Such a bittersweet moment for Mr. Kavanaugh. To reach the highest judicial position in the land - likely a lifelong dream come true - and have to thank such a disgusting and unworthy man for the honour.
A serial liar; a serial adulterer; a man accused of sexually assaulting 20 women; a man who has been sued 3500 times for bilking business partners and customers; a man who conned thousands out of their hard earned money for a phoney education; a man who plays footsie with enemies and insults friends; a man who shows his racist tendencies and scapegoating ways time and time again.
I may disagree with Kavanaugh on every single issue, but he deserved better than to get this honour from such an undeserving man.
1
Well, at least it wasn't the crazy religious cult lady
Brett Cavanaugh is a right wing ideologue chosen solely to deliver archconservative judgements.
And he's the second accidental nominee due to a stolen presidential election. An election where multiple senior members of the president's campaign knew via emails (since published) that Russia wanted to help his campaign and then they chose to hide this from the FBI and lie.
He's also an accidental nominee given he's far too conservative to pass a closely divided Senate under the filibuster rules that all current SCOTUS members (apart from Gorsuch) needed for confirmation. (Gorsuch was the first illegitimate Trump nominee with the added shame that he knowingly took a seat belonging to Merrick Garland.)
So now, rather than wait for the Fall elections to hear the people's voice, Mitch brought the Senate back into session to jam this through. There's no urgency for Senate oversight of the border fiasco, but plenty of fear Mueller revelations will spoil the party.
Some say this game is lost, but the depth and breadth of outrage shown across the country since the inauguration gives me hope. Senate pro-choice R's and swing state Dems will get earfuls.
Given the existential level of threat, I would consider two additional measures: Weekly national strikes (Fridays are best). And, in a nod to Lysistrata and the urgency to stem the war on women, the withholding of sex until women's rights to the full range of family planning services are fully ensured.
1
Every journalist in the US should go back to the Ken Starr testimony on November 19, 1998 and watch him squirm when he refuses to answer some simple questions posed to him by Representative Zoe Lofgren.
LOFGREN: In or about November 1997 did you discuss with any person the possibility that a tape recording might exist on which a woman claimed to have had sexual contact with President Clinton?
STARR: I am not recalling that, the specificity of your question suggests that there may be information and I'm happy to respond to information if that is -- if that's...
LOFGREN: Is there any possibility that the answer is yes?
STARR: I have no recollection of it, but I am happy to search my recollection. This is the first time anyone has asked me such a question, and you are asking...
LOFGREN: It was possible it was before January then?
STARR: Yes. But you said very specifically November of 1997, so that's.....
...
LOFGREN: The first question was when did you first hear any information to the effect that a tape recording existed of a woman, any woman, who claimed to have had a sexual contact with President Clinton.
STARR: I'm unable to answer that question without -- I will have to -- you are saying any information relating to any -- I would have to search my recollection. I prepared today for questions that go to this referral. So I will have to -- search my recollection.
Starr never answered. Will Kavanaugh? How much did the OIC condone illegal taping to "get" Clinton?
1
Too bad it couldn't have been Judge Roy Moore or Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
With them, you always know you are getting What's Making America Great Again.
Well -- maybe next time.
2
Judge Kavanaugh is a truly inspired pick. He’s a brilliant jurist whose nomination can only be opposed by crazed, unpatriotic Russian agents
2
hardly a surprise, as kavanaugh has said he doesn't think presidents should be encumbered with silly things like investigations and indictments
3
It is certainly possible US Supreme Court Judge Kavanaugh is nominated by a soon to be indicted criminal. If this possibility become reality, how would Kavanaugh feel about his nomination?
We all know Trump is a pathological liar, a person who has little respect for women or women's rights, who has gone bankrupt three (3) times, who continues to avoid showing his income taxes..and no doubt has some liability with respect to possible money laundering involving the Russians..and lastly, the Steele dossier which so far has proven correct except for the allegation of the "night of nights" with Trump and various Russian working girls during the Miss Universe contest in 2013.
How can anyone be proud of anything Trump attempts..
3
The Republicans have let the Country down, a Jesuit! How can he claim "an open mind" when he was brought up on dogma. Where is the separation of Church and State?
