Given the liberal's decision to indenture every single American to the insurance companies, a conservative court seems like a very good thing right now.
Many liberals don't think that the insurance business model provides a satisfactory means to fund public health, and that it creates overhead that increases total costs.
1
President Obama implemented "Romneycare" nationwide. It had been prototyped and found to work reasonably well in Massachusetts. A direct publicly-funded universal basic plan was never even discussed.
1
The mainstream "liberal" proposal was a public option competing with insurance companies.
A little honesty would go a long way to actually solve problems.
A little honesty would go a long way to actually solve problems.
2
If people had gotten off their complacent backsides and voted in greater numbers in those 30 states HC lost, we would not be having Mr Trump changing our courts. Yes, he will do exactly what he said he will do. He will appoint "conservative judges." And, for US District Court Judges, at the very level of the state of Washington Judge who enjoined Mr Trumps's ban, all he needs is a simple majority of the Senate. The simple majority rule was passed under the last President. It seems the chickens have come home to roost in spite of the bad publicity from the media, SNL, and the condemnation of the glitterati of Hollywood. Instead of the so called "Black Block" tossing rocks in Berkeley and DC, how about turning out at the polls for the mid-terms and 4 years from now? And, one more thing. Let's nominate a Democrats who does not have the high negativity ratings of any Democrat and who does not practice identity politics pitting one group against the other. Just blame ourselves for the present fiasco that handed Mr T the presidency and now the courts.
2
If you want to address the high negativity ratings then the domination of the national conversation by conservatives must end. When we need jobs that provide higher incomes, better outcomes from our K-12 public schools, tax policies that begin to undo the shifting of money in circulation to the wealthiest Americans, the concerns of about 25% of the people dominate most of our political and civic affairs conversations, because the spokespeople for that minority of the population manages to keep determining about what we concern ourselves.
The Electoral College really is psychopathological, with its peculiar weighting and arbitrary nullification of votes. "Why bother?" is a perfectly natural response to it.
1
The country needs more conservative judges. The body politic needs balance. The Democrats had a good run, but they need a timeout.
1
After looking at what Republicans are doing now (NOTHING!), and considering what they've done to get a strangle-hold on all three branches of government, it's hard to see what good they can do besides continue to watch out for their own self-interests.
2
In piecemeal fashion the media has covered Trump's long and interesting history with the mob, including his close association with Roy Cohn. The thought of such a morally compromised person making his mark on our judiciary is utterly chilling.
New York Times, we need you to remind us how deeply disturbing Trump's history has been.
New York Times, we need you to remind us how deeply disturbing Trump's history has been.
9
There's nothing quite like a completely unvetted abuser of judicial process in charge of nominating judges. I think there should be a complete hiatus on such appointments until the issue of treason is resolved.
3
And don't forget the investigation of all possible conflicts of business interests, as pertaining to the Emoluents Clause.
2
Should an evidently unstable and incapable man be permitted to exercise this responsibility?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/mental-health-professionals-w...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/mental-health-professionals-w...
6
If Trump's around long enough, which I doubt. The Republicans can't build a wall around Trump, he will be exposed. Trump is a human sewer, there's enough toxic waste flowing from him to poison a major city. Trump's reign of chaos cannot be sustained. Either he turns the armed forces against the people or he's driven from office. Trump is incapable of peacefully co-existing with others. Trump's mental illness, and dark (evil) character has condemned him, and unfortunately us, the American people, to this hellish existence. What is hell? But unmitigated chaos. It cannot be tolerated, nor sustained.
5
I used to despise Harry Reid.
Now I love him.
What a gift to the US.
Less Liberal judges.
Now I love him.
What a gift to the US.
Less Liberal judges.
3
I am astounded by the incapacity of so many Americans to connect the common roots of "liberal" and "liberty". These folks are often bullies and tyrants.
1
What does this mean for America? More judicial oxymoron? Under the "Progressive" Obama we remained the worlds #1 jailer and criminalized more Americans than bad old Russia and China criminalized their two peoples combined?
What is it about morally dubious American authorities who brag about manhandling women and their love of harsh punishment for everyone else including their fellow countrymen? Is their twisted fantasy turning the US of A into a western gulag archipelago? To unforgivingly criminalize tens of millions of your own citizens in perpetuity for misdemeanors is a civil rights crime in itself.
Again, this is white men in power behaving badly because they can.
What is it about morally dubious American authorities who brag about manhandling women and their love of harsh punishment for everyone else including their fellow countrymen? Is their twisted fantasy turning the US of A into a western gulag archipelago? To unforgivingly criminalize tens of millions of your own citizens in perpetuity for misdemeanors is a civil rights crime in itself.
Again, this is white men in power behaving badly because they can.
We must not and shall not let Trump, who has hidden his Flynn scandal from us for weeks, destroy our courts. They protect us from his lawless administration.
9
The only tenable response on the part of the Democrats over the next two or four years, to quote candidate Donald Trump: "Delay, delay, delay!"
9
Paralysis just leaves the US falling ever further behind, faster.
This is the upshot? Let's not be too hasty in speculating. Right now, Washington is in chaos about the Russians. Some of us ordinary people suspected a digital coup d'eta on November 8. Now we are getting more information about the Russian involvement -- and that of #45 and his henchmen. There is no reason to believe that #45 will stay in office for four years. Hopefully, he will take Pence down with him. As for Paul Ryan? He should be expecting a ton of snail mail to be delivered to his front door by angry citizens. He just might get the message.
5
Yeah, good luck with all that. Who's going to impeach them all? Fellow Republicans? The judiciary will indeed be transformed... whether you wear your aluminum foil conspiracy hat or not.
1
"There is no reason to believe that #45 will stay in office for four years."
Really? For a "metrojournalist" you should probably get out more often and have a look at the world around you. Or even just look at Congress and tell us who's going to impeach Trump.
Really? For a "metrojournalist" you should probably get out more often and have a look at the world around you. Or even just look at Congress and tell us who's going to impeach Trump.
1
Expecting Trump to change the judiciary in the U.S. is like asking a twelve year old kid who only plays video games when not in school to grow a crop of wheat and to sell it successfully, he would not know how. So what you will see will be a bunch of Republican law makers and conservative jurists recommending judges, the exact people who would be doing so for Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio if they were President.
4
Does this sound like what Trump used to say about HRC when he campaigned? We don't even know if Trump is going to be in office. Investigations have started and it looks like Trump was in cahoots with Flynn and Russia. Flynn has already quit and officials are going after Trump, so you know, he probably won't be president much longer. We can't let someone who might not be our president in a month or two pick out a lifer judge.
Oh how Trump boasted about "his generals" that supported him during his campaign. What a disservice it is to Gen. Mattis to be lumped in with Flynn. I am not convinced that Flynn acted without a wink from Trump.
Oh how Trump boasted about "his generals" that supported him during his campaign. What a disservice it is to Gen. Mattis to be lumped in with Flynn. I am not convinced that Flynn acted without a wink from Trump.
4
You mean we might end up with a generation of judges who don't see themselves as unelected lawmakers, but rather as jurists who interpret laws according to the Constitution? Horrors!
8
Yes. It actually would be a horror if they all "interpreted" Constitutional laws in the exact same way.
3
There should be more agreement among jurists, not less, if they're all reading the same Constitution and not permitting their own politics to get in the way of their job -- which is to judge the constitutionality, not the wisdom or popularity, of the laws and orders of elected officials.
1
Read the U.S. Constitution. Dissent is allowed.
1
Harry Reid threw out that particular playbook out the window, and now Democrats can't find it. Oops.
7
Nothing wrong with white men.
6
Once again.
It's not about white men.
Read the article.
It's not about white men.
Read the article.
1
Interesting discussion. But If you say Constitution is NOT absolute like a scripture and political center is not an absolute center and left is not always left and everything is relative and can be "interpreted" according to the "popular fashion" of the era then that means they are essentially proposing a mobocracy and loud voices dictating the direction of the nation which is nothing but anarchy. Very wise!
1
I'm so angry with deems for blowing it!
2
One wonders if the '' Pelican Brief '' is playing out in real life.
