court occupies some judicially sacred ground outside the political fray is fantasy and probably has been so since the founding.
SCOTUS is a branch of and part and parcel of the federal government which is locked in a dogged partisan struggle of epic proportions. This condition taints everything about our governance and political culture.
Trump will exercise the powers of the office he legally holds however well or badly he chooses.
5
The most important question is. will the nominee promise that they will not allow their personal faith be the basis of how they carry out their judicial duties?
Years ago, when the Vermont legislature was considering the legalization of same sex marriage, my local legislator (Roman Catholic) said that she sees the merits of the proposed legislation, but her faith prohibits her from voting for it.
I told her that if she allows her faith to be the basis of her vote, it will mean, for the first time in my life, that voters would have to investigate the religious and faith backgrounds of all candidates on the ballot, and cast my vote against members of certain religions. And that would set the nation back 100 years.
Ultimately, she voted the right way. But the idea that someone will allow their religion to be the basis of their judicial or governmental discharge of duties is repugnant.
10
Stay tuned to next week's episode of "The Apprentice Washington" !
4
will the "McConnell Rule" apply? no hearings until January?
I thought not. hypocricy reigns.
SCOTUS has become yet another tainted institution thanks to the Senator from Kentucky ... in what democracy can about 425,000 people from one of 50 states impact the entire nation for 2 generations? McConnell only got 56% of the folks who COULD vote for him --- and most of us would not have.
Sad state of affairs.
5
The Biden Rule only applies in presidential election years.
5
If the commentators herein who are worried sick about Trump's rigging the High Court did not bother to vote or worse thought Hillary untrustworthy and voted against her then stop your whining. This is what happens to a nation whose half of its electorate cannot be bothered to vote. You get the government you deserve, and, as you're beginning to realize, there's no taking it back. America, you don't realize how good you've had it until it's gone. Shedding tears now is meaningless.
DD
Manhattan
8
Ok, let's honor the Ginsburg Standard. Since Judge Barrett has expressed an opinion that Catholic judges should be able to recuse themselves from death penalty cases, it doesn't take a Trump University graduate to deduce how she will vote on Roe V. Wade.
4
the fever spreads..."for or against," whatever the issue, reflects what is, essentially, a political predisposition.
in law, cases must be made and cannot be decided until they are heard, and, so, a popular opinion can fail in court because its advocates fail to meet a legal standard or a claim established in their appeal, (the recent union case suffered from of poor argument).
watching the pols and the press tear at this issue like angry dogs snarling over an old slipper does not inspire trust.
in the recent decision supporting trump's extreme vetting of citizens of countries proven to have fostered terrorism the majority cited presidential authority as the basis for their (arguable) decision but, sadly, justice sotomayor chose to "argue" with an opinion that was little more than a review of a political predisposition, which, however one feels about the issue, does not belong in the court and which, if it persists will do more harm than any judge relying on interpretation (however arguable) of the constitution.
no one without the temperament to hear cases and articulate his or her judgement in constitutional terms, belongs on the court.
among the politicals it is possible to display bias and play to public opinion, to say, for example, as sen feinstein did in an earlier hearing for amy coney barrett, that she was unfit to serve because of her catholic religion whose "dogma lives loudly within you."
the country cannot afford that kind of prejudice in the supreme court.
1
My wife and I are building a house this fall. We have taken more time deciding on the color of our kitchen cabinets than Mr. Trump will take to alter the course of American History forever. When Trump is gone his shameful legacy will live for the next century. How do we convince his supporters that what is wrong for women, immigrants, and all minorities is wrong for them too. Never in the course of this country's existence have we been faced with such glaring incompetence and self-serving malice. Trump would rather be loved by his base than do what is right for this country and the world. Make no mistake about it, Trump has no loyalty to the future of this country or our institutions. Trump is intent on one thing and one thing only, to keep his rallies full of hate spewing, poorly informed people who swallow his every word and chant his name. Making the right decisions is not on his to do list now, or any time in the future. If you are not voting, driving people to vote or donating to organizations to encourage voter registration you are going to be shaking your head for a very, very long time asking yourself where this country has gone.
8
There may be little of substance that Democrats by themselves can do to block the further descent into anti-democratic right wing corporatism already demonstrated multiple times by the Roberts majority. Nevertheless, they must unite in a vigorous and concerted effort to do just that. There can be no feckless pseudo-Democrat turncoats voting in favor of Gorsuch like Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota .
Perhaps out of love of country one or even two patriotic Republican senators will vote to block Trump. Highly unlikely that such senators actually exist but it is the only chance we have to prevent even further descent into the dark Trumpian abyss.
3
Asking judges to specify what judgement they would give in future is laughable. It means the judgement is decided before even the case is begun. Dems are so naive.
6
Interesting. Republicans are openly stating that they expect a judge who will eliminate Roe.
3
I find it difficult to believe Trump could sit still for 4 interviews of 45 minutes each. He may have been in the room, with something to keep him distracted and not interfering, but not doing the actual interview.
6
Trump doesn't care one way or the other about issues like Roe. As Bret Stephens said in today's column:
"Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals who once clerked for Kennedy, is my first bet. Among other things, he wrote a law review article in 2009 arguing that presidents should be exempt from lawsuits and investigations, which must be music to President Trump’s ears. And he’s in his early 50s, meaning he’d likely be on the court for decades."
Sounds right to me.
7
Call your Senators today, tomorrow and all the days afterwards to fight of this decision, your life and well being depends on it.
4
It does not appear that Trump or anyone else in this administration is "rushing" to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Clearly filling said vacancy is important to the continued workings of the judicial system. A fact that was repeatedly mentioned in this newspaper in the not to distant past when it was likely to be filled by a liberal jurist.
6
They are all being vetted to see if there is a sliver of decency in them that might disqualify them from being judges.
6
Why is Chuck Schumer tweeting? Is that really constructive? Why not force a filibuster on the nomination until after the midterms? Or is Mitch invincible and calling all shots? If that is the case why do democratic congresspeople even showing up for work? I disagreed that the party needs new leadership-now I firmly believe it does-urgently-before they blow the midterms- don't they realize people are mobilized and ready to take radical action vs strengthening the GOP's hold for another six years? Time to stop being roll-overs and fight back using McConnell's bag of dirty tricks-in the end, the end will justify the means. Either that or put term-limits on the Justices-the GOP is interested in re-writing the constitution-the democrats need to do the same.
3
Where are the Democrats? They are talking about the threat to Roe vWade but they are not hammering home the most important factor in this rush to appoint a justice.Mr.Trump and his closest associates are being investigated for collusion with a foreign government, money laundering, and illegal campaign contributions.Within a few months there will be a report.No president being investigated seriously should be allowed to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court.Mr.Garland's appointment was shelved because of an election months away.This appointment should be shelved until Mr.Mueller gives us his report.Democrats, show us your rage and the stalling tactics you have!
3
How scary is this?
Think back to reality, including Donald Trump’s reality.
A New York businessman who has deviously made numerous lifetime deals, and has been taken to court many times, who has had no previous government leadership experience, chooses a member of the Supreme United States judicial system that will potentially rule for decades and generations.
There has to be something wrong with this picture.
6
Why is there no mention of the likelihood that Trump will focus on the loyalty of the candidate to him? Trump's history is clear.
3
Typically, the wheels of government turn excruciatingly slowly. President Trump seems to get things done quickly on multiple fronts, including judicial appointments, the economy, North Korea, trade deals etc etc.
2
It's clear to me powerful elements in the Republican Party have set ending abortions as a major goal. I suspect their primary strategy for doing so is to encourage the Supreme Court to decide, as soon as possible, that the moment is ripe for the moment of conception to be determined to start the clock on Constitutionally protected life. Consider just one strand of the hair-on-fire absurd consequences. Anyone found responsible for the death of a pregnant (defined as post-conception) woman would have to be charged, based in part on some technology, a test to be developed for detecting conception even post-mortem, with committing the same crime(s) twice. Moreover, every female death or serious injury, suspicious or not, would require the administration of the test to determine the exact potential future legal liability to be faced by the perpetrators. Surely law enforcement agencies of every description would be the largest, if not singular, market for the test. Certainly, no one else, least of all women, would be willing to spend money to obtain information which could no longer be used a basis for action. Sadly, the wild conspiracy theory based cable TV show circumstances just described sound exactly like just the sort of business opportunity that would be of great interest to the aforementioned Republicans.
1
It doesn't make any sense to classify Roe v Wade as a "case" per the so-called Ginsberg rule -- it is a long-established precedent, which has been challenged by subsequent cases, and to whom the "Ginsberg rule" might apply if they are still in the system.
That's like not talking about racial issues because of Plessey or Brown.
1
The unfortunate truth for supporters of the left is that the reason they feel that this Supreme Court pick will destroy democracy, and civil rights, is because progressive justices of the past have anchored decisions that should have been made democratically in the weaponized-mystical words of the 14th Amendment. Interpreting the words of the Constitution by their original public meaning (the type of originalism employed by the court) isn't activism, reading rights into the "concept of ordered liberty" is.
1
This country needs a Constitutional Amendment to fix the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine and set term limits for those Justices to enable every President to make some number of appointments during each term they are in office. With this change, the ongoing composition of the court, from the standpoint of the parties of the Presidents nominating the Justices seated at any one time, would then more closely reflect several of the most recent Presidential election outcomes, hence the evolving will expressed by voters, over time. This outcome would represent a significant improvement over the current protocol which ultimately reflects not only Presidential election outcomes but also, and often more so, actuarial or truly uncertain events and occasional political opportunism bordering on guile. Surely, as such, such an Amendment should enjoy strong bipartisan support.
1
Can't wait to see all four of these prospects promise to uphold Roe v. Wade... then the one who gets appointed will overturn it within a month.
2
Need a case first. They just can’t overturn it.
2
States all across the heartland pass legislation every year in violation of Roe for the explicit intent of putting decision back on the supreme Court docket. I believe Iowa has one such law in place right now
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" should have these liars stopped cold in their tracks. They are fakes all the way down.
Trump's question to them is "what can we do about this Russian collusion witch hunt?"
6
Please Mr. Mueller, wrap this up before he has more time to harm the country. Every additional day that goes by more damage is done he has more time to marshal his troll army against the truth.
Thanks,
6
If intellect, temperament and Ivy League are important then I would suggest that Barack Obama is one of the interviewees.
13
Women's rights? Making America Great Again ain't got time for that nonsense!
10
I'm going with Amy Barrett.
8
McConnell’s comment on the “Ginsberg Rule” is among the most self-serving comments coming from the mouth of the biggest hypocrite in Congress.
Democrats would do well to pursue answers from these extremist judges on how they would rule on specific cases related to abortion rights, the ACA, limitations on presidential powers and gay rights as these judges are being considered mainly to support conservative opinions on these and reverse the established case law.
5
So easy to solve the abortion issue. Decide whether or not babies have two parents. You can't exclude the father (or the state) when deciding to kill the baby. But demand child support (from the father or the state) if you let the baby live. No more heads I win tales you loose rules.
5
For the millionth time, abortion is not “baby killing.”
3
OK, demand child support payments, and watch some men simply refuse to pay them. Courts implement this policy all the time, and there are men who don’t pay up. My cousin’s ex-husband is one of those guys. Getting anything out of him is apparently like pulling teeth. Oh, and guess who has full responsibility for the kids every which way while this is going on, and is making sure they’re fed, clothed, and going to school? Surprise! It isn’t the ex-husband.