2
You can't get a straight definition of "establishment of religion" from any of these preposterous poseurs.
They have more than established that they don't even understand the processes of establishment.
Nothing surprising here.
One thing that's become obvious is, Trump might be erratic/impulsive and everything else, but if you pay close attention he DOES reveal his decided intentioned even before he states it, but because we've become accustomed to his hourly drama full of distractions,his Apprentice delivery then works on those who still wear the Trump-coloured glasses.
Trump definitely has made history in many ways but this takes the cake--How does a sitting President UNDER investigation,who clearly breaks laws and admits to them,knowingly or otherwise and has caused strain among our longtime allies get the privilege to pick not 1 but 2 SCOTUS justice in less than 2 years?!
Let's face it people, WE the People have let this country down!
I'm beyond embarrassed!
1
Ginsburg should have gone while the getting was good. She’ll be next.
Trump's entire litigation history is a long sad tale of using the profoundly indecisive legal system as vehicle for extortion via legal fees.
You are saying that he "deliberated"? Sounds unlikely.
1
I assume he is an immoral conservative.
Birds of a feather flock together. This IS a political attack meant to inflame Democrats. Ever since watching Trump from the onset of his campaign, to now, convinced me he is trying to spark Democrats to violence.
2
Thank you Hillary Clinton for running such a miserable campaign, especially in states carried by President Obama, like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. Thank you pundits who did nothing but praise Hillary while minimizing Bernie's candidacy. Thank you Loretta Lynch for meeting Bill Clinton on the tarmac and thereby enabling Director Comey to give his opinion of Hillary and her emails. Thank you Harry Reid for exercising the nuclear option and eliminating the requirement of 60 Senators for judicial nominees.
1
At this point, it's all about the Mueller investigation. The tie-breaking judge has got to believe that a President is above the law. One and only one criterion. Trump may be loathsome, but he's not stupid.
1
Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, golfing friends. These are constitutional scholars?
1
If this is democracy, why we don't switch to something else where the Trumps, the GOPs, the NRA, the Gorsuchs, Alitos, Thomas, Pruitts, Ivankas, Jarreds, etc don't have a chance? Just a thought!
Obama won in 2008 and appointed 2 liberals to the court. Trump won in 2016 and has appointed 2 conservatives. That's what happened. You can wring your hands over it, create safe spaces for those who are triggered by democracy, and make false comparisons to Nazi Germany all you want. But none of those things will get rid of the Republicans. We all need to take a deep breath and get everybody who's upset over Trump to actually take the trouble to vote this time. That's all we have to do. No intensive medical care. No suicide interventions. No civil war. We just need to go to a polling place in October or November and make some little marks on a piece of paper or a computer display. If we do it in the same numbers that we did in 2008, we'll start to get our train back on the rails.
3
I appreciate the author referring to Fox as a television crew.
1
KAVANAUGH
2
The Democrats need only ask one "question" to the winning 2018 Miss Thief Justice Pageant contestant:
"Nope."
I wonder who Putin is going to pick.
1
Anyone but swing-vote Kavanaugh.
Ideally, Barrett.
Does anyone actually think this idiot's pick for the SP will not eradicate civil rights, women's rights and generally find for corporations? This entire administration is one bus wreck after another and now with this pick, civilization is at grave risk for the foreseeable future.
1
Well, I'm glad that he's been consulting his golf partners.
2
This is not news. The NYT should wait and cover actual news, like when he announces his nominee.
Just ignore the drivel, please.
1
The NYT has just run a main homepage story announcing what, exactly? That Trump simply made up his mind - even though you don't know exactly what his decision is? Come on, guys. This is just political gossiping. Giving credibility to the pure, petty, Trumpian gamesmanship of it all. You should be above this.
1
From the picks, it's sadly all about religion, religious liberty cases, religious speech and symbols, denominational preferences....
Yet we are supposed to be a secular representative republic.
We're constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. ^^^And freedom *from* religion.^^^
Women will be subjugated to a patriarchal government deciding for them as to their personal reproductive lives.