Having said that, it seems to be the conclusion to such naked partisanship of the last 8 years in regards to denying President Obama's Constitutionally bound and guaranteed job; filling the seats on all courts.
The only option now is for Democrats to do the exact same thing without regard to republicans' hypocritical howling. Hang on for 2 years and 4 years, if need be.
Generations are in the balance and all of our rights.
Having said that, it seems to be the conclusion to such naked partisanship of the last 8 years in regards to denying President Obama's Constitutionally bound and guaranteed job; filling the seats on all courts.
The only option now is for Democrats to do the exact same thing without regard to republicans' hypocritical howling. Hang on for 2 years and 4 years, if need be.
Generations are in the balance and all of our rights.
15
I'm more intrigued by the author's list of judicial vacancies. I can understand the statistics of judicial vacancies are important but why would the author sort that list by "Expected vacancies". The author mentions 'Senior Status' in relation to expected vacancies. There is a reason why the median age of appointed federal judges is 50 years old. Retirement age for a federal judge is 65 but if that judge has been a federal judge for 15 years they will receive as a pension the same salary they were making before they retired. Senior status on the other hand allows federal judges to continue working while still getting a salary (tax exempt from FICA and Medicare and maybe more) while still receiving their full paid pension but only have to work 1/3 of their previous workload. Amazing isn't it?
Now why does congress block appointees? Because chief judges can assign senior judges of their choice to any important case that may arise. So it's better to leave a seat vacant as long as the chief judge has a certain political viewpoint.
My point in all of this is that there is an entire unspoken strategy which exists both on the federal level and state level for filling or blocking federal judge vacancies. Would it make a difference if people knew the truth about this almost nefarious scheme to control the judiciary branch of our government?
Now why does congress block appointees? Because chief judges can assign senior judges of their choice to any important case that may arise. So it's better to leave a seat vacant as long as the chief judge has a certain political viewpoint.
My point in all of this is that there is an entire unspoken strategy which exists both on the federal level and state level for filling or blocking federal judge vacancies. Would it make a difference if people knew the truth about this almost nefarious scheme to control the judiciary branch of our government?
1
That means the right wing republicans are poised to populate the federal courts with judges who follow the "originalist" interpretation of the constitution and interpret laws enacted by Congress according to the statutory language, which is drafted by a small drafting office within the Congress, and not the traditional standard, the intent of Congress based on many factors, including legislative history and the problem the statute was designed to solve. Simply interpreting language gives the real power to the judges and minimizes Congressional intent.
1
Trump should be denied the opportunity to nominate or appoint a Supreme Court justice until the investigations into his ties to Russia are complete. There must be a rule of law that would back up this proposal. To think that a judge would have a lifetime appointment by a convicted traitor is crazy. And I am sure 45 will be found guilty of treason at some point.
8
And if not treason, there's always the Emoluents Clause....
4
Sadly, those people who blindly voted for Mr. Trump got what wanted, they fell for his hateful speeches. Note the Farm owners in California who suddenly woke up to the reality that they will not have enough laborers to pick their crops due to Trumps immigration policies. Thus the same will happen with the court systems and the judges. Never mind tit for tat, our wonderful country with all its faults will damaged in an awful way. Not to be too self centered I hope I will not be alive to see the results of an ill tempered, lack of skills, and a most ill prepared person who pretends to represent to be a leader of our country.
6
Parts of CA are stating that they will pay upwards of $15 an hour for agriculture labor which would be a win for this country. This is predicated on the illegals going home.
3
That's a laugh. Even $15 an hour isn't going to produce American workers who are willing to spend over 8 hours a day bent over in the hot sun picking hundreds of produce to a farmer's tough specifications. Alabama passed a law that kicked undocumented workers out of the fields, and the farmers couldn't stand it. The Americans were sloppy, lazy, always complaining, and quit, They just couldn't be depended on. They wanted their migrant laborers, back, because they were the fast and willing experts. North Carolina had an even worse experience. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/05/15/north-carolina-ne...
1
God forbid the adults around here actually work. Sorry, but there are plenty of lazy white people here who could pick crops if they were hungry. I'm sure Moonbeam won't let that happen.
Trump will need to take over America's courts, because the courts that America has now will always rule against his unlawful presidency.
2
As if there wasn't enough to fret over, it never hurts to go out of the way to look for new things to worry about. Some people must be happier when they're sleepless.
2
It's very ironic that Trump could be responsible for appointing "so-called judges". He has made it clear that what he tweets is now law and that he is the smartest, greatest in history. In all seriousness, he won't last long enough to get anyone appointed. He's a criminal. Period.
7
They can't even find the light switches in the White House and you think they have developed a list of judges to appoint?
7
The only hope is, that despite Trump, his appointees will have some measure of fair-mindedness. It's happened in the past that a judge has risen above his conservative supporters.
1
The problem with that supposition is Trump's appointees would have had to be servile to him to begin with -- otherwise, they would have never gotten the nomination.
1
and we all know why this is happening. Besides the election of #FabulistInChief, we have the GOP obstructing appointments that were being made by the previous administration. The GOP is shaping the Court landscape and the rest of the country will be the ones to suffer unless you are a white Christian Republican Man (well not all only the rich ones and the corrupt ones)!
2
This is another railroading of the Will of the People.
The GOTP Congress blocked the filling of many Federal Court Seats, which were left vacant for YEARS in an effort to dilute Obama's powers to fill any and all vacent Federal Court positions. He sent up raft-loads of them, which were just sat on by the Right. Sadly, blocking the Scalia Supreme Court vacancy was only the most visible position. How much do you want to bet that the GOTP controlled Congress will suddenly discover a zeal for judges that was curiously missing for eight long years?!
Yet again, blame must fall on the ever feckless, useless Progressives, who EVEN NOW ARE STILL FIGHTING about the claim that Hillary "stole the Democratic Primaries! Their inability to keep focus and find Unity, even in the face of a Political Calamity of historic proportions, got us Trump, and these court seat fillings... putting the Federal Courts in the hands of the very Far Right for the next generation or more.
Even today, as we see Flynn's resignation, we also see Chaffetz's say he will not be investigating Flynn and all things Russian any further! This from the same person who "investigated" Benghazi multiple times, trying to find any claim of wrongdoing... who claimed he would start investigating President Clinton "starting on day one."
The Left still can't see it was all gamesmanship - and they fell for it, like they always do. A bitter harvest will result from their failing to protect the majority of American's interests.
The GOTP Congress blocked the filling of many Federal Court Seats, which were left vacant for YEARS in an effort to dilute Obama's powers to fill any and all vacent Federal Court positions. He sent up raft-loads of them, which were just sat on by the Right. Sadly, blocking the Scalia Supreme Court vacancy was only the most visible position. How much do you want to bet that the GOTP controlled Congress will suddenly discover a zeal for judges that was curiously missing for eight long years?!
Yet again, blame must fall on the ever feckless, useless Progressives, who EVEN NOW ARE STILL FIGHTING about the claim that Hillary "stole the Democratic Primaries! Their inability to keep focus and find Unity, even in the face of a Political Calamity of historic proportions, got us Trump, and these court seat fillings... putting the Federal Courts in the hands of the very Far Right for the next generation or more.
Even today, as we see Flynn's resignation, we also see Chaffetz's say he will not be investigating Flynn and all things Russian any further! This from the same person who "investigated" Benghazi multiple times, trying to find any claim of wrongdoing... who claimed he would start investigating President Clinton "starting on day one."
The Left still can't see it was all gamesmanship - and they fell for it, like they always do. A bitter harvest will result from their failing to protect the majority of American's interests.
8
And all of them should be removed (impeached) as soon as we are rid of trump and his criminal crew.
3
At the rate Trump and his so-called advisors are fouling up national security, Trump won't be appointing any judges. You're not allowed to appoint after you've been impeached and found guilty.
12
Tit for tat, even forty years late. A Republican Congress now should expand the federal judiciary by the same 30% that a Democratic Congress did to allow Jimmy Carter to pack the courts. I don't think many Democrats would be nominated for THOSE judgeships.