Stop acting like the “abortion issue” is as easy and solvable as demanding that men make child support payments. For the record, abortion isn't about flighty women who don’t want kids and are taking parenthood away from poor, suffering men. Sometimes abortion happens to a couple who want a child but the child has significant abnormalities that are incompatible with life. Sometimes a couple gets pregnant - birth control can fail - with a child they’re not ready to parent or can’t afford to raise. Sometimes women get pregnant and the guy they’re in a relationship with or married to waltzes off into the sunset, and the woman can’t afford a child (or another child) on her own. Sometimes the mother’s life is in danger. Sometimes women and girls are raped, or are victims of incest. Abortions happen for a variety of reasons and under a variety of circumstances. It is not a black and white issue that can be solved by simply demanding that men or the state (are you kidding?) make child support payments.
1
Amy coney Barrett, arguably the leading candidate, rejects the 14th amendment as illegitimate. This means that any of the many rulings that extend the bill of rights to the states, or establish due process for all people in the United States are rejected by this extremist candidate. Rejecting the 14th amendment demonstrates deep seated racism and willingness to allow discrimination against minorities. It’s unfathomable to me that people with these extremist beliefs are employed at all in mainstream society, much less that they’re on the verge of ascendancy to the Supreme Court. Oh, and she also rejects all rulings that derive the right of privacy from the bill of rights.
6
Look, Trump is setting this up to be a beauty contest because that what he knows. List of 25, with five finalists and then he announces the winner. Get the crown, flowers and ribbons ready.
Therefore, he's going to nominate Amy Coney Barrett because she's the best looking one. He's probably going to be amazed at how good she looks with so many kids and he wants a good looking Supreme Court.
RBG is not good looking but just smart. But Trump values beauty over smarts and that's why he's going with the good looking one. So we step backwards. Ironic that Miss America updates with no bathing suits but meanwhile Trump gets in his time machine.
Problem is that back in time women understood how they were treated so shabbily. There's no guarantee that his female nominee will hew the male line.
5
So, does the candidate have to swear loyalty to Trump to be nominated?
5
Instead of hand wringing about conservatives on SCOTUS it's about time Dems get their act together to win those crucial issues at the ballot box.
10
The reason that Roe v Wade is not being asked about is because everyone knows all the nominees' anti-choice positions ahead of time. So there's no need to ask an embarrassing question, and Republicans, including Collins, can behave (dishonestly) as if women's health wasn't a criterion for picking a nominee.
Lying by omission is certainly an odd thing for Evangelical Christians to do openly, but the stakes are high for packing the court, before Trump and Pence get indicted for colluding with Russia.
4
i'd like to see the president pick either Senator Mike Lee from Utah, or Don Willett from Texas.
3
Done deal. Democrats needs to stop whining and focus on a spectacular midterm election. Stop blaming Putin and Trump and stop acting like the election was rigged (without solid proof). No proof yet so focus on what’s can be accomplished. Get out the vote.
15
“I would have walked out the door,” said Gorsuch, without any hint of irony - just like he walked through the door McConnell barred Merrick Garland walking through for 10 months without so much as a second thought. MAGA?
16
Could there be a "Dossier" on Kennedy
There is a dossier on everybody.
Your wife has a dossier on you.
Overturning Roe v. Wade would be the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats. For one, abortion would remain legal in well over more than half the states.
Secondly, there are many people who identify as "pro-life" who do not want abortion criminalized. In purple states and possible purple states like North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Ohio and others, criminalizing abortion will result in Republican governors and legislators to be tossed out of office, and could also hurt them in federal elections.
So yes, the irony is that Democrats should hope that Roe v. Wade is overturned.
5
Erik -- for a century safe medical abortions have been available to those with enough money. Making abortion illegal is about denying it to poor women.
The majority of states (though perhaps not those with the majority of the American population) will ban abortion or make it very difficult and expensive. This will suit their hypocrisy: "abortion doesn't happen here ... but when I want one ...I can afford it and I know where to go."
1
What difference does it make if the SCOTUS interview has a question about Roe vs Wade? None of the rest of the judges had this question posed to them.
Where were the Democrats when the last justice, literally just a few months ago. Was he being asked questions about his propensity to view Roe vs Wade either settled law, or open to be reviewed? In fact, all of the SCOTUS judges, does anyone know how they would vote to review, much less to change Row vs Wade?
4
It's so hard to take Congress seriously. I don't mean the Democrats or the Republicans. It doesn't matter who the candidate is, almost all Ds will oppose, almost all Ds will be for him/her. The minority Ds will ask about specific cases, just as the Rs would if they were in the minority and many of them answer their own question.
Justice Scalia was right that Roe v. Wade changed the game. The controversial cases became more political than ever, so more political justices are necessary. From past experience everyone knows that at least since the transformational '60s, Democrat/liberal justices do not tend to become more conservative (can you name any?), but Republican/conservative justices occasionally become moderates (Kennedy, to some degree Roberts) or even liberals (Souter, Blackmun). So, Trump would be foolish to pick someone almost guaranteed to be on the right of the court. Of course, he's not like any other president we've experienced and if he doesn't listen to advisors, who knows what he will do?
1
"Democrat/liberal justices do not tend to become more conservative (can you name any?),"
Byron White.
1
I don't think so, Here. He was a moderate when he started and throughout his service, sometimes voting with the liberals and sometimes with the conservatives. White was not very political, and his background would seem more conservative - military, football, business lawyer - but he was friends with JFK, which led to his political and court careers. Rather than being liberal or conservative, he had a jurisprudence that was always big on judicial restraint and opposed to substantive due process (as most justices say they are). If you like something more authoritative than just another commenter's opinion, it took a few seconds, for example, to find
on Biography.com says "When he first started, the conservative, often brusque justice seemed a bit out of place on the more liberal court of Chief Justice Earl Warren," and you can find similar opinions elsewhere.
I suspect Donald Trump is interviewing these SCOTUS candidates, to determine how they would treat him , if a case involving a President's collusion, with a hostile foreign country, (ie Russia) should end up before the SCOTUS.
Or a President who violated the Emoluments clause of the Constitution.
So Donald Trump, in a sense is picking the jury members (SCOTUS) that might actually try him at some future date.
Maybe he is asking them to swear an oath of loyalty to him personally, , and though he were some Medieval King?
After all, Donald Trump only thinks and cares about what will be best for him, and his family.
5
We should never put Justices on the Supreme Court that are going to follow the Constitution. If we ever did that, The Constitution would be like The Supreme Law of The Land. That's certainly not what those that formed our nation had in mind, was it?
12
The President doesn't need to ask judges specific questions, because they have been vetted before they get to him. These individuals will have extremely good credentials and impressive backgrounds.
The main questions to ask are how they understand law and interpret laws and how they see the Constitution. To simplify the questions, do they see law as the written word interpreted given the narrow meaning of each word or would it sometimes be necessary to bring in legislative history to interpret what something means. For example, could a psychological study of a community showing damage to children occurs because of the way the law treats them be used to help determine whether the law or a case interpreting an older law should stand? Or, should we just look at the words of the law and the words and provisions of the Constitution to see if it is covered. While you are at it, look at the US Constitution and see what it says about abortions or, for that matter, civil rights or minimum wages. Some folks have a worldview and an understanding as to the interpretation of law that would not allow them to find minimum wages imposed by federal law, the civil rights amendment upheld by federal courts against state will and the desire of small businesses or abortion permitted by a case to be constitutional. Worldview does shape how we see issues and read cases as well as what we believe the powers of federal and state governments should be based upon our constitution and laws.
5
Well said. Thanks. Rule of Law and the Constitution are sacrosanct. Not our individual world view.
2
"The President doesn't need to ask judges specific questions, because they have been vetted before they get to him."
Yeah, between the Federalist Society and Heritage, if they are not far right wing radicals, they do not make the cut.
Everybody konws just what they stand for. Even an ignoramus like "Emperor Donald."
3
Justices are not legislators. It is not their job to determine if a law is good or bad or if the effects of a law are good or bad. Their job is to determine if the law purports with the Constitution.
Most might agree, Trump maybe implicated in a number of criminal enterprises as a result of the Mueller probe. This may include his knowledge and consent to Russians providing damaging information on Clinton..or money laundering via purchase of Trump properties by the Russian..or guarantee loans from Deutsche Bank whereas no American charter bank would loan Trump money after multiple bankruptcies after Atlantic city...or the fact the Russians have those incriminating photos from the Miss Universe contest in 2013.."The Steel Dossier"
Here lies the point: Trump maybe responsible for the nomination of two US Supreme Court justices. What if Trump is indicted (which maybe a sealed indictment not served until Trump left office)..and as a result these two Supreme Court Justices were placed there by a criminal. How would the legacy of those judges be written whereas their nomination was done by an indicted individual who could possibly "do time". And this could include treason.
This is a possibility and one which deserves some thought....
8
Where does Justin Kennedy work now?
4
This is a done deal. 3 Dems will vote yea cause they’ll lose their red seats in the midterms if they don’t. Obama-historic president, but not a consequential one. Trump-prob not historic, but VERY consequential in just 18 months (two SCOTUS picks, business and personal tax cuts).
10
This not popularly elected person occupying the WH treats the process of selecting a candidate for the highest federal court like a reality tv program, pushing some season ender teaser cliff hanger. I should expect nothing better; but still, for shame.
9
like I said, the finalists have already all been vetted. Any of them will overturn Roe v. Wade, it doesn't make any difference who Trump picks. Can we move on with the destruction of the country? Thank you.
6
They won’t overtime Roe vs Wade. Conservative minds respect precedent. More pressing issues exist to be resolved. Their role is to interpret law and the constitution. Not rehash settles arguments.
3
Joe Yoh, that is clearly not true. Justice Scalia stated in Lawrence v Texas that "I do not myself believe in rigid adherence to stare decisis in constitutional cases." This is, moreover, right in keeping with the Court's lack of consistency in privacy cases, eg, upholding an anti-sodomy law in Bowers v Hardwick (1986) then declaring such laws unconstitutional less than 20 years later in Lawrence. That was precisely what Scalia was laughing about in Lawrence -- that the majority harped on about stare decisis as one of the reasons why it had to affirm Roe v Wade in the 1992 Planned Parenthood of SE PA v Casey decision, then minimized the importance of stare decisis in Lawrence ("stare decisis is not an inexorable command, and certainly it is not such in every constitutional case"). I think the most significant point is that in Casey, the conservatives were in the dissent. They would have overturned Roe back in 1992 if Kennedy hadn't sided with the majority. So the notion that they will not do so now if the right case presents itself is laughable.
You're right, but not because of any high minded judicial integrity by the Republican justices. If they don't overturn Roe, it will be because they can't afford to lose their wedge issue that drives the Religious Right to vote for the party that actively works against Christian teaching
This would be an excellent time for Senator Susan Collins to give Mitch McConnell a little "payback" for making her look like a fool with his promise to give her a concession to stabilize healthcare premiums "later" if she would vote for the Republican tax bill. McConnell never did fulfill that promise.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/365922-broken-health-care-pledge-test...
Quote:
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) will be a crucial swing vote for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) next year, but it may be tougher to strike deals with her after McConnell failed to fulfill a pledge on health care.
The moderate senator told reporters this month that she had an “ironclad” commitment from McConnell and Vice President Pence to pass legislation by the end of the year to stabilize ObamaCare premiums. She wanted that assurance before committing her vote for tax reform.
But that vote has now been delayed until January due to opposition from House Republicans.
Collins isn’t accusing McConnell of breaking his pledge, but she is disappointed in the outcome, according to sources familiar with the negotiations on health-care legislation.