Rights will be taken away. Hostility to women as the norm.
This, from a man who somehow became president as a self-styled Manhattan playboy with 5 children to 3 different mothers. On tape bragging about his sexual pursuits just before election day.
Who admitted to paying off a porn actress and a playboy bunny for their silence just before his election. Who has multiple complaints from women from improper conduct to actual assault.
1
“Mr. Trump has been uncharacteristically circumspect about what he is thinking as the process has unfolded.”
Translation: He has no understanding of how the judicial system works, who the candidates are, or what’s going on in general.
Frederick Douglass! ? ??
Great Pick Mr. President! Great Pick! Yuge!
: ) L
1
I believed Trump when he said he didn't bring up the subject of abortion with any of the potential Justices.
He’s undoubtedly already an expert on this subject.
Why should he waste their time and his?
1
First thing tomorrow the GOP must expand the Supreme Court to 18 justices and President Trump must fill these vacancies by 3 pm tomorrow. This is vital to our dying democracy! Justice Kagan was seated during an election year and therefore is illegal and illegitimate and must be removed! All life on the planet depends on Kagan being removed, or at least the Court must be expanded to make illegitimate Kagan’s illegal vote moot!
1
Trump has a sister? Is she also a Sr. Advisor? Any cousins we need to know about?
If it is proven that donald trump conspired with a hostile foreign power to become the President of the United States, then all decisions he made as "president" are illegitimate.
It was proven on day 1 of the corrupt Mueller witch hunt that there never was any collusion
3
NBC announced that it's Kavanaugh.
They crashed the Trump Show.
Please stop legitimizing Trump's right to choose with these headlines. He is under investigation. Clearly a conflict of interest. That is where the drama is, not in who he is illegitimately tossing in the air like smoke and whistles. You guys fall for his charades every day.
2
Democratic Senator Bob Casey of PA just committed an unforced error.
He said he would not vote for Hardiman who is from Pittsburgh.
Hardiman's wife's family are prominent Western PA Democrats going back 100 years.
This is Democratic votes he will be losing.
2
True Observer: We don't choose our Supreme Court Justices on the basis of where their spouses family lives. Sen. Casey, my representative, is doing exactly what I want him to do. He has earned my vote once again in November, because he is representing me. I don't want the occupant of the White House to nominate anyone until after the midterms, or ideally, until after the criminal investigation of him and his buddies has concluded.
My reaction? Who cares. So Donald Trump has decided on his Supreme Court selection. One extreme conservative or another. Which one of them can hide the fact that he/she wants to undo Roe v. Wade? What a joke.
How long will the majority progressive party put up with their fellow countrymen and women on the right actively cheating, stealing SCOTUS picks, and turning a blind eye to Trump's many alleged crimes? When is enough enough?
And why are Democratic lawmakers even talking about the merits of the nominee himself or herself? Simply do not engage in the conversation at all, given the illegitimate nature of the pick, and the fact that Republicans would not even consider Obama's choice. The norms ought to be applied equally. Let the people decide, indeed?
For goodness sake Democrats, show some guts and stop caving to these liars and cheaters.
2
In many respects, the USA under Trump is very close to Banana Republic. He is openly threatening almost all the nations including our closest Allies to accept his dictates or be ready to face economical and political war with him. Here in main land, he threatening every one including year old babies and their mothers to be ready to go to jail leaving their kids alone if you dare to cross the borders. His few selected right wing hawks are guiding him or mis-guiding him to take many extreme measures every day. And, now if he will get the extremist SC, only God knows; what will happen to the secular minded majority???
I don't know why anyone should be surprised by this idiocy. For the last 25 years, the American people were content sitting on the couch election after election while the Republicans gradually gerrymandered districts to their political favor and survival. Why wouldn't they think they can do the same with the Supreme Court...?
Just like global warming and glaciers, once everything your took for granted is gone, it is gone forever. Same goes for democracy. Wake up America...get out in the streets and make your voice heard between now and November...and VOTE!
1
It's a stolen seat.
2
How can we let this useless president to nominate anybody. We all criticize Venezuela but we have a Maduro Trump as our president.