As to Trump's signal historical opportunity to name judges, who are likely to be originalists, I'm only sorry that I'm out of Trump wine, and so must rely on regular champagne to toast the event. You want to impose a highly-controversial view on America? Convince a legislature and an executive.
As to Trump's signal historical opportunity to name judges, who are likely to be originalists, I'm only sorry that I'm out of Trump wine, and so must rely on regular champagne to toast the event. You want to impose a highly-controversial view on America? Convince a legislature and an executive.
6
If , based upon his first several weeks playing at being president you still think he is competent to continue this farce , you are suggesting that the US continue its move to the bottom of the heap.
I do believe that more than 75% of the people in USA disagree with you but almost all of the upper 10% probably do also.
I prefer to live in the 21st century and most certainly not with the ideologically perverse thinking of the 16 or 17th century.
I do believe that more than 75% of the people in USA disagree with you but almost all of the upper 10% probably do also.
I prefer to live in the 21st century and most certainly not with the ideologically perverse thinking of the 16 or 17th century.
2
Very well, but what exactly is "tat", and where can I go to exchange it?
1
Michael Flynn, Richard.
It ain't going away, and it's only gonna get worse as the pieces of the puzzle put themselves together.
Nice try, though.
It ain't going away, and it's only gonna get worse as the pieces of the puzzle put themselves together.
Nice try, though.
4
Using every means necessary to block any and all Trump actions can be the only course for independents, democrats and intelligent republicans alike. The court of law, so profanely disrespected by Trump, will prove most of his actions are either misguided or outright illegal anyway.
Trump is clearly not competent, in ability or disposition, to make decisions affecting the people of the United States of America. He has put our security, at home and abroad, at risk. He is a clear and present danger to our nation.
This is the result of a misinformed and indoctrinated political base choosing a reality tv personality over anyone with more reasonable experience, intellect and emotional stability. I may disagree with much of the republican platform but reasonable and competent people in office open the doors to constructive debate and argument. And ultimately--compromise. To move our nation forwarded.
We have not seen this from the republican party in far too long. Some genuine leadership must emerge from the GOP and Trump must be removed immediately, along with his wildly inappropriate and dangerous advisors. This shame will be marked in history. We need to move our country forward.
Trump is clearly not competent, in ability or disposition, to make decisions affecting the people of the United States of America. He has put our security, at home and abroad, at risk. He is a clear and present danger to our nation.
This is the result of a misinformed and indoctrinated political base choosing a reality tv personality over anyone with more reasonable experience, intellect and emotional stability. I may disagree with much of the republican platform but reasonable and competent people in office open the doors to constructive debate and argument. And ultimately--compromise. To move our nation forwarded.
We have not seen this from the republican party in far too long. Some genuine leadership must emerge from the GOP and Trump must be removed immediately, along with his wildly inappropriate and dangerous advisors. This shame will be marked in history. We need to move our country forward.
7
I guess you haven't heard of recess appointments.
There is no question Trump can appoint judges now. The question is what will follow. The Republicans have every incentive to confirm his more reasonable choices to avoid unreasonable recess appointments.
There is no question Trump can appoint judges now. The question is what will follow. The Republicans have every incentive to confirm his more reasonable choices to avoid unreasonable recess appointments.
2
The problem is that he does not have what can be described as reasonable appointments. he seems to have a grab bag of destructive, incompetent ideologues who all want to be in the trump government train and pulls from that batch for any open slot.
This would be fun if it were a childs board game but it real and getting more scary everytime he opens his mouth or tweets.
He seems to be attracting the most ideologically perverted people as his horde to surround him . it sure seems to parrot what went on during the 1930's in Europe and we all know ghow that ended..
This would be fun if it were a childs board game but it real and getting more scary everytime he opens his mouth or tweets.
He seems to be attracting the most ideologically perverted people as his horde to surround him . it sure seems to parrot what went on during the 1930's in Europe and we all know ghow that ended..
1
I find it difficult to put "reasonable" in any sentence involving Donald Trump.
2
After Trump appoints all of these judges, I hope many in turn will see him in court.
7
If not before....
2
Now that we know that he supported Flynn up until yesterday, he will NOT be president for much longer. We should be wondering what Pence will do with this power.
11
Hey Trump, get your eye on the ball - look at what your friend Putin is up to today!! Quit play acting and wondering about your ratings. You're unpopular; you didn't win a majority of the popular vote (lost that by over 3 million people); in less than a month you're proving to be one of the most dishonest, disorganized, disrespected governments in the nation's history. I feel "greater" already, you and your inner circle are doing a terrible job. The only branch of the government that seems to be working right now is the judiciary - and while it isn't perfect - they are the least of concerns. If only your ego wasn't so fragile. You're like Humpty Dumpty - fragile, thin shell, and overweight.
11
A US president should not be allowed to nominate a judge at any level until the president has released his or her most recent tax return.
11
Does that go for birth certificates as well?
@John
"Does that go for birth certificates as well?"
Only if they aren't white.
"Does that go for birth certificates as well?"
Only if they aren't white.
2
The Democrats needs to have a plan for how ANY and ALL judges appointed by DT are swiftly removed along with him and Pence when that, seemingly, inevitable time finally comes.
5
Do tell us how, being in the minority in both the House and Senate, the Dems can "swiftly remove" any judges appointed along with Trump and Pence, especially in light of the fact that judges have lifetime appointments. How does that work?
Mr. Katz, why not go all the way in your misandry and say "old white men", "not old white men", or, probably more accurately, "old white men I mostly disagree with", "not old white men I mostly disagree with".
I mean why quibble? Why dance around the subject? Why pussyfoot? Just go all the way with what most of us already know you are thinking.
I mean why quibble? Why dance around the subject? Why pussyfoot? Just go all the way with what most of us already know you are thinking.
8
That is a lot of judges to get appointed in 6 months to maybe a year. After that it will be up to Ryan.
2
I ignore all "could be" articles. Especially from media which got all their election "could be's" wrong. When it happens THEN it is news.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
3
Republicans have always had a deep sense of entitlement re; federal judicial nominations...
That's why they still hoot and holler about Robert Bork's failed nomination in 1987...He was a candiate that was so radical that 6 GOP senators voted against him..
That is why there was a WW III battle in 2013 when President Obama tried to fill 4 vacancies on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals....Only one nominee, Sri Sinivasan, was confirmed without a Mt Everest climb struggle...The other 3, Patricia Millet, Nina Pillard, & Robert Wilkins, were only able to be confirmed after Sen Majority Leader Reid invoked the nuclear option for lower court nominees....
That is why senate Republicans in 2016 not only refused to act on the Merrick Garland nomination for the Supreme Court, but they also failed to hold votes on at LEAST 25 Circuit, District, and Court of International Trade judges who were on the senate calendar awaiting a final floor vote....Republicans held ALL these seats open so Trump could fill them....
This kind of horrific obstruction ONLY comes when one side, Republicans, have this deeply held sense of entitlement when it comes to filling the courts....
While I'm sure Senate Republicans will live for the moment and ram thru Federalist Society far right judges, there will be a time, hopefully in the not too distant future, where Senate Democrats will be able to extract payback and ram thru some judges with far left views...Power always switches hands in Washington..
That's why they still hoot and holler about Robert Bork's failed nomination in 1987...He was a candiate that was so radical that 6 GOP senators voted against him..
That is why there was a WW III battle in 2013 when President Obama tried to fill 4 vacancies on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals....Only one nominee, Sri Sinivasan, was confirmed without a Mt Everest climb struggle...The other 3, Patricia Millet, Nina Pillard, & Robert Wilkins, were only able to be confirmed after Sen Majority Leader Reid invoked the nuclear option for lower court nominees....
That is why senate Republicans in 2016 not only refused to act on the Merrick Garland nomination for the Supreme Court, but they also failed to hold votes on at LEAST 25 Circuit, District, and Court of International Trade judges who were on the senate calendar awaiting a final floor vote....Republicans held ALL these seats open so Trump could fill them....
This kind of horrific obstruction ONLY comes when one side, Republicans, have this deeply held sense of entitlement when it comes to filling the courts....