Those sources added that Collins might think twice the next time GOP leaders promise her something.
End Quote
Go ahead Senator Collins. Stand up for yourself, for the people of Maine, and for all Anericans. Jost vote "NO" on any Trump far right radical nominee.
6
Mitch McConnel robbed Obama of a pick and now wants to stack the court so they will not vote fairly on his impeachment. trump should, at least, never be allowed to pick unitl after the mid-term elections, so a ballanced congress and give the American people true justice. It would be an act of evil if McConnel and trump stacked the court to avoid justice, a dark stain on our democracy. He should be stopped at all cost.
8
The Supreme Court doesn't vote on impeachment.
1
The most sycophantic nominee will get the job, that much is known. What he or she will do after is not known.
7
Trumps pick will be quickly confirmed nothwithstanding noises by Susan Collins. Her statement left so much wiggle room that she will be easily satisfied by any hedge of an answer on abortion. Besides, all nominees now know to lie outright in their answers to get confirmed, and then it is too late to do anything about it.
6
There is no reason to put a new Supreme Court justice in place before the 2016 elections are over and the Mueller investigation is concluded. Mitch McConnell wouldn’t not even allow an eminently well suited candidate to be considered even though Obama wasn’t not close to finishing is time in office. I think everyone correctly assumes that our current POTUS will nominate a radical hard right candidate who will be loyal to the POTUS instead of the constitution and the rule of law.
15
Vetting. Now that’s funny.
16
Donald Trump under investigation should not be allowed to pick a federal judge.
19
how ridiculous that Montana and California each get 2 senators!
There is nothing ridiculous about it.
The House represents the people.
The Senate represents the States.
This was agreed to at the founding.
What is more, the constitution prohibits amending this provision.
8
I hope that Trump picks another Souter
1
The same Souter whose nomination so-called progressives were terrified of and furious at? The one whose ascension to the Court was going to cause tens of thousands of women to die (of botched abortions)? (I remember seeing these posters in DC)
Count on the left for clear eyed, good judgment in these matters.
7
I am surprised that there are not inquiring minds questioning the sudden decision of Kennedy to retire now rather than at the end of year or after the November elections. Could there be a "Dossier" on Kennedy - use you imagination - where the threat of exposure forced him to bail now? This is the only plausible reason for the timing of now, rather than several months from now. The word is "Blackmail".
10
Except in health emergencies (Taft, for example), justices generally choose to retire at the end of the term, that is, in June or July. That way, hopefully, there will be a full bench for the first Monday in October.
3
Oh brother the guy is 80 years old. Maybe he is ready to sleep late and go fishing.
4
A one vote majority? What about Pence?
2
I saw an ad today on TV that depicts Democrats as extremists and asks that we call a certain number in support of Trump's nominations. I immediately called my Senators to do the reverse, to express my strong opposition to anyone who might reverse Roe v. Wade.
If ever we needed to make our voices heard, and if ever we needed to dig deep to donate to NARAL and the Dems, it is now.
13
If ever there were a time for civil disobedience, this is it. Republican senators must come face to face with the American people. Preferably several hundred thousand camped around the Capitol.
11
And the winner is...the one that hates blacks, Latinos, Asians, Muslims, Native Americans, women rights, the Civil Rights Acts, The Voting Act, Consumer Rights, and is pro life, pro wall, pro Gestapo tactics, pro waterboarding, and who believes that are good people in a white supremacist march, and who is completely loyal to me. Meet your next SC Judge.
18
"Temporarily Reorganizing White House Staff to Push a Nomination" When were they organized? I must have missed that.
26
Trump had a chance once he was elected to both cow McConnell and placate the left.
Not surprisingly, he muffed it.
Now he has a second chance to do the right thing.
Nominate Merrick Garland. He will be confirmed 100-0.
8
Very funny.
Trump "interviewed" these people? Please! What would he ask them? "Hot or not?" He has absolutely not clue about the constitution or law in general, other than, perhaps, bankruptcy law.
35
It's so much fun reading all the critics talk about Trump.
He beat every major political pro at their own game including Hillary and Jeb. He plays the media like a fiddle. But he does not know a thing and is ignorant, disorganized etc..
3
Instead of overturning Roe v. Wade we should, when faced with the difficult decision of whether or not to have an abortion, turn to the Evangelicals' Savior and ask ourselves, What Would Trump Do?
15
It is fascinating that a presumably civilized Western country will have its Supreme Court chosen by a pack of racist ignoramuses. In light of the evidence, the presumption that the US is a civilized nation clamors to be revisited, and revisited it must be, even if it hurts national pride, for no change is possible until we take a good long look in the mirror.
30
Unfortunately, it isn't the first 'civilized' Western country that has allowed bigoted ignoramuses to use rule of law as deadly weapons against its own people. We never learn do we.
9
Trump, who tweeted less than a month ago that the constitution gives him the "absolute right" to pardon himself of any and all crimes, now gets to nominate one of the nine people who get to decide whether he in fact has that power.
34
Let's face it: the Supreme Court is greatly overrated. We have had reactionary courts before: in the 1850s with Dred Scott; in the 1930s with findings of unconstitutionality for AAA and NRA (which they may have been). The Court either reflects current political reality (as it did in the late 1800s) or it is irrelevant. If the political majority in the country changes, the Court will change. If it doesn't. Congress (a liberal one) can increase the number of justices to 11 and a liberal president can appoint two liberal justices. The right wing Republicans have "packed" the Court just like FDR tried to do, but it won't work.
4
1850s supreme court = civil war
2
This vile creature's assurance that he won't ask prospective appointees about Roe v. Wade is disingenuous: first, judges who's reached a point in their careers at which appointment to the Court could even be considered usually have a record of rulings and/or publications that indicates where they stand; and more to the point, he's choosing interviewees from a list that includes only those judges who'd favor weakening/abolishing Roe v. Wade.
6
Barring a massive blunder or a miracle, Trump's nominee will be confirmed. I count 5 Democratic Senators in red States who will vote for Trump's choice, giving Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski cover to vote "no,"
Bonus for Trump. He will claim that the vote was bipartisan, even though Democrats will have been blackmailed into voting "yes."
So what to do? The only remedy for the alt-Right disaster to come on the SCOTUS is legislative. If Democrats can capture both houses of Congress by significant margins, they must pass laws that preclude the SCOTUS from legislating from the bench. A Congressional Act affirming "choice" would protect Rowe v. Wade. A Congressional.non-discrimination Act would protect minority rights.
We will need fearless legislators. We don't really have them now. Vote the GOP out of office, and replace them with people ready for a fight.
9
There is 0 chance of the Dems retaking the Senate in 2018. And the Senate is another example of the Dems regaining control of the country: how ridiculous that Montana and California each get 2 senators!
3
Trump interviews for his Praetorian Guard.
"Do you swear absolute loyalty to me". Next.
13
This pick is important to many because of Roe, women's rights and other civil liberties issues. It's important to Trump because of the Mueller investigation. That's his top priority and the reason he's taking great pains to pick HIS nominee.
4
From what I am reading here, one would think that Abortion is the most important issue of the day.
Is it?
I sure hope not.
5
I is not an issue to anybody who could become pregnant......it is only an issue to men and females beyond childbearing years. Oh, and Evangelicals who support Roy Moore.....
Half the population is female half of them of child bearing age and about one half dozen of them can't figure out birth control.
If only it were true then we wouldn't be having this debate would we?
We need an originalist. The founders had it right. The constitution is not a living document. It is a piece of paper. Judges should read it and interpret it. That spells the end of gay marriage and abortion.
5
Trump will rank the candidates by looks, and then Stephen Miller will make the final choice.
10
The short list:
Alex Jones
Steve Doucy
Corey Lewandowski
Ted Nugent
And the guy from Charlottesville, the one with the `MAGA' hat
7
Trump is still being constantly being underestimated.
I don't rule out Judge Roy Moore or Sheriff Joe Arpaio as possible nominations to the Supreme Court by Trump.
None of the potential candidates currently under discussion come nearly as close to matching Trump's personal characteristics and understanding of the law as these men do.
And their nominations to the Court would be wildly cheered-on by Trump's Republican bootlickers and deplorables.
"When others go low, I will go much lower."
That is the principle these three men live by.
12
I don't often agree with you, but your first sentence nails it. Trump is an extremely shrewd player of power politics. Those who dismiss him as a lunatic, as a cartoonish racist, as a Cheeto or as an orangutan are the ones who will lose--bigly. Trump feeds on the condescension of the left and, you know, so does a large segment of the voting public.
5
WCD -- Trump is the vindication of the Mencken ... who is often misquoted.. Here is the correct quotation:
“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
In his column, Mencken went on to say
“The mistake that is made always runs the other way. Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly.”
Mencken's column was about the commercial superiority of the tabloid, over the newspaper. The FOX-ification of Americans makes his point entirely.
I would go one further -- the British tabloids Murdoch runs tittilate with "T &A" ... despite the self-deprecating Monte-Pythonism "No sex please, we're British."
But the American right is fed wacky conspiracy theories and racist mongering instead. Pizzagate and Birtherism.
"Just a theoretical here, but let's say a man got you a sweet job-for-life, where you literally cannot get fired, and then some radicals tried to impeach that same guy on some trumped-up charges (no pun intended), how would you ensure that sweet job-getter guy avoided any consequences of anything he may or may not done (*cough* collusion with Russians *cough*)???"
5
Hilarious. But sadly, possibly true.
2
Is it too late to turn these "interviews" into a pay-per-view event, because it's surely comedy gold. Something tells me his interview process is as valuable as his understanding of trade, economics and healthcare.
11
To choose candidates so one sided in their political-economic persuasion is totally contrary to the intent of our Constitutional drafters. They were foreseeing future presidents to be in the mold of George Washington. For me, I am sick and tired of this president dragging my country in the mud again and again.
14
Yes, of course. I'm sure that is exactly what you said when Kagan and Sotomayor were nominated.
15
Is Judge Jeannie on the Heritage provided short list? Bonus: Already Hannity approved!
3
In picking the "right" candidate, that is the candidate on the far right, will he, Trump, be sure to have the Koch brothers, Hannity, Rush and Alex Jones approve the pick?
3
Every time the Trump Regime picks a fight, it wins. The fight itself energizes the Followers and validates their resentment. The forces of good faith and sound judgement are in full retreat. There is no way to stop a totally reactionary nominee, and the Right Wing will have gained even more strength by the time this person takes his place.
4
"Do you agree that I can pardon myself and my grifting family members?"
29
"Reorganizing the White House staff" assumes that it was ever "organized." No evidence of that. And what would Donald Trump possibly discuss with judges of Supreme Court calibre? The size of his inauguration crowd?
6
I'm placing my bet on the candidate with a family member who has facilitated the largest loan, or the largest sack of laundered money, or bribe to trump. It worked for Justin Kennedy.
The timing of Anthony Kennedy's retirement: get out while the getting is good, before Mueller pops trump. The SCOTUS process should be delayed until after the smoke clears.
Have no worries, Roe v Wade is not going anywhere.
It is a gift that keeps on giving. It's a gold mine. It is a vote magnet. No bought conservative (republican) politician, no temple money changing evangelical preacher want their single most potent, reliable, money making, fleece the rubes cultural wedge issue to go away.
13
We all know Trump's primary question,
"Will you promise absolute loyalty to me and Vlad?"
6
What a great crowd: Thomas M. Hardiman, William H. Pryor Jr., Amul R. Thapar, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Joan L. Larsen and Amy Coney Barrett.