Thank goodness Hillary Clinton is not our president as I dread to think of the nominees she would have put forward to be our next Supreme Court justices. We would have had two very liberal justices to continue our country down an ultra liberal path. This would have been terrible for our country. Perish the thought.
There were people who deliberately voted for President Trump because he promised he would select conservative Supreme Court justices and he is actually following through on his promises. He has kept many of his promises that he made during his campaign but the selection of the Supreme Court justice is one of his most important. The latest justice selected to the bench should be on the Supreme Court for a very long time. That is so reassuring for the future of our country. They will decide cases according to the constitution of the US. This will have a positive effect on our country for the foreseeable future. Thank goodness.
5
Many, many people with severe head injuries agree with you.
1
Thank goodness for our DVR (and basic cable).
We'll be watching ANYthing but this craziness.
Why is the media allowing itself to be played like this? Tune in at 9pm to find out. It is like the opening of Al Capone's vault. (Though the result will be far more horrifying.)
4
This is what this has come down to...converting the nomination of a Supreme Court judge into a cheap, low class reality TV show. I'm sure to Trump this looks less like a mockery of the process and more like the only way through which he can process this moment. The spotlight and publicity, where the focus is naturally him...
1
I can guess how Trump reacted:
"In a phone call with Mr. Trump, Mr. Schumer even floated the idea of nominating Judge Merrick B. Garland..."
The announcement of the announcement! That Trump has "made a decision" without disclosing what was decided isn't news. It's Trump manipulating the media. How can we not despair when our leading newspaper posts this as its top story?
2
The choice will be simple, which candidate is willing to sign the loyalty to Trump pledge. Every Democrat who interviews the
Trump Poodle needs to know their view on Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans failing to do their Constitutional Duty to act on President Obama’s candidate, Mr. Garland. Then we need to know why they are willing to give up their professional qualifications to someone who shows no respect for our judicial system, threatens Judges by name, uses racial slurs about Judges and on the day Kennedy retired ,was all over media saying we didn’t need more judges on the border to process refugees because they are all corrupt. Why would anyone who had an ounce of self- respect accept a nomination from a man know as a corrupt businessman, a lying politician and a known racist, and bully who has no respect for the office he holds and responsibilities that go with it. So far, Trump choices for any position have not ended well.
Get over Merrick Garland. The Senate followed The Biden Rule in 2016:
" As a senator more than two decades ago, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. argued that President George Bush should delay filling a Supreme Court vacancy, should one arise, until the presidential election was over, and that it was “essential” that the Senate refuse to confirm a nominee to the court until then." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-dela...
4
Based on comments, everyone and everything, every not progressive judge is a horrible and wrong choice regardless of circumstances.
It’s very nice to get understand the political position of progressives. Fascinating, but it’s level of political tolerance is...I would say early Brezhnev.
2
It would matter who the nominee is if we were a vibrant democracy. No longer. We are run by fundamentalists and those that are afraid of them.
1
We can also expect Trump's nominee to believe that the "commerce clause" denies any power to Congress to quash economic competition between states.
This should almost "be best" dog and pony show on the airwaves tonight as the POTUS attempts to ensure the Supreme Court will turn the clock back and thus give him yet another opportunity to remind us all of how great he is, what a stroke of genius is this appointment, etc., etc. Let the Democrats accord him the same treatment that McConnell gave to justice Garland and perhaps a few GOP senators will have the integrity and fortitude to raise their voice for justice and fairness instead of summarily rubber stamping Trump's choice.
When judicial independence is not considered a kangaroo might as welll be nominated.
1
I think it’s certain that Trump will dramatize and turn what should be a serious announcement into a circus. Trump will make people cringe world wide if he carries on like he did at his recent Montana event.
1
When the day comes that we have 66 Democratic Senators and a Democratic President, Gorsuch should be removed from the SC for the “ bad behavior” of accepting a seat that was open due to a violation of the Constitution
When McConnel failed to perform his Constitutional duty to provide “ advice” on Garland, Obama should have performed his duty by appointing Garland directly to the SC. Sure the Republicans could have gone to court on it, but I’m pretty sure they would have lost 5-4 in the SC, after another non-partisan decision based on the Bush v. Gore precedent
10
"When the day comes that we have 66 Democratic Senators and a Democratic President, ..."