While I'm sure Senate Republicans will live for the moment and ram thru Federalist Society far right judges, there will be a time, hopefully in the not too distant future, where Senate Democrats will be able to extract payback and ram thru some judges with far left views...Power always switches hands in Washington..
9
Who better than Trump to appoint all these people?
After all, is there anyone in this country who is more "just" than convicted racist Donald "Birther" Trump?
After all, is there anyone in this country who is more "just" than convicted racist Donald "Birther" Trump?
5
judge not that ye be judged; and its so bad for business.
not a Trump fan, but when was Trump ever "convicted" of anything?
People are not "convicted" when found guilty of civil infractions, such as the judgment that caused Trump to pay $25 million to defrauded students of his so-called "university".
Dear democrats in the senate: Secret holds on all of them, thank you.
7
"Secret holds" and don't forget to use your Captain Midnight recorder rings to keep in touch...
2
The recent election was mainly about the Supreme Court and other judges. Somehow, the Democrats missed that, and instead of running a shoe-in against Trump, a candidate with more negatives than all the almonds Obama ate during his presidency (precisely 7 a day, yeah, right), they ran a loser.
So, as Mr. Obama said during one of his more enlightened moments, elections have consequences. The biggest single thing Mr. Trump will do is pack the courts. There is very little he will do that will matter as much. And for Democrats, that's the end of that story. It is written. It's printed. It's published and it's in all the bookstores. How you get out of this, Mr. Democrat, is a mystery to me. If you want to RESIST, be our guest. 2018 will then be an even greater debacle for you.
So, as Mr. Obama said during one of his more enlightened moments, elections have consequences. The biggest single thing Mr. Trump will do is pack the courts. There is very little he will do that will matter as much. And for Democrats, that's the end of that story. It is written. It's printed. It's published and it's in all the bookstores. How you get out of this, Mr. Democrat, is a mystery to me. If you want to RESIST, be our guest. 2018 will then be an even greater debacle for you.
6
Why are you bothering with stories like this? His days are very numbered. Russia is bigger than Watergate.
Democrats must do their Constitutional duty and block as many judges that whoever ends up as the replacement for the current president and his coconspirator pence as possible. We did not elect those two, and we certainly did not sign on for an extremist reactionary court system.
Democrats must do their Constitutional duty and block as many judges that whoever ends up as the replacement for the current president and his coconspirator pence as possible. We did not elect those two, and we certainly did not sign on for an extremist reactionary court system.
15
"While taking care to clarify that Mr. Obama had appointed “a number of outstanding judges,” Mr. Malcolm criticized what he viewed as “a large ideological shift on the circuit courts.” This led, he said, to a wave of progressive circuit court decisions and fewer splits in the circuit courts (making Supreme Court review less likely)."
Democrats stared the big ideological shift and were hoping it would continue - why complain now about the strategy, they themselves wanted the ideology to be a major factor.
Democrats stared the big ideological shift and were hoping it would continue - why complain now about the strategy, they themselves wanted the ideology to be a major factor.
7
From the article: "John Malcolm, the director of the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies". So you accept the notion of "ideological" from a conservative think tank as if it's a provable fact. It's not, it's just a conservative's OPINION because it they don't agree with the findings of the courts. Democrats and progressives would argue that these cases were decided based on the US Constitution, and we would be correct.
2
@m,
Of course you would be correct in any argument, nobody doubt that. Only Republicans can be wrong.
Of course you would be correct in any argument, nobody doubt that. Only Republicans can be wrong.
What is working in Trump's favor is the sheer number of vacancies in the lower federal courts. No one will have the stamina or fortitude to keep up with his appointees, and since many require Senate approval (a Senate controlled by Republicans) you can be certain that the vast majority of appointments will be vetted by Pastor Mike Pence to insure that abortion rights, climate change policies and voter suppression activities -- all issues that are judicated at the federal circuit and district court levels -- will be decided by evangelical, Christian-first judges in clear and open defiance of the Constitution.
8
The Republicans banked 100 judicial vacancies in high confidence that they would win in November.
The GOP doesn't own the judiciary. McConnell and his cronies should have been impeached or indicted for many things, the failure to hold a hearing for Obama's SCOTUS nominee being the least of them. If they were judged by the standards they've applied to us they would all be in jail or deported or out of a job. The GOP does not represent America. More accurately, what the GOP has become is not representative of America. We're being run by a group that believes in democracy only as it applies to them. That's not democracy. Part of representing people in a democratic republic is compromise. What we have now is a plutocratic theocracy that needs to be nipped in the bud.
54
"The GOP does not represent America. "
Then why did they get overwhelmingly elected?
You are in alt.reality.
Then why did they get overwhelmingly elected?
You are in alt.reality.
4
Hen3ry, news: The GOP, by the dint of the last election, actually does own the judiciary. Kinda how that works ....
And BTW, " ...needs to be nipped in the bud". "Part of representing people in a democratic republic is compromise".
"Nipping things in the bud" and "compromise" are synonyms in what liberal dictionary?
Actually, nipping things in the bud is compromise if Democrats do it. Actual real compromise is what Republicans need to do, as long as it actually results in what Democrats want.
That's Democrat math. Thank you for showing it to us so clearly.
And BTW, " ...needs to be nipped in the bud". "Part of representing people in a democratic republic is compromise".
"Nipping things in the bud" and "compromise" are synonyms in what liberal dictionary?
Actually, nipping things in the bud is compromise if Democrats do it. Actual real compromise is what Republicans need to do, as long as it actually results in what Democrats want.
That's Democrat math. Thank you for showing it to us so clearly.
2
Because of a fluke called the electoral vote and while it had a reasoned purpose way back in the 18th century appears to have allowed the most unqualified people to be elected to this once prestigeous office. It is simply now a bad tv sit com which has lost its way.
It is an interesting method of proving to all Americans that their vote is important and counts. Had thwey all voted Trump's 47% would have been a loser.
It is an interesting method of proving to all Americans that their vote is important and counts. Had thwey all voted Trump's 47% would have been a loser.
1
The three-shell game is a simple short con, wherein confusion is generated by shuffling the shells and, typically, the pea/bean is removed by sleight of hand to be replaced only as needed by the con artist.
Pathological narcissists operate much the same way, using social events as the shells, and anything of importance as the pea. Confusion is generated by shuffling issues and events dramatically, all the while distracting from real truth. You can think of it as a revised con, with 5 shells, higher stakes, and more deception. If you want to know whether a narcissist is lying, just observe whether his mouth is open.
Pathological narcissists operate much the same way, using social events as the shells, and anything of importance as the pea. Confusion is generated by shuffling issues and events dramatically, all the while distracting from real truth. You can think of it as a revised con, with 5 shells, higher stakes, and more deception. If you want to know whether a narcissist is lying, just observe whether his mouth is open.
10
The country is being handed over to a far right faction. We are not making America great again.
30
Mr. Malcolm criticized what he viewed as “a large ideological shift on the circuit courts.”
Thank goodness ideology has never been a factor taken into account in GOP nominations to the federal judiciary
Michael Corleone got it right in his meeting with Senator Pat Geary early in Godfather II
"We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator"
Thank goodness ideology has never been a factor taken into account in GOP nominations to the federal judiciary
Michael Corleone got it right in his meeting with Senator Pat Geary early in Godfather II
"We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator"
6
Taxation without representation, more than two hundred years later.
5
It's more like representation without representation -- or, the tail wagging the dog.
3
Hey Upshot Team: Is the Chart at the top of the article meant to be interpretive art? Or, is it supposed to communicate data? Why is there no Y-axis, or numbers for that matter? I spent minutes trying to understand what it said given the multiple messages (Democrat vs Republican, magnitude, vacancies..)
So, this is Stats 101: Don't try to impress us with how smart you are, and instead focus on communicating the message broadly and simply. I guess bar charts are boring when you're looking for eyeballs, but then ditch the chart if all that is being communicated is a sense of proportion.
Focus first and foremost on the message: KISS (look it up if you weren't taught that in school). We know you folks are smart... after all, Nate Cohn works there... sorry, not sorry for that gratuitous dig. He's earned that since we never saw an apology from him after his "Confirmation Bias" laced electoral projections.