Hardiman is a gun-rights advocate -- he believes that felons, including those who have committed robberies and crimes against children should have unimpeded gun rights after incarceration. He also advocates for an expansive view of of the Heller decision: guns anywhere. These public positions are probably what made him lose the appointment to Gorsuch, who was not as publicly toxic, and so easier to confirm.
Pryor was Sessions' flunky in Alabama, was filibustered for his all-too-public views in the GWB administration, and finally installed by a deal brokered by John McCain. He hasn't done much on the federal bench since, but writes colorful opinions.
Thapar is a curious case, curious that he has made Trump's short list. All he is known for is vindictive sentences for three peace protesters at a nuclear weapons site ... his sentences were reduced on appeal as vindictively excessive.
Kavanaugh was Starr's protégé, drafted the Starr report, for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. He's a good rightwing flunky & hatchetman.
Larsen and Barrett are the ladies, and come last because nobody expects them to be nominated. Larsen clerked for Scalia, and was nominated to the federal bench by Trump. That's inadequate experience by any standard. Barrett is just the same: clerked for Scalia, nominated to the federal bench by Trump.
13
Larsen & Barrett each have more experience on the bench than Kagan. So in effect, you are saying that Kagan's experience before joining SCOTUS was "inadequate experience by any standard." I agree
9
Yes, Kagan had no bench experience when nominated. But at least she had served in previous administrations.
I don't think she was a great choice either, but at least not one who has nothing but a single-president's patronage.
1
The hypocrisy of McConnell delaying the vote, actually denying the vote last year and pushing for a vote this year is so painfully obvious. But the "right" and Trump's supporters are proud of the hypocrisy. They think it is a demonstration of power and they think that power is simply what it is all about. Sadly, they are mostly right. The Democrats have the power of a ruptured rooster and don't know how to raise a ruckus. They are right that this shouldn't be a power struggle but that's like being right that the truck should have slowed down before it ran over you. Make no mistake, the truck is coming.
6
Hypocrisy? No, the republican leadership is simply following the template that democrat leaders insisted on in 2012.
6
nonsense. The Democrats never refused to consider a Supreme Court nomination.
With Trump's far right pick for Kennedy's seat, we now hear that we must vote in an effort to "save" our democracy.
But understand this. It is too late. We on the left may vote in each and every election throughout the rest of our lives, and it will matter little. Why? Because there will be five far right judges who want to install their religious agenda as the law of this land, and their rulings will be law not for just twenty years, but perhaps eighty years or more.
Most people do not understand that simply replacing justices will not change the law. Some are laboring under the fantasy that 2020 will somehow "save us", and we may simply appoint a more centrist judge who would respect the Constitutional rights of those of us who are not white, who are not men, who are not Christian, and who are not straight.
But Supreme Court opinions are not so easily overturned. It was sixty years before Plessy v Ferguson was overruled by Brown v Board of Ed. It was over seventy years before this Court, in tossing social justice advocates a few worthless crumbs, overruled Korematsu.
The composition of the Trump Supreme Court may easily make law that is the law of this land for sixty, seventy, eighty years or more - essentially, for the rest of our lives. Roe v Wade, if reversed by this court, will not be re-instated any time soon. Citizens United will not be reversed any time soon. Every citizen alive today will live without Constitutional rights many of us fought for, for decades.
26
"Every citizen alive today will live without Constitutional rights many of us fought for, for decades.".
Very true words and we have ourselves to blame.
7
Whoever is selected will probably have privately and secretly sworn loyalty to trump and trump only.
5
money talks - everyone else walks - this is a kleptocracy no better than russia.
8
I do feel a need to have a Republican in the Supreme Court as this new opinion that will make important decisions. Trump seems to be bit dramatic and a joke at times. But I pray that he will make a wise choice, someone who will do a lot of good for the country. I hope that this choice can be unselfish and for the U.S.
3
I don;t care what party the pick is. I feel the need to have a wise, learned, independent person who has unimpeachable integrity and courage on the Supreme Court, whose oath of loyalty is to the country not to any party or person.
The Supreme Court is an independent branch of Government and has to remain that way for democracy to survive and thrive, unless, you're looking forward to a Theocracy or Autocracy like too many people seem to be doing these days.
". . .what it might mean to imagine that “what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men,” [Ralph Waldo Emerson]
McConnell is a colossal hypocrite. Eleven months before an election he laid down the law - no Supreme Court confirmation. That was Obama's presidency. Now, under Trump's presidency and 4-months before an election he is changing the law.
How do men like McConnell live with themselves?
21
Are any of the liberal think tanks working on plans for the coastal states to secede? Because if things don't go well in November that is likely going to be our best course of action. We do not share values or beliefs with these people. They don't want us ruling them, and we don't want them ruling us. Let's rip of the band aid and move on.
19
Sounds good to me. CA can both feed and employ all those people!
4
Annex with Canada perhaps and force the White House, Pentagon etc to relocate to Mike Pence's or Mitch's state? Then build a new wall.
2
Sorry. Lincoln already decided that once you're in, you can't leave. It always made more sense to me as an organizing principle for the mob, than a negotiated political union, but that's me.
But hey, it sounded like a great idea to the North as long as it was Southern states wanting to leave, and slavery was at stake. The problem with announcing as a hallowed principle that no state can ever choose to leave the Union is that you can't just ditch it when the players change.
We expended 600,000 young mens' lives the last time around on this. And I thought the left was the avatar of peace.
4
It's entirely possible that Putin promised Trump a big share of the 500 billion dollars that could be gleaned from the stalled Exxon/Rosneft deal to drill in Russia (remember the dossier?). THAT could explain his love for Russia and eagerness to end the sanctions. We MUST not let Putin's Puppet put another justice on the court until we learn the truth about Trump's involvement with Putin etc.
7
The rush is on to ram through another Neil Gorsuch. The Democrats have very little time to make sure that their caucus is united and those running for re-election in Trump red states like Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) don't cross the aisle to vote for an abortion-killing candidate. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has to keep his flock together and peel off just one Republican senator to join Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) to keep an ultra-conservative off the high court. There are plenty of possibilities from retiring Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and, of course, the man who saved Obamacare, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). We're counting on you Chuck! It's time for you to finally step up and lead the resistance against Donald Trump who probably is asking each candidate for "loyalty" in the likelihood of charges against him stemming from the Russia investigation.
15
I admire your hope. Realistically, though, we've seen the four Democrats in red states pretty much vote red.
We've heard Susan Collins talk centrism but consistently vote along party lines.
Corker and Flake take their talk show time and time on the Senate floor to orate against many of Trump's policies, but when it comes to voting--party line, once again.
And Senator McCain is unlikely to cast a vote this time around.
And Schumer really doesn't seem to have any power at all in the Senate. Equally discouragingly, he's out-of-touch with the rest of us--the Democratic base. We're trying to inspire him and the rest of the so-called Democratic leadership rather than being inspired.
Pragmatically, this time around and perhaps for the next few years, destructive government by the minority seems tragically inevitable and unimpeded.
President Trump is not wasting anytime to choose a new Supreme Court justice. He really means business and knows how important the selection of this next justice is. There is a lot weighing on his choice and he does not want to leave anything to chance. Which ever one is chosen, I am sure he will be very bright and highly qualified. There is much drama and suspense and we may be very surprised at his final pick. We will know soon enough.
8
Oh right ... Trump in a rush ... what could possibly go wrong?
8
WPLMMT,
“ Which ever one is chosen, I am sure he will be...”
Well at least you’re not under any delusion that Trump might appoint a woman. Couldn’t risk a woman upholding a woman’s right to choose, now could we?
2
BMUS,
I realized that after I had submitted my comment I had neglected to mention "she" also. I am all for a woman being on the Supreme Court as long as it is the right kind of woman. A conservative woman would be just fine as we now have three liberal female justices which is more than enough. A pro life woman would be even better don't you think? She would certainly get my vote if I could vote for a Justice.
Trump rushing his own selection process, rushing it with an improvised staff, most of whom have no experience or knowledge ... Sarah Sanders is running his show?
What could possibly go wrong, eh?
Doesn't this make even Republicans nervous? Trump being who he is ... this strikes me like 13 year old boys making homebrew fireworks ... loss of fingers or worse is all too likely.
This could blow up into a mess for Trump and the Republicans. They are caught between the promises Trump has made (and that evangelicals will hold him to) to end legal abortion, remake America's laws so that "true americans" are happy and all the rest are put back where they belong ... and the reality that most Americans really don't want a new white/right sharia and Jim Crow.
Trump's track record on his impulsive decisions is terrible -- even his Republicans know it.
11
I’m sorry, I hate to be that guy, but really if any of you think Susan Collins is going to vote against whichever candidate is nominated you’re sadly mistaken. She’ll confirm whoever it is and then feign ignorance if/when the abortion cases reach SCOTUS.
51
I agree. Mitch will make her some empty promise so that she can pretend that she resisted and got something.
11
She's NOT feigning. Seriously.
2
I do hope you are wrong, but she's been a perfect patsy for empty Republican promises before and recently.
1
I was reminded of the theme that DJT doesn't like staff or appointees who upstage him. Guess he is stuck with whoever he puts on the Court though - can't shout "You're Fired!" on this one.
It is definitely a concern when the court takes either "freedom of speech" or "freedom of religion" to any possible length. As amendments to the Constitution, although worded as absolutes ("Congress shall make no law...") neither makes sense as absolutes. You can't have a private religion to not pay taxes or to drive 100 mph. So there is a natural tension between the black letter of the Constitution and the real world. Usually that natural tension is solved through something which is called "common sense" which is now in shortage. However, that is also something that can backfire on conservatives. Both liberals and conservatives have domains where they want to control others, and an unbridled freedom of speech concept could derail both liberal and conservative goals.
5
Can’t imagine that any of Trump’s finalists are qualified to be fair and impartial. They’ll toe the far right line that Clarence Thomas loves.
How about a moderate, a choice welcomed by the majority of Americans? Too far fetched for Trump? Probably, since he shows no inclination to unite Americans.
8
If there's one thing Trump can do it's sell something "Trump."
The parameters of this "deal" will be:
1. "How loyal will you be to your President and party?" and
2. "How much is it going to cost me?"
"You will live out the rest of your life in fame, glory, and splendor, leaving your mark on history. You will make America great and I will win. All you have to do is answer those two little questions for me."
6
raced is spin i.e. Trump has been planning this for months given so has Kennedy
1
Maybe if he talks to enough candidates, he will start understanding the least bit about the US Constitution.
1
I can't believe you are acting like Trump has the slightest idea what is important in a Supreme Court nominee. He's going to do what he always does and choose the one who is best looking. If the candidates had time to really suck up to him that would be a factor - but absent that, it's all about appearances.
You know he really wants Jeanine Pirro.
12
Trump has Leonard Leo to help make the wise choice. Never underestimate Trump
2
Roe v Wade is significant; but other rights and protections once abolished will impact more Americans.
Who saw the "Ohio v. American Express" anti-trust ruling coming? The Janus ruling; Gerrymandering?
Who could have imagined Citizens United?
If Senate Democrats don't gird up their loins and demand answers to more questions than "Do you support a woman's right to choose" (knowing full well they won't get the truth); we can fully expect to have an America in 10 years without an E.P.A. a F.D.A a F.A.A; a Social Security Administration and other protections we cannot imagine being without today.