The House of Representatives has to vote to impeach before the Senate can try anyone.
Tip: Read ALL of the US Constitution.
1
Dems help Trump everytime they act like he deserves to be considered a legitimate President. And that's all they do. That's why Ocasio Cortez superior when it comes to finding the right track. Dems will diss her before they see that what the nation needs is not them but more of her. Trump has shown that experience means little or nothing. I'll take her 30-second platform over Schumer and company anytime.
Trump has only proven to me that the US public is incompetent at basic due diligence and character assessment.
I don't really see why it matters who is chosen: both are threatening women's rights and gay rights.
1
On this 150th anniversary of the 14th amendment and 45 years after the Supreme Court decision, Roe v Wade is again at sharp focus when discussing nominees to the highest court. The fundamental core of Roe is the settled precedent that women have the LIBERTY to control their own bodies. A woman must be able to decide when she will be pregnant. Opponents like to disparage women’s choices by diminishing this right of liberty to decide what happens with their bodies as “abortion on demand”.
A woman’s decision to exercise that liberty and make a decision to terminate a pregnancy will come at different points in time for different women as each circumstance is unique to them. The government has no right to step in and eliminate a woman’s liberty to choose what is best for her, her family or her future. Women must remain able to make a decision to exercise their fundamental right of individual independence and liberty. This part of our core identity and values as American citizens is essential. The State must be restrained from putting undue barriers to women for access in exercising this liberty.
I’ve never been “pro-abortion”. I’ve always been pro LIBERTY which means that women have the right to control what happens to their own bodies and manage their own health choices without the government inserting itself to substitute its’ judgment as superior to a woman on matters over her own body.
5
I gag whenever somebody tells me that the law is equally protective of all in this frozen relic of slavery.
The names he appears to be considering seem highly qualified and solid. I look forward to the announcement.
17
With 10 red-state Democratic Senators up for re-election this November, Democratic politicians and left wing interest groups know that there is absolutely nothing they can do to stop the confirmation of Trump's pick. All of this "sky is falling" nonsense is being put forward to raise money from liberals. Expect to see fundraising emails flooding your inbox shortly.
"Politics is show business for ugly people."
11
There is one thing. Do the right thing regardless of upcoming elections and let the chips fall where they may. Heitkamp isn’t a real democrat anyway.
It's the young male with the "flip" hair style.
Lots of questions.
I don't expect any Trump nominee to be honest about the meaning of "establishment of religion" and the specific denial of power to Congress to respect any such belief in legislation.
1
My mother told me when I was growing up that the best way to handle a grandstanding bully was to ignore him. But this was in Canada while in your country you do exactly the opposite.
12
I wish Trump would stop running the presidency like some serialized, Trump-scripted, tabloid "reality" show.
And the winner will be....???
No big mystery here:
It will be whomever is likely to be: (a) the biggest Trump GOP partisan loyalist, (b) who doesn't let settled law, ethics, objectivity, and precedent get in the way of his judicial decisions, and (c) believes that our Constitution says the president has dictatorial powers to do as he pleases and who cannot be prosecuted for crimes, even if he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue, or is found to have colluded with a foreign power--namely Putin and the Russians--to be awarded the presidency in 2016 by the Electoral College.
Three cheers for our banana republic and soon-to-be third world country, where the haves rule and the have-nots have not, the press is stifled and persecuted, and the judiciary is purged of honest, fair-minded judges who cannot be bought, threatened, or corrupted.
8
Do we really need to read and hear all day that Trump might do this, or he might do that? The media is just playing into his manipulation of him. Stop reporting speculation and wait till there is real news.
13
Good points - but without speculation, the news media would have to consider real problems: jobs, low income jobs, part-time jobs, disappearing jobs, schools that aren't preparing students for real jobs, and so on.
And they might have to consider that more than 50% of all births are to women who are not married. They might have to consider that the best thing a couple can do for their children is to love each other and marry so the children can have both parents to love and care for and teach them.