So, this is Stats 101: Don't try to impress us with how smart you are, and instead focus on communicating the message broadly and simply. I guess bar charts are boring when you're looking for eyeballs, but then ditch the chart if all that is being communicated is a sense of proportion.
Focus first and foremost on the message: KISS (look it up if you weren't taught that in school). We know you folks are smart... after all, Nate Cohn works there... sorry, not sorry for that gratuitous dig. He's earned that since we never saw an apology from him after his "Confirmation Bias" laced electoral projections.
9
It shows relative party and presidential input into sitting judges over time.
Politically appointed/ promoted judges are one of the weakest aspects of American democracy.
2
So then we should do what, exactly? Elect judges? Because that wouldn't be "political," would it?
The founders evidently believed that lifetime appointments would liberate appointees from reliance on any constituency, and leave them subordinate only to reason.
I frankly don't think this administration is lasting long enough to make many appointments. Given then many bubbling ethical and legal questions, it does not seem appropriate to allow DT to set judges in place who might affect the overall course of the judiciary for decades, at least until his own conflicts of interest are resolved.
9
Liberals need to drop all pretense and just admit that they hate the Constitution as it is written. Their desire to appoint only "interpretive" judges demonstrates their need to change it to suit their capricious social engineering fads. Put in its proper perspective, few Americans would support such elitist tyranny.
9
So should we really be relying on a document created the 18th century to decide issues going on in the 21st century? Here's the thing, if the Constitution was so great as it was original written, it wouldn't have been amended 27 times so far. Yes, many of the overarching provisions and themes of the Constitution (and its amendments) very much apply to the present-day but the idea that we should be relying the original intent of men who've been dead for more than 200 years is a little silly to me.
4
Do a litle research. Actually read the Constitution. Read a little Thomas Jefferson. He is the hero of the Alt-Right but he characturized the Constitution as an evolving concept.
This is not the world of 1784. In 1784, slavery was in full bloom, and Native Amrerican lands were legally free for the taking by whites and no one but white men could vote.
This is not the world of 1784. In 1784, slavery was in full bloom, and Native Amrerican lands were legally free for the taking by whites and no one but white men could vote.
9
'So should we really be relying on a document created the 18th century to decide issues going on in the 21st century?'
You could ask the same about our current immigration policies.
Should we abide by a quote on a statue from the 19th century to decide our national and economic security with regard to foreign migration?
You could ask the same about our current immigration policies.
Should we abide by a quote on a statue from the 19th century to decide our national and economic security with regard to foreign migration?
1
Judge Gorsuch’s craft disabled his ethically rejecting nomination to a stolen Supreme Court seat; the Senate must refuse his confirmation. This judge is playing world-class ping-pong politics to please GOP masters. He said, I said; he changed, I changed. The judiciary is not independent if federal judges follow the GOP line of martinet masters unwilling to honor a Constitutional oath.
Senator Sasse quoted Judge Gorsuch: “He said that it is incredibly disheartening to hear things that might undermine the credibility and the independence of the judiciary.” It is not incredible in any reasonable definition. The martinet-puppet routine is plain. Judge Gorsuch passed college and law school publishing ideological screeds in his own political publication, others not suiting him, which is distinguishable from acceptable scholarship on law. Axe-grinding is not unethical for a student or a politician. Republicans accept it in a judge. The issues are whether the judge models Justice Scalia’s sitting on the Court as a GOP functionary; and politicizing federal courts.
Judge Gorsuch has bent over backwards to defend not the independence of the federal judiciary but fealty to the GOP and to the individual who appointed him. He accepts Originalism which magically renders slavery constitutional because Founding Fathers enjoyed owning slaves. Originalism is corruption for which the GOP revered Justice Scalia. Judge Gorsuch follows Originalism yet is disheartened to “hear things.” Bad.
Senator Sasse quoted Judge Gorsuch: “He said that it is incredibly disheartening to hear things that might undermine the credibility and the independence of the judiciary.” It is not incredible in any reasonable definition. The martinet-puppet routine is plain. Judge Gorsuch passed college and law school publishing ideological screeds in his own political publication, others not suiting him, which is distinguishable from acceptable scholarship on law. Axe-grinding is not unethical for a student or a politician. Republicans accept it in a judge. The issues are whether the judge models Justice Scalia’s sitting on the Court as a GOP functionary; and politicizing federal courts.
Judge Gorsuch has bent over backwards to defend not the independence of the federal judiciary but fealty to the GOP and to the individual who appointed him. He accepts Originalism which magically renders slavery constitutional because Founding Fathers enjoyed owning slaves. Originalism is corruption for which the GOP revered Justice Scalia. Judge Gorsuch follows Originalism yet is disheartened to “hear things.” Bad.
3
I have absolutely no confidence that Judge Gorsuch would be objective and believe he holds a residual bias for his conservative views and associates. We must be concerned for an individual who would be able to wield extraordinary power in his interpretation of our laws for the rest of his life, and a great many of our lives as well!
4
It was bad law to admit the claims of theological harm to the management of Hobby Lobby from regulations that require contraception be available free of charge to their employees.
The disaster which black voters, and feminists, created for themselves by nominating the most despised nominee in the history of the Democratic Party just gets worse and worse under Trump, whom Bernie would have crushed in the Rust Belt and nationally. Now, by backing the loser Hillary, blacks and feminists have guaranteed that they will face the most anti-civil rights, anti-feminist judiciary, right up to Trump's potential overwhelmingly right-wing SCOTUS, since the legal end of Jim Crow. What a debacle!
4
1 note bern wouldn't have crushed anything except a few peanut shells when they were sweeping up after him...
1
Please stop laying blame. Please put your energies to solving the current problem.
5
Enough with the Bernie Bros. You may have despised Mrs. Clinton, but I love her. And many more of us loved her than despised her. If all of you Bernie Bros and purists had held your noses and voted for her, as all the "Never Trumpers" did for that orange-haired disaster, we would not be in this situation. Don't blame us, blame yourself.
9
Why didn't RBG retire when Obama was in office? Why didn't the Democratic Party fight harder to Obama to appoint Garland? A court designed by Donald Trump WILL take us all back to the 1950s.
10
Put the blame where it belongs. On each and every single one of us, We the People. We should have shut this country down. We should have been in the streets until Democracy prevailed. Instead we let our elected leaders take our votes, our power and our democracy away. Until we start taking our duty as citizens seriously we will continue to lose our representation.
4
Leave it to Beaver and Wally.... Dads at work and mom's cooking that wonderful Meatloaf in the oven. No Tacos or Ali Baba stew here.
The 1950s was a great era! The US was the greatest country in the world.
2
OH MY GOD. White men!!!! The curse of Civilization.
I'll go with Not White Men.
How about conservative women of all hues? Works for me.
I'll go with Not White Men.
How about conservative women of all hues? Works for me.
3
Yeah, let's pile on evil white men! We are "the curse of Civilization." They built this terrible country of ours after all. It would be so much better if instead we had the black men who founded the African countries, or the Muslim men of middle eastern countries, or the Latino men who built Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia.
Sounds kind of racist you say? Look at what you wrote and the NYT allowed into print. Ideological double standards have crippled the Democratic party. Keep it up please.
Sounds kind of racist you say? Look at what you wrote and the NYT allowed into print. Ideological double standards have crippled the Democratic party. Keep it up please.
2
How about every vacancy filled with Clarence Thomas clones.
No. White men did not "build" this country.
Slaves did.
Another thing.
You might want to consider doing some research into the ancient Empires of Africa -- you just might learn something.
Slaves did.
Another thing.
You might want to consider doing some research into the ancient Empires of Africa -- you just might learn something.
1
All Dems need to do is stall and slow-walk all appointments for twenty months or so, until the 2018 mid-terms. They'll retake the Senate, then they can hold up all of Trump's nominees just like the GOP did with Obama. Turnabout is fair play.
25
The democrats are going to lose Senate seats as it is in 2018 - if they continue to (dis)function as simply the party of obstruction, they'll produce an historically EPIC defeat that will make Hillary's thrashing look like a Tupperware party, and hand the Republican senate a super majority - continuing their spiral into irrelevance...PLEASE - DON'T STOP - RESIST!!!