20
Forget all the issues of decency and logic; this is pure politics. The immediate challenge to the Democrats is that if they somehow line up Collins (and Murkowski, insurance against McCain's passing before the vote), the red-state senators up for re-election will find themselves between a rock and a hard place: vote against the nominee and face backlash from some voters in their states; vote for the nominee and the game is over. So here's the conundrum: would you accept Trump's nominee to increase chances of a Democratic takeover of the Senate, which would shut down all of Trump's remaining judicial appointments; or would you defeat his first nominee and risk failing to re-take the Senate? Then you'd have to count on every subsequent SCOTUS nominee to be rejected by Collins and Murkowski, which is unlikely. Plus you'd continue to get all the lower court appointments. I think it's more important for the Democrats to retake the Senate. But even that's a question mark in either case. To quote Mr. Hammerstein, "but - is a puzzlement."
3
trump rushes into this like a hyena going after a baby wildebeest...... "gotta get it done so we have something to distract my base leading up to the midterms"!
the pick will:
a) reduce the rights of workers
b) eliminate choice for women
c) effectively encourage class economic warfare
d) be white and male
the base needs distractions like M13 gangs and Faux News reporst to hide this sea change toward big business cheats, wild west shows in our streets, and legal hatred of women and minorities.
Please remember that a Vote is not only a conscious choice to make the best candidate represent you in D.C., it is also a war against the unAmericans of the GOP and all they and trump stand for. Had many of us decided to vote for the candidate that could actually have gotten more electoral votes than trump, we would not be in this mess.
9
Most Presidents have had full field TH I background investigations done on candidates for Senate confirmed positions before announcing them. I guess that won't be happening on this one because they take more than one week. Such investigations before announcements save embarrassment if something unexpected turns up.
3
Per Mr. McConnell, it seems unwise to allow a President to choose a SCOTUS justice this close to the end of his term.
28
Remember that only applied to Former President Obama. Now is a different story.
10
Oh come now. The Biden Rule by its terms only applies to presidential election years.
3
Additionally I note that Trump is probably looking for someone who will save him in any future entanglements with Mueller or a potential Impeachment.
28
I am wondering if Trump is asking the nominees if they will be loyal to him? I would not put it past him and sadly I would not be surprised if they agreed to loyalty to him in exchange for the chance to be a Supreme Court Judge.
15
First and foremost is that the latest Republican power strategy to solidify their monopoly grip on the government is to ignore the debating and legislation of the Congress in favor of legislating through the courts, practiced the last decade or two reaching back to the Bush V. Gore Supreme Court battle. Most notably was the Citizens United decision that helped create that Republican monopoly, and now the leadership seeks absolute control with a slanted Supreme Court.
Thinking about the fact that Trump interviewed four different people, too short a time in just one morning, indicates to me that Trump, surrounded by yes-men all his life is looking for that same trait in the candidates he is interviewing.
14
Kennedy and son betrayed a nation.
35
Please explain how Trump can "interview" SCOTUS candidates. Is that not like a grade seven kid interviewing candidates for the job of dean of the MIT Physics faculty? Or a streetcorner guitar strummer for that of first violin of the Philharmonic?
46
Ms. Sanders "declined to say...." Those words pretty much sum up Sarah Sanders' tenure as Trump's press secretary. She uses a variety of tricks and gimmicks to stonewall the press on virtually every question they have asked her since she started. But they all boil down to she "declined to say." After innumerable hours watching these exercises in opaqueness and legerdemain by Ms. Sanders I have concluded that she is far better suited to be the press secretary in a totalitarian government than in a democracy where the people have a legitimate need to know in order to vote intelligently and where the press has its freedom of inquiry and reporting enshrined in the constitution. I constantly wonder how our "land of the free and home of the brave" has possibly bred such a cluster of timid sheep as the White House Press Corps. Why are they afraid to say to Sarah Sanders the following when appropriate: Your answer is non-responsive and unhelpful. Your answer is illogical and defies reason. You have not answered the question. You're stonewalling. You say Mr. Trump did not lie, then how do you explain the reality that his statement A is on the record along with his bald faced denial that he ever made Statement A. And why are they not following the courageous example of Adlai Stevenson when he said to the Russian foreign minister, another totalitarian expert in stonewalling: "I am prepared to wait for your answer until hell freezes over!"?
12
Good point and no doubt. Still the press corp is learning and they now call out Trump statements as largely false. A great improvement from allowing the lies and deceit to go unchallenged.
My gripe is where is the Democratic leadership in constantly challenging Trump, Sanders and their false statements.
6
Trump will find someone that meets his criteria similar to what we've previously seen with his Cabinet appointments. The individual chosen for the Court will most likely not be a lawyer or Judge but they will certainly have to be an ex-con and they may also be ex-KGB.
1
One comment reads;
Another way to delay would possibly be to demand that the nominee must recuse himself/herself if an investigation issue goes to the SC.
I agree, but in fact, this is the only possible way constitutionally speaking. Some Attorney Generals could raise this right now with the Supreme Court.
5
The New York Times uses words like "raced" and "sprint" to describe how quickly the White House is readying a list of potential Supreme Court Nominees for consideration. What the NYT does not realize is that business people normally work this fast. What the career politicians in all areas of Government are quickly realizing, to their disappointment, is that with Donald Trump the American people's perception of how quickly Government can positively effect the economy, the wars, international relationships, and contracts has changed forever. The Government Old Guard has its days numbered and they will be naturally retired like the Dinosaurs before them. The Donald Trump meteor has landed.
4
Since the GOP stole a pick from Obama I think they should be treated the same. Block any appointment... until we can get a real president in office that actually has a mandate, instead of an ill-gotten win based on antique election rules and propaganda that does NOT reflect the majority of citizens in this country.
13
Swallowing hard, I must give an unpopular perspective. I am deeply progressive and think Trump is a fool, a sociopath, a liar, a misogynist, and totally unfit for the office. But . . .
The calls for exercising the McConnell option are slightly dishonest. McConnell is a weasel and his tactic to deny Obama a nomination was terrible. But the Republicans are right. This is different. I understand the emotion, but going forward before a mid-term election is not the same as going forward with a President closing his second term. Neither is reason to deny a nomination, but we in the resistance have to be honest.
As to the appointment itself: I worry deeply about the Court with another conservative. It's bad enough as is. But I would not jump to screaming "wolf!" Most of the justices are sane (Perhaps Clarence, not so much. . . ) and will not preside over the demise of the Republic. I am confident that women and men with their experience and knowledge understand how dangerous and ill-suited Trump is. The Democrats who act and speak as though Alito, Roberts and Gorsuch are co-conspirators with a man like Trump are being alarmist and unfair.
I disagree with the strategy of ignoring Trump's outrageous behavior and focusing on the "issues" for 2018. Trump is the issue. But Democratic passion and justifiable anger must be directed toward turnout and we must display the integrity Republicans so clearly lack.
As to waiting for Mueller? Yes! But hurry.
4
This audience with Mr. Trump is so silly. It demeans the judges who accept to attend them.
4
Of course no other Presidents have had such audiences. Right?
4
Audiences like this? Very unlikely.
1
Because you know what happens during these audiences? Very unlikely.
1
I read up on the 6 candidates Trump has in mind and none of them bode well for the moderates. All card carrying conservatives hell bent on taking us back to pre- Depression era ways of living. Trump threw in 2 women and a south Asian judges to give Democrtas a hard time in rejecting any of them if he does indeed pick one. I certainly hope both Sens. Collins and Murkowski stand their ground with regards to rejecting an anti Roe v Wade selection, for Sens Mechain, Stabenow, and Donnelly will probably vote for any of the picks(traitors they may be).
4
I want the tapes, to learn whether he demanded an oath of fealty to the king.
7
And does the vetting process include Mr. Trump going “eeny, meany, miney, mo”?
4
The amount of time our elected officials waste on things like this astounds me. We have important issues to address in our country and the world. And the Republicans and Democrats spend their time and effort battling over this!
It reminds me of a lawsuit I was involved in five years ago. We battled for five years, each side spending millions of dollars in attorneys' fees, and we never got past procedure to the merits of the case. We finally reached a settlement that changed nothing from where we started.
Where is wisdom? Where is an attempt to find a win-win? I thought our representatives would be smarter than this, on both sides. I was wrong.
5
Oh my, my. There seem to be comments already about the rush to judgement about the selection of the next justice. What impact can a single justice have on a court? Answer: Depending on the age of the nominee, 30 to 50 years. I am quite sure that Mitch and The Donald will make a right choice. Remember, most people gather patience and wisdom with age (unlike the President). This is especially true for Supreme Court Justices. They actually keep track of history (unlike the President).
Take heart in knowing that the President's bedraggled White House team is on the job. Besides, this might distract the President for awhile from the wall project. RAW
2
I'm happy that the nomination process is moving so quickly. Just punch me already. No need to drag out the agony at the start. I'll have 50 years to live it...
My only question is whether John McCain is capable of voting?
9
Again I express my hope that whichever person agrees to be nominated by this racist, sexist and corrupt president get their personal life turned upside down and their reputation thrashed, if only to discourage others.
13
That’s a horrible thing to wish upon any public servant. You’ve lost your equilibrium to partisan apoplexy. Please pause and take a deep breath.
2
A Supreme Court justice isn’t a “public servant”. They aren’t just making a living, and candidates have every capacity to tell Trump no. If they don’t it can only be because they either endorse Trump’s racism, sexism and corruption; or because they choose to ignore it in order to gain power. Either way such a person will be a moral degenerate and deserve absolutely no respect whatsoever.
3
Because the important thing with SCOTUS picks is expediency.
6
Senator Collins, the preeminent Maine waffler who makes promises and then performs political pivots with the ease of a ballerina, now says that she will not vote for a candidate who would dismantle Roe v. Wade. Why does her statement not inspire confidence?
39
Trump's personal lawyer is being investigated for crimes committed while working for, "fixing," Trump.
It is inappropriate for Trump to appoint a Supreme Court judge who might end up judging Trump.
25
Cohen will therefore be high on the list.
Clinton's Associate AG, Web Hubbell, was sentenced to prison while Clintion was President. But I'm sure that, at the time, you were saying the Clinton should not be allowed to appoint Breyer and Ginsberg
2
It doesn’t matter who he picks, Democrats are going ballistic. If he picked Abraham Lincoln, Democrats would ratchet it up tp 11 and scream hysterically. He might as well pick who he wants because Democrats will use the occasion for a primal scream and fund raising.
5
@Rick: Trust me, he won't pick Abraham Lincoln or anyone of Lincoln's caliber. He will pick the worst possible person, as he always does, for any position he fills.
4
" If he picked Abraham Lincoln, Democrats would ratchet it up to 11 and scream hysterically"
Yes, because Abraham Lincoln is dead. Remember we are talking about a president who has confused the living and the dead, so it's not beyond the realm of possibilities for him to actually pick a dead person.
2
Please give him the border wall and get a moderate supreme court nominee. SCOTUS is a better wall!
1
Fools' names, like fools' faces, are often seen in Trump picks places.
6
It's high time to nominate judges and policy makers, who are least religious; preferably atheists or agnostic people, who are the 2nd highest among all (non) religious groups in the country, only after Christianity. if you consider different sects of Christianity, then they are the largest one with about 26% of American population, beating Trump's core vote bank of Evangelicals (23%). Despite if such a huge population, American democracy does not have a single judge or even a congressman representing those people. And it's a big problem.
Part of our political polarization is due to one's religious belief in this secular democracy where religion must be separated from govt, public policy and judiciary. And that sacred premise is violated since American democracy was established and the extent of violation has worsened since Reagan era of early 1980s.
5
So that's what Tiffany will be doing!
4
Surprised that Jared Kushner is not involved in strategy team but I guess he is preoccupied with Middle East peace process and prison reform.