They might have to consider drug use, from alcohol and marijuana to methamphetamine and heroin, drugs which are detrimental to the fetus and to the developing mind, drugs which cost the US taxpayer billions a year.
3
Well, I would guess in this instance, as in many others, the reporting is important, especially since this decision could affect the US for decades to come...
Another grandstanding "All About Trump" production. I suppose since it is a lifetime appointment who ever is selected stands some chance of outlasting the Trump taint that seems to stick to and smear the reputations of anyone who gets close to this odious person. Count on Trump to make it a big production - and no doubt tomorrow will be a self-congratulatory tweet about how big his "ratings" were. What a worthless weak excuse for a president.
4
Once again,we must dig out the cliches of "those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" and, of course, "elections have consequences". If anyone has studied the Supreme Court in America and its history, this pick and the ultimate form the current court will take has the makings of the "Lochner" Courts that started in 1897 which were totally pro business anti-regulation even to the point, in later years, attempting to dismantle child labor laws. Tie that in to the long standing "Federalist Society", a cabal of right wing lawyers and judges whom would like nothing better than to carry on that ideology adding on the elimination of all rights of minority groups and women. It has been claimed that upon consultation with members of the "Federalist Society" Trump made his current picks.
Well in to the 1930's this same court fought tooth and nail against FDR and the implementation of The New Deal and it was not until 1936 that the tide eventually turned, in other words, it took almost FORTY YEARS to change the court and its direction.
Under the current circumstances and if Republicans are able to maintain control of the House in the 2018 mid-terms, can America survive that long?
4
5 whites, all men, banning abortions with 3 women, including a Latina, dissenting. I could see the optics getting a lot of play.
9
Thanks non-voters, third party fools, and "independents" in Michigan, Pa., and Wisconsin. You sold your children out.
15
Don't expect any recognition of guilt or admission of mistakes made...the consequences of what you mentioned will play out over many years and unfortunately given the times we live in, it will take people as long to come around and realize what they have done.
Even worse, it is usually the upcoming generations who will have to live with and eventually clean-up this mess.
I practiced in front of Mayanne Trump, who was then a federal judge in Newark NJ. Surprisingly, Ms. Trump was a well- respected and fair-minded judge. You can be certain that anyone she recommends is more qualified than anyone her brother recommends. Unless you are into guilt by association, you would be sure to view Ms. Trump’s opinion as worthy of consideration
8
My prediction is that he will do. Cheney and appoint himself.
1
We will all see how this plays out, but I expect Trump to pick someone who will protect his business and personal interests, not a social conservative. He doesn't care about abortion and certainly isn't going to put it above his own pocketbook. I'm guessing it's going to be Kavanaugh.
2
I will not be watching "Who's Going to be the Next Justice of the Supreme Court?" starring Donald J. Trump. I have had it up to here with his big announcements veiled in this game show-like circus atmosphere. Every day he comes out with some missive about who he is thinking about...first 4 then 3 then 2. And the media plays along. So, tonight I will find some other entertainment to occupy my time.
11
This is a very good time to check and make sure that you are registered to vote. If you have moved or not voted in some time you may have some catching-up to do. But please do it. We MUST VOTE in the coming elections.
9
Why not just just pick the sister straight away unless Sean Hannity wants the job? (Technically I don't think you have to have a college degree, let alone a law degree, so Hannity's high school diploma should be enough.)
5
The fact that Trump gets to decide anything beyond which C-lister gets fired from The Apprentice is too depressing for words.
8
This is what happens when people don't vote. Wake-up people!
10
There is only the thickness of a piece of fine linen difference between the choices. Trump seeks the drama of the moment.
As for Mueller and Trump the Court may never hear of question of whether a President is subject to a subpoena. My guess is Mueller is not interested in hearing Trump version of events in a year and half. On the obstruction issue Mueller can file that report fairly soon. If Trump chooses to remain silent and leave the testimony of others to go unanswered by him under oath, then it might be a damning report. If he opts out doubtful he can tweet his way out of the mess that might follow.
As for Rudy how can a witch hunt into a hoax present a perjury trap for a stable genius? By definition a hoax lacks in basis in fact.