6
"They'll retake the Senate"
Want to bet?
Want to bet?
1
Why did obstruction work for Republicans?
2
I rather have a president who can do something and doing it for the people at least on surface than a president who does nothing or nothing right for the people. At least, we will know or learn the next time.
2
Excellent -- the American people can hope for honest men -- not judges who pass themselves off as politicians.
6
Honest men? What about general Flinn? What about all the nominies for Cabinet posts, Almost all have lied or concealed nevaitive information. If they are your standard of honest judges we are in big trouble.
1
It took Obama about two years to can registered Democrat Flynn, and Trump figured him out in about three weeks...
1
If Trump figured Flynn out three weeks ago -- why didn't he fire him then??
7
He could make historic appointments if he's not impeached first.
3
Return to the rule of law and obedience to a literal interpretation of the Constitution. What more can anyone ask? The days of liberal judges who attempt to make the law rather than obeying it are over. There is a new sheriff in town, and he he is going to appoint judges who carry out the law as conceived by our founding fathers.
8
Just let Trump's choice of U.S. Attorney General, known racist and son-of-the-South, Jeff Sessions be your guide as to how Trump will shape the future of American Courts.
Next stop.
Jim Crow laws.
Next stop.
Jim Crow laws.
9
who all were deists not christians
@clemons
It makes no difference what you call them, if in the end, they're all racists.
It makes no difference what you call them, if in the end, they're all racists.
Didn't Mr. Sessions get an award in 2009 from the Alabama chapter of the NAACP? Gee, how do you suppose that happened? Wait, I'll bet I know. A whole state of Uncle Toms...
1
I look forward to more US District Court Judges who are sensitive to the victims of crime and terrorism and less sensitive to the rights of criminal recidivists.
Former or present assistant US Attorneys are a good group from which to choose District Court Judges. US Magistrate Judges are also potential District Court Judges based on an evaluation of their rulings in criminal cases. This is an opportunity to provide greater protection to American Society from predatory criminals by the Federal Courts.
Former or present assistant US Attorneys are a good group from which to choose District Court Judges. US Magistrate Judges are also potential District Court Judges based on an evaluation of their rulings in criminal cases. This is an opportunity to provide greater protection to American Society from predatory criminals by the Federal Courts.
6
another simplistic reasoning from a arm chair constitutional lawyer
The Congress has the power to create and eliminate Judgeships. Trump might just get Ryan to terminate them all and then start over with his cronies. Make a clean sweep of it. Minimize risk, the way a businessman would. Why payoff a judge when you can stock the bench with your guys?
4
They should eliminate the 9th Circuit.
The 9th Circuit has managed to achieve an embarrassing reversal rate of 80 percent, according to a study by the American Bar Association.
The 9th Circuit has managed to achieve an embarrassing reversal rate of 80 percent, according to a study by the American Bar Association.
2
I would like to see what these charts look like after eight years of President Trump appointing conservative judges In addition to the current Supreme Court vacancy he will probably have three more thus putting in place a solid conservative court for generations to come it is going to be a wonderful event to behold The conservative movement owes a great deal to Harry
5
A cabinet official has already resigned, three weeks into his term, and is likely to be further investigated, and you're sure Trump won't just last four years, but will be investigated.
During the course of Trump's campaign, the fact that he might win and would then be responsible for the future outlook of the Supreme Court was one of the more frightening aspects of his actually ending up in the Oval Office.
Now that he is there, and with each day reveals himself and his choice of cabinet members to be not only inept, but dangerous -- it makes the prospect of any candidate he might choose for the Court that more questionable, as there is nothing less than the judicial welfare of this country at stake, and
Americans have every cause to be concerned, if not alarmed.
Now that he is there, and with each day reveals himself and his choice of cabinet members to be not only inept, but dangerous -- it makes the prospect of any candidate he might choose for the Court that more questionable, as there is nothing less than the judicial welfare of this country at stake, and
Americans have every cause to be concerned, if not alarmed.
21
Trump's choice of employees hasn't been working out well for him: Flynn, Spicer, Conway. Where is he going to find enough dishonest judges to fill these seats?
31
Oh, there are tons of them out there. Pumped out of christian "universities" and the like. Fire and brimstone ingrained in their DNA, ready to strike out. They've been working on this for decades.
1
Plenty of material to work with...
What could possibly go wrong?
4
It is all part of Alt-President Bannon's Master Plan.
20
I'm sure enough of Trump's picks for judges will be abhorrent disasters but I do have faith that there are only so many through and through sociopaths available in the candidate pipeline.
It's even becoming clear that there's a wide line between the character traits of Neil Gorsuch and the committee of creeps who selected him.
It's even becoming clear that there's a wide line between the character traits of Neil Gorsuch and the committee of creeps who selected him.
2
The 9th Circuit has managed to achieve an embarrassing reversal rate of 80 percent, according to a study by the American Bar Association.
Certainly Trump can appoint judges better than what we have now.
Certainly Trump can appoint judges better than what we have now.
1
Justice Sarah Palin, Justice David Duke, and the most qualified, Justice Koch.
7
Al Capone and his mafia would have envied Trump. While Al Capone had to pay to get judges to do his bidding, Trump gets to appoint them as subservient to his interests from the very start. There is, however, one important difference between the traditional Mafia and Trump`s; to Capone and his ilk, a judge`s skin color and national ancestry were irrelevant, to Trump`s mob, on the other hand, white identity is absolutely essential.
6
the ivory soap gang
Be prepared to be surprised. As we've seen a few times lately, the Judiciary has its own set of rules, and its own self image, and even its own egos. And they've all actually been to school.
Just as Justice Roberts surprised many of us on the ACA ruling, (disgraceful!), we saw a less surprising, but just as useful, decision from the Seattle Judges, ("I'll see you in court!"...um, yeah). There are no guarantees either way, but those in the Judiciary branch seem to have one thing lacking in the Executive: A spine.
The check is in the mail, and the balance is due.
Just as Justice Roberts surprised many of us on the ACA ruling, (disgraceful!), we saw a less surprising, but just as useful, decision from the Seattle Judges, ("I'll see you in court!"...um, yeah). There are no guarantees either way, but those in the Judiciary branch seem to have one thing lacking in the Executive: A spine.
The check is in the mail, and the balance is due.
4
23 months or less till impeachment, and or Canada is invaded.
Lay your money down early for the best odds.
Esteemed jurists, please hang on for the sake of the Republic.
Spoiler alert.....
This weekend's SNL will have the cabinet and president as marionettes directed by Putie and Koch.
All will do in unison the Trump fachista straight armed salute, with the very small, tiny, teentsie thumb up. Then break into a take off of Mel Brooks "Springtime for Germany and Hitler"
As the two puppeteers grin.
Republicans that don't jump ship will go down with it.
Lay your money down early for the best odds.
Esteemed jurists, please hang on for the sake of the Republic.
Spoiler alert.....
This weekend's SNL will have the cabinet and president as marionettes directed by Putie and Koch.
All will do in unison the Trump fachista straight armed salute, with the very small, tiny, teentsie thumb up. Then break into a take off of Mel Brooks "Springtime for Germany and Hitler"
As the two puppeteers grin.
Republicans that don't jump ship will go down with it.
4
It's theatre of the absurd material, when a brilliant legal mind and law professor like Barack Obama, is blocked from nominating Federal Judges, but a narcisstic demagogue, totally devoid of any legal knowledge or sophistication, is given a blank check.
129
Obama a "brilliant legal mind and law professor"? Is this 'Obama' you reference the Obama who has never written a single article on any aspect of law, who was a part time lecturer on racial issues? Seems you're the "demagogue, totally devoid of any legal knowledge or sophistication".
7
"when a brilliant legal mind and law professor like Barack Obama, "
Obama had 44 unanimous losses in front of the Supreme Court. A record.
Facts are pesky things.
Obama had 44 unanimous losses in front of the Supreme Court. A record.
Facts are pesky things.
4
Ever read the Harvard Law Review?