1
Who ever is considering taking this post needs to think long and hard about what they are getting into. Trump won't be President forever but you will be whoever you are forever and will have to live with what went down on your watch. He has tainted everyone who has worked for him.
10
He will appoint either:
- whomever looks the part; or
- whomever Pence suggests.
To think he's giving this any serious consideration is foolish.
7
my money is on Judge Janine Piro or Judge Napolitano!!!
2
luckily, it doesn't sound like you have that much money to lose
3
If Trump's first pick doesn't work out, Hope Hicks still needs a job!
2
So... what happens when it is proven that Trump is a traitor deliberately destroying America for a foreign power? All these changes he has made, all controversial, all with severe ramifications, all under the pretense of 'abstract politics'... add to that two nominations for supreme court...
In cop circles, if an officer or a DA is found to be corrupt, all of the cases they've ever handled become suspect and open to being tossed...
What is our recourse?
And if he isn't deliberately destroying America for a foreign power, he sure as hell stumbled and fell into it... look at the forest beyond the trees... how many little cuts do we have to take before it's apparent we're being bled?
16
From Wikipedia:
"In 2009, Kavanaugh wrote an article for the Minnesota Law Review where he argued that presidents should be exempt from “time-consuming and distracting” lawsuits and investigations, which “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.” This article garnered attention in 2018 when Kavanaugh was considered among leading candidates to be nominated to the Supreme Court by President Trump, whose 2016 presidential campaign was the subject of a probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller."
17
Why doesn't he just nominate his older sister? She's a judge on the 3rd Circuit, the level just below the Supreme Court.
She's also 9 years older than her little brother.
9
One of the nominees was recommended by djt's 'big' sis!
Sure he interviewed 4 candidates. The only question he asked....'you're in the first cut of rough, 150 yards out. slight breeze left to right, down hill lie, what club would you hit?
6
How can someone who is a faux president under investigation who knows nothing about our constitution or laws, select any justice? We are living in insane times.
31
Is Trump smart enough to choose an impeccably qualified,
moderate judge with a reputation for fairness? Someone who would pass muster with everyone except the most divisive Senators?
Probably not...and America is the loser.
10
He will not make the pick. The Heritage Foundation and Pence will make it for him.
9
You mean like Obama?
1
What is Trump doing with choosing a Supreme Court nominee?
Trump is under a very serious criminal investigation about a conspiracy with Russia to hack and attack the election in 2016, in favor of Trump.
Also, Trump is under investigation for the obstruction of justice.
This is like a mob boss choosing his own judge for his trial.
103
"This is like a mob boss choosing his own judge for his trial."
Is it? Because I was not aware that Mob bosses ever got to appoint judges, even when they are not about to go on trial. Also, I don't remember hearing many liberal complaints about Bill Clinton putting Bryer on SCOTUS when he was being investigated by Starr for Whitewater.
5
Lets be honest that Trump is action as a guilty person, because if he was innocent then he would not act in the way that he does - that is to try and interfere with the criminal investigation against his possible collusion and conspiracy with Russia to attack American democracy.
Also, Trump keeps trying to obstruct justice.
Would an innocent person do such a thing?
Can't wait for the Special Counsels reports on the Russia conspiracy, which is due to be published soon, very soon.
Justice always wins.
Democracy always reveals lies and deceptions of evil people.
If you didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in November 2016, I dinted want to hear you're whining about this pick or your moronic suggestions for Merrick Garland. This fight was fought two years ago, and the Bernie left sided with Trump. We could have had Merrick Garland and now a solidly liberal court. If you didn't vote for Hillary it is your fault this is happening.
Elections matter.
42
Agree. If you live in a state that voted for Trump and you didn't vote because you're lazy or didn't see a difference between Clinton and Trump, you own this. If you thought you would be "principled" and voted for Bernie or Jill Stein, enjoy your new Supreme Court justice.
26
Forget Roe, that's a distraction for his base...
Trump has only one qualification for his SCOTUS:
Is the president above the law?
38
I'm actually very worried that Trump will nominate Judge Jeanine Pirro the FOX contributor, because he has considered her to replace Sessions.
10
Titanic, meet deck chairs. Seriously.
8
In the parlance of air quality metrics, "USG" stands for "unhealthy for sensitive groups." What was never meant to be ironic, now is.
A shout out to the fools in Pa., Michigan, and Wisconsin who swore there was little difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
You did it; you REALLY did it.
27
And a shout out to Hillary Clinton, had not one but two changes and blew them both.
2
Even as a New Zealander, I am deeply concerned for the future of Americans but especially its women, if Trump's nominee for Supreme court is approved. Who would be stupid enough to trust Trump and McConnell to be unbiased, after everything they have said and done! I hope the Democrats and a few decent Republicans will do whatever it takes to block this appointment until after the midterm elections. I watch in horror and disbelief, from across an entire ocean, what is happening in your country.
17
Thank you for your concern. If things here don't improve, some of us might want to come down and join you!
1
Obviously, HE will choose a Woman, to appear fair. Ivanka or Kellyanne ??? Wagers, anyone ???
4
NO. A THOUSAND TIMES, NO!
McConnell demanded the democrats wait until after the election and denied President Obama his nominee. Now the republicans must wait as well.
Furthermore, this president is under investigation. How do we know he is not secretly requiring his nominee to absolve him should there be what all of us expect: COLLUSION.
17
Here's MY nomination : Barack Obama. Ain't nothin' like the real thing, Baby. Seriously.
95
So very likely to happen.
Hey, about the same odds as Trump being " elected ". This is planting an idea for the NEXT President, a Democrat. Seriously.
5
So nice to see Mitch McConnell eager to perform his constitutional duty to advise and consent. For a while there with Obama in the White House things were different. Now we can proceed full steam ahead to reverse Roe v. Wade and remove all protections for voting rights, workers’ rights, the environment, civil rights and just about anything that benefits the most vulnerable in our society. THANKS MITCH!
36
Can someone please explain to me why "Justice" Kennedy is not in trouble. He should have recused himself from every case that Trump had his name on as it was a clear CONFLICT OF INTEREST. If he was going to retire immediately why did he hire clerks for next year? This country is ROTTEN AT ITS CORE.
47
Once again the will of the minority will prevail!
Bush lost, and we got: 9/11, the Iraq War, the housing collapse and a massive global recession.
Trump lost, and we got: Gorsuch, a tax shafting, Charlottesville, a trade war, children used as a deterrent, religious beliefs superseding the law, and now this.
What do you call democracy when the minority rules? Tyranny. That's what you call it.
Which means it's time for another Revolution.
123
This country's system is not majority-rule-driven. The House, in theory, is, because each member represents roughly the same number of constituents, but we see how that can be distorted. The Senate has never been majority rule. That's the problem.
1
If they really want this job for life and all the perks that come with it, promise him undieing praise and loyalty.
4
It is utterly despicable that Trump wd leave it to the Heritage Foundation and Federalist to nominate these candidates rather than allowing Congress to suggest them.
May Trump reap from all his sowing of evil deeds!
38
Did he ask for a loyalty oath?
14
That's his only ask.
1
They have already made their choice, the rest is just a show. Mitch McConnell, the biggest hypocrite, is behind this fiasco.
29
It's only a fiasco for the Dems, because they can't execute SCOTUS strategy to save their lives
3
There is only one outstanding qualification to be Trump's pick for Supreme Court Justice and that is to swear total loyalty to Trump and only Trump.
So anyone that he picks will have his support and anyone who disagrees with him will be according to him bad people.
We have the best 6 year old president in the world.
8
We need to march to the White House and demand no new appointments to the Supreme Court until after the mid terms in 138 days. Not long ago the GOP were whining how unfair it was when President Obamas term was ending. We waited. The GOP ideology all for the rich and my way or the highway is not a fair way to do business in a democracy which has been running on compromise and trust for decades up until this GOP nightmare.
13
do you think the GOP cares about being honest and ethical? No way. May they reap from their evil sowing!
13
"We waited"
You didn't "wait." You had no choice because you didn't have the votes
3
I feel sorry for who you support. You will be underwater first when the seas rise for not believing our Pope Francis and the world leader about the damage from coal and fossil fuels. You will reap what you sow.
But surely, with the midterms closer than was the election Mitch McConnell used to justify his decision not to consider Judge Garland, the administration will wait until mid-November to consider any nominee. Right? I mean, the Republicans are not hypocrites, are they? Surely not.
36
What's the rush? McConnell famously said (as he blocked Judge Merrick Garland) "Let the people decide."
So, let's wait to fall and let the people decide.
P.S. I wonder if one of the questions that President Trump is asking is about loyalty--not to the Constitution...to him.
12
"President Trump said he spoke Monday morning with four candidates to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is retiring."
“'I had a very, very interesting morning,' Mr. Trump said as he met with Mark Rutte, the prime minister of the Netherlands."
Do you think Trump realized that Prime Minister Rutte was not one of those candidates (although he'd probably be a better choice)?
23
Well, that was fast. Which of his kids will it be?
22
Of the justices that are left to select from you can bet every dollar you have that they have all been sworn in secrecy to overturn Roe v. Wade well in advance of any choice being made among them and if you believe otherwise you are truly hopelessly naive.
23
Rome is burning while Trump plays his fiddle. Vote out GOP for any hope of putting out the fire. Ray Sipe
19
"If a sitting president was found to have conspired with a hostile foreign power in order to steal an election, would you be willing to let him off the hook? I'm speaking hypothetically of course."
76
You don't have to call him President Trump or Mr. Trump. Plain Trump is enough.
8
Has he checked out his choices with Vladamir Putin?
91
Who says the Republicans are different from Democrats? Trump wants to pack the Supreme Court with "people like him", as Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried unsuccessfully to do in the 1930s.
2
He wants to pack the Supreme Court with treasonous, money-laundering adulterers?
20
Is there really time to vet anyone so quickly?
This is a LIFE-TIME appointment. I took longer to choose the paint color for my living-room (and I can easily repaint if it doesn’t work out). Just saying.
183
You care more about your living room than he does about the United States.
54
they've already been vetted with their COA hearings by the Senate, and these individuals have all been extensively researched by both parties (the Dems doing oppo research). There's no surprises anymore at this level compared to 30 years ago
6
32 years ago, Democrats raided COA Judge Bork's video rental records. Good thing he did not rent XXX films, though it didnt mnatetr anyweay.
Some would say I was a lost man in a lost world
You could say I lost my faith in the people on TV
You could say I'd lost my belief in our politicians
They all seemed like game show hosts to me
11
Trump will pick the youngest and most photogenic person. He's that shallow and so are his supporters, including Mitch McConnell and the 49 Dwarfs.
46
“Teams of attorneys from the White House Counsel’s Office and Department of Justice are working to ensure the president has all the information he needs to choose his nominee.”
why bother? he doesn't read anything, anyway.
113
Amy Coney Barrett is a Trump appointee and has only been on the bench for about a year. Joan Larsen, another Trump appointee, has about three years on the bench. They do not have sufficient experience to be justices.
All of these Federalist Society approved people (that also means they were endorsed by the Koch and Mercer families) are ultra-conservative ideologues and have no business on the Supreme Court.
220
For how long was Elena Kagan on the bench when Obama appointed her? Zero. Obama appointed the only person never to serve as a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court. Both Barrett and Larsen have tons more judicial experience than Elena Kagan had.
Facts stink.
2
Amy Barrett was a well known and extensively published law professor at a top law school for 15 years. She also clerked at SCOTUS.
Joan Larsen was also a SCOTUS clerk and well known attorney that had been US Deputy AG before a distinguished career as a tier 1 school law professor.