I cannot imagine this ignorant bully who is served by arrogant bullies appointing judges.
2
He did a book report on all quiet on the western front & has the crib notes for a catcher in the rye.
You give him way too much credit for any amount of literacy.
2
Yes, Trump, who understands so little about government in general, is probably at his weakest as far as judges go. He has no idea of what law is or why it should be respected. Unfortunately, we cannot expect much help from the Republicans in the Senate in vetting them.
4
The president who fought the court all his life to make money - it is no wonder he will try to reshape it to his taste. But can he do it? yes, to some extents. A President without any moral campus cannot be fully trusted. America has been made great because by its great people not like Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump is getting the fruit of that greatness. Unless he becomes careful it could backfire his legacy for a historical event - impeachment by great people we know still exists in the country.
1
80% of cases have clear answers to them, according to one former law clerk at one Ct. of Appeals. It is obvious when a judge contravenes the purpose of a statute.
2
Its the Constition, Elliot. It was set up as the supreme law of the land. If the purpose of a statue violated the Constitution, the courts have to reject it.
Use the Republican playbook. Obstruct.
66
Only God himself can save our country
Trump will simply work off a Heritage Foundation list of X Attorneys to k=make his picks....sad, very sad
I assume he simply does not realize that the list represents opinions of only a fraction of the population.....
What a mess
Trump will simply work off a Heritage Foundation list of X Attorneys to k=make his picks....sad, very sad
I assume he simply does not realize that the list represents opinions of only a fraction of the population.....
What a mess
12
This makes me think back to primary season, when the mainstream news media fed us Donald Trump 24/7.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/leslie-moonves-donald-trump-may-87...
The money rolled in, didn't it. Mr. Moonves? And now, we are going to pay. Thanks.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/leslie-moonves-donald-trump-may-87...
The money rolled in, didn't it. Mr. Moonves? And now, we are going to pay. Thanks.
15
So much for "extreme vetting" with regard to Michael Flynn -- therefore his potential judicial picks all scare me. A janitor in the Trump Tower is likely to be considered for any post as long as he's white, male and "loyal"!
52
America, we had better make sure there's extreme, extreme, extreeeeeme vetting of these judges. For certain, Trump doesn't do that when he appoints people, as evidenced by Flynn resigning in disgrace on Monday. Trump had better not be able to appoint too many judges either, or our nation will be in very serious trouble going forward.
At my local courthouse, the NY County Supreme Court Building, there's an inscription carved in stone. You've seen the building if you saw "12 Angry Men", it's a very impressive court. The inscription is a slight misquote of a line from a letter by George Washington, and it's worth noticing.
"The True Administration of Justice is the Firmest Pillar of Good Government"
This is still true, I believe, but Trump lies all the time, so I am deeply worried.
At my local courthouse, the NY County Supreme Court Building, there's an inscription carved in stone. You've seen the building if you saw "12 Angry Men", it's a very impressive court. The inscription is a slight misquote of a line from a letter by George Washington, and it's worth noticing.
"The True Administration of Justice is the Firmest Pillar of Good Government"
This is still true, I believe, but Trump lies all the time, so I am deeply worried.
6
This is good as it may help America provide a powerhouse economy to create jobs for the poor and struggling minorities.
Courts have been snuffing out jobs creation for too long now and the poor and minorities struggle the most.
Courts have been snuffing out jobs creation for too long now and the poor and minorities struggle the most.
5
For the non-voters and third party nihilists who think there's little difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Thanks for the nightmare.
Thanks for the nightmare.
72
may i add: to the DNC party operatives; there WAS a difference between bernie and hillary supporters.
thanks for the nightmare.
thanks for the nightmare.
The difference was (and still is) Bernie isn't a Democrat.
So thanks for nothing.
And Good Luck getting Trump onboard with your agenda.
So thanks for nothing.
And Good Luck getting Trump onboard with your agenda.
1
I think you should direct your sarcasm at DWS and your own failed candidate.
"Right off the bat, Republican's refused to approve anyone". Doesn't that say it all? Let us pray (literally) for the health and ongoing commitment of the current staff! My apologies to their families for any missed time off, but we need you, now more than ever!
6
And what a shame this will be for someone, no less a President, who appears to have no respect for the law and whose words do an injustice to the office of the President. He has no respect for Judges. He'll appoint people who are like him or like him. Will they also be as incompetent as he appears to be in his role? Older Judges need to stay put and save the country from this travesty of a Presidency that is not even a month old. It would be one of the best things they could do for justice, balance and for America,
5
As to Southern Boy and Michjas, and the article,
The courts are not a place to favour either Republicans or Democrats. The courts are there for both justice, (We forget sometimes that most of their work is mundane and criminal/civil.) and as the Constitutional balance as intended by the original framers.
In the recent decisions concerning the travel ban, the first judge, Robart ( is a Republican, conservative, and appointed by Bush,, The three judge panel that voted 3-0 against Trump is one conservative, one independent, and one liberal, It is important to note,, ALL four judges voted against the travel ban. ALL..
The reason Trump does not want to take it to the Supreme Court is fear,, is creeping certainty that the Judges will not even split 4-4,,, they may go 8-0,, against the travel ban.
I think it should go to the Supreme Court. I'd like to see it.
The courts are not a place to favour either Republicans or Democrats. The courts are there for both justice, (We forget sometimes that most of their work is mundane and criminal/civil.) and as the Constitutional balance as intended by the original framers.
In the recent decisions concerning the travel ban, the first judge, Robart ( is a Republican, conservative, and appointed by Bush,, The three judge panel that voted 3-0 against Trump is one conservative, one independent, and one liberal, It is important to note,, ALL four judges voted against the travel ban. ALL..
The reason Trump does not want to take it to the Supreme Court is fear,, is creeping certainty that the Judges will not even split 4-4,,, they may go 8-0,, against the travel ban.
I think it should go to the Supreme Court. I'd like to see it.
22
It will be refreshing to have SCOTUS that renders decisions that are whether legal and constitutional rhter than if it is politically correct and activist in nature. Go get 'em, President Trump!
11
I don't believe the framers would ever have considered giving corporations the same legal rights as a citizen. The Roberts court is clearly activist in nature, and acts without regard to the constitution.
9
THINK about your comment. It is 2017, and you are in favor of judges interpreting the law according to, I assume, 'originalist' interpretations. There is no reason why a modern society, with its greater heterogeneity and technological advantages, cannot have its diversity accounted for both legally and constitutionally. To argue that it cannot is as 'activist' as what you believe you are condemning. When religions do not evolve to take account of contemporary conditions, we get intransigent, fundamentalist systems. Unfortunately for you, we live in a wonderful, vibrant, changing society -- and what you deem 'politically correct' protects the civil rights of not only those different from you, but also strengthens your own rights as well.
11
So, in your reasoning, if the court issues an opinion that you favor, is it "legal and constitutional" or is it, "politically correct and activist in nature"?
Be careful how you answer. The answer could be construed as hypocritical.
And, keep in mind the "politically correct" and "activist" ruling in Citizen's United issued by a conservative court when you form your answer.
Be careful how you answer. The answer could be construed as hypocritical.
And, keep in mind the "politically correct" and "activist" ruling in Citizen's United issued by a conservative court when you form your answer.
3
Now is the time for we the people to pay closer attention to electing judges at our local level and watch the actions of those in all the other venues who are shaping every aspect of our lives! The use of all the kinds of media is one way to keep the public informed but all of it needs to be supported by empirical evidence!
2
Our country has been stolen by Trump who wanted a new toy.
2
Well, no, we actually gave it to him to play with as long as he's interested. What does that say about us?
Dear Moderators,
Alright, it's been over an hour since I started trying to submit comments. What's with the selectivity? Are all of my comments being bounced, or delayed? Why? I didn't curse, wasn't (terribly) abusive, and so on. I really want to know, why were the first two comments allowed from anonymous Trump supporters doing their best to normalize what Trump is up to? How many anti-Trump comments have been blocked or delayed in the last hour? Enquiring minds probably want to know.
As for the judges' vacancies, I trust that Donald J. Trump's sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, is not going to be replaced. I don't trust any of Trump's appointees, of course, "out like Flynn" as they say. And I don't think Trump should count his judges before they're appointed.
Alright, it's been over an hour since I started trying to submit comments. What's with the selectivity? Are all of my comments being bounced, or delayed? Why? I didn't curse, wasn't (terribly) abusive, and so on. I really want to know, why were the first two comments allowed from anonymous Trump supporters doing their best to normalize what Trump is up to? How many anti-Trump comments have been blocked or delayed in the last hour? Enquiring minds probably want to know.
As for the judges' vacancies, I trust that Donald J. Trump's sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, is not going to be replaced. I don't trust any of Trump's appointees, of course, "out like Flynn" as they say. And I don't think Trump should count his judges before they're appointed.
7
Dan, maybe it's because of the editor's wish to add a little variety to the usual 24/7 echo chamber Trump bashing that is the Comments Section?
3
Dear BearBoy,
That's besides the point. If people don't want to hear 24/7 Trump bashing, they can head over to Fox News, Brietbart, and the Daily Stormer. To slant the comments unfairly toward delusional Trump backers makes no sense over here, this is where we prefer to rely on logic, facts, that kind of thing.
That's besides the point. If people don't want to hear 24/7 Trump bashing, they can head over to Fox News, Brietbart, and the Daily Stormer. To slant the comments unfairly toward delusional Trump backers makes no sense over here, this is where we prefer to rely on logic, facts, that kind of thing.
1
@BBoy
It's not about "bashing" Trump -- It's about discussing what this so-called "president" is doing to this country.
If you have trouble with that -- why not go to Breitbart or Fox???
You'll find plenty of company in the echo chamber you seem to prefer.
It's not about "bashing" Trump -- It's about discussing what this so-called "president" is doing to this country.
If you have trouble with that -- why not go to Breitbart or Fox???
You'll find plenty of company in the echo chamber you seem to prefer.
2
He may not be in office that long.
6
Let's hope for that. At least we knew in the past that judges who were put in place followed the rule of law to uphold our Constitution, donald seems determined to circumvent our Constitution in any way possible to help him personally profit and "win" to build his ego. I've never understood those people why his few followers believed he would put America first. He certainly in his 70 years, never put anyone but himself and immediate family first. The "charity" he donates most to is himself.
2
As America's churches continue to go out of business from the dying appeal of their intellectual bankruptcy and orchestrated consumer fraud, President Trump and Vice Pastor Pence will transition the increasing number of unemployed pastors and priests from the church halls to the halls of the judiciary.
The transition from Prosperity Gospel to legal theocracy will be seamless.
Christian Shariah Law is here at last - thank 'God' almighty.
Let the Crusades resume.
The transition from Prosperity Gospel to legal theocracy will be seamless.
Christian Shariah Law is here at last - thank 'God' almighty.
Let the Crusades resume.
56
Amen and Gosh we are a lot like our enemy with our religious claptrap. I want Trump to stay through 2020 so we don't get the minister. He may resemble daddy Warbucks but I don't want another Salem witch hunt or McCarthy era.
3
If Mr. Trump is as consistent with federal judiciary appointments as he has been with everything else he has done since becoming president, then we can fully expect that those appointees with arrive for confirmation hearings in a clown car wearing clown suits. I can't believe that a minority of the electorate and the extreme right have turned the government into a laughingstock and perhaps a very dangerous laughingstock.
32
Whoops: Should read "will arrive for..."
Given Donald's appointments to major cabinet positions, we can reasonably expect lower court appointments similar in ideology to John Roberts. If Americans grow in numbers as a force of organized peaceful disruptive protests, most likely the once ignored circuit judge nominees will come under increasing public scrutiny. God help us.
17
For the last decade the federal court system has been filled with liberal judges who legislate from the bench, who read between the lines in interpreting the Constitution of the United States of America. Now with President Trump, we have the opportunity to appoint judges to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, who will interpret the Constitution as it was written, who will read between the lines, who will not infer from what the Constitution says, but act according to its scripture. Thank you.
17
Nice try at arm-chair, constitutional law.
So the courts must rule that 45 must leave office in keeping with strict enforcement of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, right?
Oh, while we're at it, a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment might not go over very well with many Americans when they are all forced to turn in their arms unless they part of a "well regulated militia."
So the courts must rule that 45 must leave office in keeping with strict enforcement of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, right?
Oh, while we're at it, a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment might not go over very well with many Americans when they are all forced to turn in their arms unless they part of a "well regulated militia."
80
If you look at comments from both the left and the right, you will see that each perceives judges from the "other" side as legislating from the bench.
I also need to point out that many things in the constitution are vague and were compromises because not all the framers agreed on what exactly it should be. In fact, it was framed in such a way that it gave southern states more power than they actually should have had (by denying the humanity of slaves, but counting them as 3/5 of a person--thereby raising the population of the southern states--one of the reasons that 4 of the the first 5 Presidents were from the South. It is also silly to interpret the constitution in the same way as they did in the 1800 when notions about society have changed so much and society has changed so much. BTW--there have been studies which show that Scalia, who was supposedly such an originalist, managed to give broader interpretations of concepts when it came to "conservative" litigants and narrower interpretations when it came to "liberal" litigants. To say that no judge "reads between the lines" is naive.
I also need to point out that many things in the constitution are vague and were compromises because not all the framers agreed on what exactly it should be. In fact, it was framed in such a way that it gave southern states more power than they actually should have had (by denying the humanity of slaves, but counting them as 3/5 of a person--thereby raising the population of the southern states--one of the reasons that 4 of the the first 5 Presidents were from the South. It is also silly to interpret the constitution in the same way as they did in the 1800 when notions about society have changed so much and society has changed so much. BTW--there have been studies which show that Scalia, who was supposedly such an originalist, managed to give broader interpretations of concepts when it came to "conservative" litigants and narrower interpretations when it came to "liberal" litigants. To say that no judge "reads between the lines" is naive.
36
You cannot "interpret" anything "as it was written." Inherent in the notion of interpretation is that there is the possibility of debate about what something "written" means. There would be no need for courts if there was no doubt about what the Constitution means (which is a fascist point of view: no need for judges). The Constitution, also, is not "scripture" (though, like scripture, it can be interpreted). What is most troubling about the situation Southern Boy describes is that the President is a proven liar, bigot, and bully (demonstrated by hours and hours of recordings of what he has actually said). Luckily for the USA, the founders foresaw this kind of president as a possibility and constructed a system that might--if it is not destroyed by the silence of our Congress--avert the disaster. We can all disagree about interpretations, but only if we live in an open and free society.
93
70% of the appellate courts are now majority Democrat. It is reasonable to expect a comparable amount of control for 2 years and to lodge great hope in the upcoming midterm elections.
There is a fundamental failure here in analyzing the situation. District Court judges are trial judges. In maybe 1% of their cases, they make law. Otherwise they apply the facts to well worn legal principals. Their appointments are of next to no political significance. What matters, instead are the appellate judges, who make law all the time. Most likely Trump will get to appoint around a dozen appellate judges in the next two years. Those appointments are the only ones that really matter.
There is a fundamental failure here in analyzing the situation. District Court judges are trial judges. In maybe 1% of their cases, they make law. Otherwise they apply the facts to well worn legal principals. Their appointments are of next to no political significance. What matters, instead are the appellate judges, who make law all the time. Most likely Trump will get to appoint around a dozen appellate judges in the next two years. Those appointments are the only ones that really matter.
11
Michjas, please. It's evident your only purpose in commenting is to support Trump. Your fundamental failure is that you can never say anything against Trump, and I can't trust your sophistry one bit.
5
Dan -- you totally miss the boat. I am a leftist attorney. 99% of comments here are liberal and 80% of those are nonsense -- emotional, illogical claims that declare they are right based on the fact that liberalism is inherently right. My purpose is to reveal the inanity of the comments of the vast majority. My goal is to raise the reasoning of those on the left by revealing legitimate conservative arguments which they repeaedly fails to address.
3
@Dan: in your kneejerk reaction, you could not possibly be more wrong. Michjas is a liberal.
3