Both women are distinguished in the field and most certainly are qualified for elevation from a COA judgeship to the SCOTUS.
1
41 people who had never been judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court. Fact.
3
Trump had Judge Wapner on his list until he was told Wapner passed away in 2017. Trump was quoted as saying, "Wapner was on The People's Court. The show name alone makes him a judge for all people. But I guess he died before I was able to think of nominating him. Wish he had talked to me first."
15
You jest, right?
Given the structure of the confirmation process, rather than "sprint", wouldn't it be "walk in the park"?
2
It is a pleasure to actually be having a conversation about ideology instead of identity.
The fact is, at the end of the day, the American left cares more about ideology than identity. It would rather have 9 old white leftist guys on the court than a diverse mix of ethnicities, races, religions, sexualities, and genders....if that diverse mix were conservative. As for conservatives, they could care less about identity, as long as the ideology worked.
4
The American left cares about logic, equality, fairness etc., time to get a clue.
10
Typical politics by both parties. A pox on both their houses.
1
Nonsense. You want to look at a group of old white men shutting out all other voices, look no further than the group discussing “women’s health issues” last year. Sickening.
26
“Teams of attorneys from the White House Counsel’s Office and Department of Justice are working to ensure the president has all the information he needs to choose his nominee,”
Interpretation: Will you eliminate Roe vs Wade?
Will you swear allegiance to me?
92
“I had a very, very interesting morning,” Mr. Trump said as he met with Mark Rutte, the prime minister of the Netherlands.
I guess that means he skipped "Executive time" and actually worked.....
8
Hey, here's an idea --
How about Merrick Garland!
407
nope- a conservative Democrat almost as bad as any Republican judge. Shame on Obama for trying to appease the right wing. Garland should have never been considered in the first place.
2
I second that!!! again & again!
Alan Silver, I thought of Merrick Garland also.
However, Trump is too full of internecine enmity, egoism, and ill will towards Democrats for such an act of unity. Not too mention his jealousy of and spite for President Obama.
It would be a grand gesture. If Trump came out and said, "Merrick Garland for Supreme," and "no more Twitter," suddenly we would all be living in a different country.
Well, not really. But it would be a start towards sanity, and surely calm the waters a tad.
2
Trump will get his choice confirmed
Get over it.
11
Mueller will accomplish his mission. Get over it.
44
Any one who believes that a Trump nominee will be for the principle of stare decisis and maintain Roe has not heard what the president wants. He has announced that he wants a conservative in the form of a Scalia but only more to the right and one who will guarantee a reversal of Roe. If the president gets his way any decision put out by the Court will always be a 5 to 4 decision unless the Chief Judge becomes the moderating force which we can only hope for. Women, minorities, immigrants, labor, the working poor and the LGBTQ community better get used to losing rights and becoming second class citizens.
36
Perhaps you overlook that it is John Roberts, and not Donald Trump, who will determine the shaping of votes - regardless of the new justice's interpretation of the law. Roberts will see to it that established law stands. Even the Clinton apologist, NPR Leftnewshour David Brooks concurs.
4
I believe David Brooks was a true Republican not a Trumpian. The Republican party doesn't exist anymore.
Unborn babies will be grateful when Roe is put in the wastebasket as Dred Scott.
2
I wonder if one of his qualifying questions was whether the candidate believes it would be constitutional for a president to pardon himself.
85
Step up, Mr President. Help repair this rift and put in Judge Garland.
32
Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Norman Lincoln Rockwell, Judge Crater.
5
At this point, I'm praying for a Mike Pence Presidency!
2
Your prayers are misguided. Pence is a true religious zealot and, in many, many ways, would be worse than Trump.
34
Why? Do we not have enough mean spirited bigotry at the moment?
20
Be careful what you wish for.
2
I assume he's checking out the loyalty status to him of each candidate which will come in handy during the Russia investigation. I remember not so far back when we had the upmost respect for the Supreme Court.
141
Supreme Court justices do not work for the Executive Branch. Heads of federal agencies do work for the president. They are obligated to either obey presidential policy directives or resign if they are unwilling to follow the directives. Resignation is an effective check on abuse of power because agency heads can publically explain whey they resigned.
5
@Wally Wolf -- good point about loyalty. This president has changed the parameters of American government for at least a generation.
Court justices are sworn to uphold the law impartially for all American citizens. Because this president already owns the GOP, Republicans are in his pocket because of the fear factor he holds over them if they dare cross him.
The president will expect loyalty from the justices which would violate the Constitution. He can't come out and demand loyalty but his meaning is clear for all to see. There's a right way, a wrong way and his way. James Comey found that out the hard way, and the president has already smeared Kennedy and Roberts publicly for voting the way he didn't like.
The judicial branch is supposed to be separate and independent of the executive branch but this president won't have it that way. With complete ownership of two thirds of America's government, he needs only to own the Supreme Court to have absolute power. This is his master plan and it seems to be working right on schedule.
3
Trump is considering a woman with seven children who believes contraception is a mortal sin.
144
So, ipso facto, only those with religious beliefs you personally find acceptable can be a Supreme Court justice?
I agree, she's a religious Catholic and should be disqualified! Roe versus Wade is kind of a religious issue but shouldn't be decided by someone with strong religious beliefs.
3
This sounds like a slur against Catholics to me. Does this mean you would also attack a candidate who is an Orthodox Jew and believes in having large families?
BTW, I'm not a Catholic, or a Jew, just an old Democrat who believes in civility.
5
Mr. President, Just make sure that the justice you nominate is a strict Constitutionalist and will follow the Constitution to the letter and not legislate from the bench. And, also,choose the youngest one who is qualified.
5
What is a Constitutionalist? The Constitution was written by imperfect farmers and merchants, maybe the occasional lawyer. It is not perfect, or even clear, and can be manipulated "to the letter." Do you mean an "Originalist"? If so, why would we want a document largely drafted in an 18th century perspective applied to the 21st (THREE centuries later!)? This is the most absurd of notions for a governing document. Gorsuch has not idea what the original intent of the Constitution was, and he's shown he couldn't care less re: precednet despite writing a book that champions it. He's not a "Constiutionalist" as you put it....he's a judicial activist. Most of the justices of the SCOTUS are these days.
22
If the nominee of the man in the White House is a Constitutionalist, perhaps the nominee would be good enough to read the Constitution aloud to him, though he would no doubt have to be tied to the chair.
10
The Justice the Donald will choose
Will claim very moderate views,
In fact he or she
A terror will be,
And that of course will not be news.
The Donald has metastasized,
Aggressively spread as surmised,
His base is infected
And does as directed,
Like little cloned Donalds, surprised?
He has poisoned the water and air
Distorted the facts, everywhere,
Tyrants befriended,
Old friends offended,
His reign is just too much to bear.
131
Bravo
4
Larry, you have outdone yourself! Thanks, I needed a smile.
4
Setting aside the merits one way or the other of your content, I’m impressed with your rapid creation of an artful verse. Well done.
1
A president who is currently under investigation which may include charges of money laundering, collusion with a foreign adversary, or even treason, should not be allowed to select a Supreme Court Justice, who may have enormous long-term impact upon our judiciary.
No nominations and no votes until Mueller releases his report- regardless of how long that may take.
579
I'm not sure where the case law is for "a president who is currently under investigation."
It's a confusing, and losing, argument.
1
Maybe because it has never happened before. The concept is not confusing. None of us get to pick our judges.
Unfortunately, I find it a specious argument. Innocent until proven guilty. But since these things almost always play out politically, were the Democrats in charge of the Senate, I would support that as an excuse for delaying the nomination.
If Trump picks Supreme Court judges the same way he has picked Department heads and other staffs, we are in trouble. I just hope they are an American citizen, not from Sweden, and have read the Constitution. Some loyalty to our country would be helpful, but I'm not holding my breath.
57
All of this "reality-TV suspense" is exhausting...
He already knows who he wants, so enough with the pretend and the showmanship. Just make the announcement, ship the candidate to the Senate, and let the debate-fest begin.
17
Never thought I would say this but here goes.....
Democrats don't be passive and "nice" !!!! Use the McConnell precedent!
If the votes are not going to be there to delay, find some other reason to delay until after the election.
A suggestion that seems reasonable to me is that until the Mueller investigation conclusions are presented we don't know how deeply the Pres. is going to be implicated. What if it leads to a Constitutional issue that goes to the SC and he attempts to pardon himself?
Another way to delay would possibly be to demand that the nominee must recuse himself/herself if an investigation issue goes to the SC.
Being just a layman, I would like to see these possibilities explored.
392
And how do you propose to do that? Republicans hold a slim majority in the Senate, which confirms the nominee. If none from either party defects, the GOP confirms. Susan Collins may vote against if the nominee is openly in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. Three Democrats voted to approve Gorsuch. The way it looks to me, unless Trump nominates Judge Judy, he gets his justice appointed. Thank the voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio who decided to stay home or voted for Bernie or Jill Stein. That's what gave Trump the Electoral College votes he needed to win.
Delay, how? If the Democrats fail to show up for a quorum on the Judiciary committee, the majority will vote to change the rule and proceed without them. Then the Democrats will not even have the ability to question the nominee.
Delay on the floor? How? It takes 51 votes to do anything and the Dems have a few less with some within their caucus in states where D.T. won by 20 or more points. How are Manchin, Heitkamp or McCaskill supposed to defy Trump? It not about being "nice", it's understanding Senate rules.
1
Since there are only 49 Democrats in the Senate, including the senators who aren't Democrats but who vote with them, just how do you propose that the Democrats use the McConnell precedent?
We can demand whatever we like. Votes count; wishes don't.
To preserve any hope for the future, get out and register people to vote.
The one-vote margin that the GOP has in the Senate could collapse if Susan Collins of Maine maintains her Rubicon-promise not to vote to confirm a nominee who is hostile to Roe vs. Wade. However, her pro-healthcare assertion last year to preserve the A.C.A. crumbled like crackers dissolved in soup. She’s naive and simply not to be trusted.
Make no mistake, the president’s nominee will hew hard to the right, encompassing one of their treasured targets for destruction, the 45-year-old abortion decision. Donald Trump has promised his followers that he’ll appoint judges who will dismantle the law. Senator Collins should be more savvy than she has been about the president’s agenda. Who can plausibly believe that any Trump nominee will refuse to do the bidding of the Right once in the Court? The Roberts Court isn’t exactly known for judicial impartiality.
235
never mind her, i'm more concerened about Joe Manchin, and Stabenow both conservative senators who voted for several of Trump's court picks to various appeals courts.
2
Collins's vote alone is not enough - it requires McCain to continue to absent himself from the Senate (and not in the way that we fear could happen anytime). Otherwise it would be a 50/50 tie which would be broken by Pence.
3
I would not hold my breath with Susan Collins. Her pronouncement is weak and look at her support for tax cuts for the rich...I wonder how that is serving the majority of her constituents?
2
The president isn’t interested in weighing the qualifications of prospective Supreme Court justices. He wants only to rush through his nominee with all due speed before the November midterms. He has no interest in how his pick may affect country’s future and he doesn’t care. His selection will be a far right judge who, like all Republicans, will vote for party over the interests of the American people.
The president’s bias and disrespect for judges and the rule of law, already well known, will be reflected in his choice. Without careful research and consideration for such an important appointment, the country and maybe even the president will later regret having been too hasty in making an unwise selection.
277
Oops! Trump has had his list of prospective Supreme Court appointees since Gorsuch was appointed, and has undoubtedly had someone reviewing it in the interim.
1
He wants who will promise him 'Loyalty' with a capital 'L'.
1
It's Kennedy's fault for this, for he could have also waited until after Nov elections to retire. what's a few more months after serving 30 years? He wanted Trump to pick a conservative successor.
4
Trump , who is in a survival mode, knows the Supreme Court will be his last line of defense if he’s convicted . He is counting on a friendly court to bail him out and therefore he’s focusing on nothing else.
What a sad state of affairs we are in.
503
Since Trump is under investigation for possibly conspiring with a hostile foreign country, he shouldn't be allowed to appoint anyone to the courts unless or until his name is cleared.
8
Sure. That's exactly what you said about Clinton appointing Breyer, right?
Survival mode? With his approval rating rising everyday? I don't think he is in survival mode. The witch hunt will end with exactly what it started with, nothing.
2
Hopefully, the president will consider not dividing the country even more by his choice for a nominee but since he doesn't care...he seems to be rushing the process....
Is it in the best interest of our democracy to have a president making this choice while he is under investigation for collusion with a foreign adversary and appearing to have potentially obstructed justice, and is currently attacking our judicial system, and our freedom of speech rights under the first amendment?
146
McConnell suggested that the vote would occur in September.
That's the same number of months that Elena Kagan was confirmed after.
2
It would seem highly appropriate to delay, delay, delay any Supreme Court confirmation hearings until Special Counsel Robert Mueller is ready to release his report. And with Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer looking more and more as though he is going to "flip," - if he hasn't already - it is even more essential to delay any hearings until what incriminating evidence, if any, has compromised Trump as President of the United States.
Of course, Trump is rushing to place someone on the Supreme Court. After the appalling McConnell maneuver to delay, delay, delay the confirmation of Merrick Garland by President Barack Obama (which was essentially a McConnell racist decision - he truly despised President Obama) until after the 2016 election, it would seem appropriate to do precisely the same now with the nominee Trump puts forward.
The citizens of the US deserve to be very clear about what, if any, evidence Donald Trump has been withholding which compromises our country and our Constitutional principles which are potentially at stake here.
265
If Collins, Flake, McCain and Corker and all the democrats refuse to support the nominee, will the GOP still carry the day, and will the new justicethen have even less of a mandate to serve than Gorsuch?
1
The republicans hold all the cards. The Democrats lost the opportunity back in 2016 by allowing McConnel a free pass in delaying the last SCOTUS appointment and assuming that Clinton would prevail so that the delay wouldn’t matter. Elections have consequences and we will continue to see how they pay off for the GOP for a generation (or longer) to come.
LISTEN UP!!!
November 6, 2018. That's the date on which 33 senate seats, all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, and 14 governorship's will be up for re-election. Put it on your calendar now and be prepared to be an informed voter. If you are worried, concerned, angry, disappointed about the direction the government is going this is the most effective way to make a change, stop complaining and start planning. Remember the president is only one cog in the government machine, and you can make effective change through voting for your local and state representatives, this is the check that can balance this situation. Pass it on…. I was told to pass this on so this people is very important. Be prepared.
Responding to Marlena Christensen in New Jersey: Thank you for your concern, which I share. I would not say, however, that Republicans hold all the cards - there are some who do not align with Trump. But voting on November 6, 2018 - which I have shared many times in this forum - is essential for our country to survive this moment in time and come out with our Constitutional principles and freedoms in tact! Happy 4th!
What does it tell you that suddenly Republicans are trying to play down and moderate the the significance of Trump's Supreme Court choice? They desperately do not want SCOTUS to be a factor in the midterm elections. It's astonishing that conservatives are trying bamboozle the American public by claiming the new SCOTUS will respect precedent or stare decisis. This court has already overturned precedent several times. Only a few days ago Judge Alito argued that the principle of stare decisis was inadequate in interpreting constitutional law. You only need to compare the outcomes between Citizens United and Janus to see SCOTUS's partisanship. In these two cases, SCOTUS declared that a collective entity that is a corporation has right to political free speech (through campaign donations) even if an individual shareholder objects, but a collective entity that is a union has no such right precisely because an individual member may object. The Roberts court completely contradicted itself. Twisted logic is standard in politics but has no place in jurisprudence. Sad to say, we will only see more of the same. Make no mistake: Trump's Supreme Court is set to roll back voting rights, civil rights, and all kinds of civil liberties.
319
it already is a factor- and will continue to be a factor. Just as the recent ruling on union dues is already a factor in local races- state and federal.
And as another commenter reported,
“The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a case in the fall to consider whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment bars states and the federal government from separately trying the same person for the same criminal offense.” If the case is won, this means that Trump would be able to pardon people like Michael Cohen and Cohen cannot then be separately tried in Manhattan, REGARDLESS of the laws in New York state. Federal law will supersede state law. You can bet that any nominees will be “judged” by their opinions on this matter.
Donald Trump is a self-serving criminal and it is time that came out in the open via Mueller or Cohen or whoever can make that happen!
Using extremely right wing organizations such as the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation to vet prospective Supreme Court Justices defeats the purpose of the Supreme Court and judicial review. The idea, possibly Utopian, was to select brilliant Judicial minds for a lifetime to contemplate the body of the law and rule on the constitutionality of legislation and practices beyond the partisanship of the moment.
It was intended to protect the public from partisan abuse and tyranny.
By using this method and ending the requirement of at least 60 Senatorial votes to approve the Presidential appointment the Republicans have destroyed the idea of independent judicial review and now intend to use the Supreme Court as another means to further their partisan agenda. So much for their so called conservatism and belief in traditions!
272
...and liberal justices have never been selected by Democratic Presidents. (oh wait, that's not true) Having the President nominate Supreme Court Justices inherently makes it a political decision.
I am afraid we have been subjected to partisan abuse and tyranny the minute Trump took the oath of office he so quickly forgets...
1
What a naive and ignorant comment.
First, political/ideological organizations have always been used by both parties to vet SCOTUS candidates. The left always use ACLU and the ABA. Sounds like IN's real concern is not that judges are being screened by ideological organizations, but rather IN's politics are no longer in control of the Executive Branch and the Senate, and so organizations with politics different than IN's hold sway now.
Second, "the requirement of at least 60 Senatorial votes to approve the Presidential appointment" was NEVER part of the Constitution. That is a purely procedural, Senate-made rule that deserves to go away.
Third, I have had enough of these Chicken Little "The Sky Is Falling" comments ("...the Republicans have destroyed the idea of independent judicial review "). Really, there is no more judicial review? SCOTUS can't declare legislation unconstitutional any more?
Judicial review means that citizens can petition the Courts to review legislation approved by the other branches. It does NOT mean that the Court has to find all legislation that was passed over the opposition of the minority party gets automatically overturned.
Democracy doesn't mean that your party always wins.
2
If anyone believes Trump will not ask prospective nominees if they will vote to overturn Roe get your head out of the sand. Susan Collins may be the only sane person who stands between a women’s abortion rights and the first step towards Christian sharia law.
Everything women before us fought and some died for is at stake. If abortion is banned birth control is next. The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of corporations by siding with Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby has the legal right to discriminate against women by refusing to cover contraceptives.
How much are you willing to give up?
I won’t give a single iota.
I may be past childbearing age but I will fight for women’s rights until the day I die.
270
Well.....if you want the Constitution to be the document by which we live.....then everyone ends up having to give something up.
Adhereing to the Constituion means that everyone gets some of what they want....and has to put up with some things they don't like.
This is a new experience for liberals, who are used to the Courts doing for them what they cannot get done in Congress (which is the way things are designed, when you come to think about it, after all.)
4
Don't put your faith in Collins. Remember when she voted for the tax cuts because McConnell 'promised' her he would do something about healthcare? The result of the tax cuts are deep cuts in Medicaid and Medicare. If she truly cared, she would have voted against the tax cuts.
3
Khadijah,
How very easy for you to dismiss liberals and our championship of equality. Republicans have used gerrymandering and other deceptive methods to stack Congress in their favor.
I suggest to familiarize yourself with the Bill of Rights, First Amendment’s establishment clause. Even the framers of the Constitution realized they’d made oversights that needed correcting.
No one with a wit of intelligence would expect a country to be ruled by law that hasn’t evolved since our country was founded over two centuries ago.
Conservatives want the Constitution to only be interpreted through a conservative lens. How sad you must share, not a conseratives strong suit.
4
Abortion rights are just a shiny object that Trump uses to distract from the real reason he is pushing to get a sycophant on the Court and Democrats are falling for it. One of the first cases on the docket in the fall will deal with double jeopardy. From CNN: “The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a case in the fall to consider whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment bars states and the federal government from separately trying the same person for the same criminal offense.” If the case is won, this means that Trump would be able to pardon people like Michael Cohen and Cohen cannot then be separately tried in Manhattan, REGARDLESS of the laws in New York state. Federal law will supersede state law. You can bet that any nominees will be “judged” by their opinions on this matter.
146
Frau Greta, you've made a very good point and explained this clearly.
What I'm left wondering is what happens if Cohen spills to Mueller before this decision in the fall is reached? Sure, Trump could still pardon Cohen. But if Cohen has already revealed what many think could be disclosed, then it seems less likely Trump would be especially keen to pardon him. And the president will be focused on cleaning up his mess.
Frau Greta, thank you for pointing this out! Trump's behavior in so many ways has been geared to protecting himself from us learning more either from Mueller or now Cohen. The man is a crook and it is time to stop him. Democrats should shout from the rooftops that this hyper-conservative court would not just destroy precedents like Roe, but become a creature of a corrupt president.
We must stop this in November. Anyone who is not an outright Trump supporter MUST vote Democratic to halt the continued destruction of this country. First, restore checks and balances!
It wouldn't be ethical for Trump to choose a SCOTUS based on his own personal needs. Let's hope he takes the high road this time.
Trump will choose whoever he wants. Republicans hold all the cards. To all the voters who believed the two parties were the same, maybe this will drive the point home? One party is anti-choice while one is oro-choice. One will undo gay marriage while the other will support it. One rolls back climate change initiatives while the other signed on to the Paris accord. One believes health care is a privilege to be bought by the well-to-do while the other believes health care is the right I’d all citizens. One gives windfall taxes to the rich and corporations ballooning the deficit for future generations, despite ample evidence that trickle down doesn’t work—the young won’t have the safety net and education they desire, or possibly any safety net at all because they have an unprecedented debt to pay down. One side has dallied with white Supremacists and jailed immigrant children, the other side supports a pathway for dreamers and the idea that the US offers asylum to the abused. One side floods the political marketplace with corporate money via citizens united, the other side seeks to overturn citizens united. One side rejects NATO and generations of allies, the other side supports it. One side stole a Supreme Court nomination from a popularly elected president.
The choice could not have been starker. It is still stark. I cannot understand how anyone can say “they are the same”.
161
Whenever the current events depress me and make me feel like there's no hope, I remember about karma. Karma never ever fails to happen, and Trump and the republicans have it coming in spades.
People can say that because the Dem elites kowtow to the rich, and feather their own nests just as the Republicans do. Hillary was one of the best (worst) examples of this to boot. Cheating during the primary did not help her cause, either. People are tired of being treated as if they somehow "owe" their vote to one faction or another based upon a slate of talking points, too. In reality, we are all free agents, and our decisions as to voting are private. If you want my vote, you must convince me you are worthy of it - don't try to fear-monger me into voting for the lesser of two evils.
1
---
I cannot understand how anyone can say “they are the same”.
---
And yet many will in November 2018 and November 2020. I can't understand it, either. Classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.