2
The golfing president consults his golf buddies on all serious matters of state. Anyone surprised?
4
The $COTU$ is now owned and controlled by the moneyed interests in this country. The 5 ultra conservatives that will be the Roberts Court will now brazenly render their decisions based upon whatever corporations and special interests want.
In fact, we've already seen it in the Janus case. It's okay for corporations to spend unlimited money on the political system via campaign donations (Citizens United) and it doesn't matter even if a single shareholder objects, but workers' Unions are prohibited now from collecting union dues simply because a single individual objects. Think about that.
11
Loath Trump as you will (and I will), but if it comes down to Kavanaugh or Hardiman, at least the President's moral obligation to nominate an extremely well-qualified and indisputably strong legal talent has been met. Moreover, conservative though they each may be, neither are activists. So, if the Right can live with Kagans and RBGs of the world, then the Left should be able to live with either of these two. I'd call it a win for everyone.
19
It most certainly is not a win for everybody. It is a win for those who wish to the Constitution eviscerated.
7
See Merrick Garland.
10
Re Merrick Garland: see The Biden Rule.
Making a big production out of this like it were a TV show. This guy is nuts and plays America for fools. Hope Mueller has him 6 ways to Sunday and he is impeached and removed. This guy is as dirty as they come.
11
The King of Chutzpah (inadequately defined as colossal gall) otherwise known Mitch McConnell has spoken. Earlier today he was complaining that Senate Democrats, even before Trump Show began, stated they would not vote for his nominee to the Supreme Court. The Chutzpah King berated these Senators, accusing them of not acting in the best interests of of the American people. I have two words for the Chutzpah King - Merrill Garland.
5
Am I the only one who has noticed the similarity between Trump's process and LeBron James's for choosing the team for which he was leaving the Cavaliers?
Trump spends the morning quizzing his golf buddies'
gets "pressed" by his own sister on this generation long appointment.
This shallow showbiz is beyond pathetic.
5
he might nominate himself and hold both jobs. na, he wouldn't do that, without being chief.
1
This would be an excellent time for Democratic legislators to remind the nation that Tump lost the popular vote in November 2016. Plus, Donald hates to hear it..
2
Obama selected far far left sotomayor and cookie cutter democrat Kagan. Republicans didn’t like it but didn’t lose their minds.
However the judiciary is vital to democrats because they don’t legislate to achieve their goals, they sue to achieve their goals.
That’s why they are acting even more unhinged than usual.
21
I refuse to tune in to the Trump Reality Show. This isn't a game. It's our future. But what does he care about our future? Not a whit.
5
I'm breaking my moratorium all things-all the time-all ways Trump and write a comment. Mr. President: I am not awaiting your pronouncement that "you have made a decision!" as if you're announcing the moon landing. Your schtick, your patter, the 3 card monte, is old.
7
Supreme Court?
I'll know first. I'm watching Russian TV.
6
"NYTimes, ... please quit providing marketing support to the traitorous administration ..."
The NYTimes is simply expressing frustration because it's been unable to guess Trump's choice.
3
Has there ever been another president who treated his Supreme Court pick like the finale of a reality show? “And on tonight’s episode we will be handing the rose to the next person who can decide the fate of America.”
3
"Judge Garland needs to be seated first."
I see this so often that I have to believe people really mean it. If so, you'll be pleased to know what a little bird told me today:
1. If Garland's nomination HAD been voted on, he'd have been rejected. There was zero chance that the Republican-controlled Senate would have allowed the creation of a 5-Justice liberal majority.
2. Justice Kagan was nominated and confirmed in a mid-term election year, before the election. Should she step down?
17
"2. Justice Kagan was nominated and confirmed in a mid-term election year, before the election. Should she step down?"
No. For she was nominated by a duly elected president.
2
Don't try to confuse those who express that "Judge Garland needs to be seated first". Facts don't matter to them.
1
We should be reading about Mitch McConnell's expulsion from the Senate instead.
Article II, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution provides,
“[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”
Under the Constitution, the President has the power to select SCOTUS nominees AND the Senate has the duty to advise the President about his nominees and the power to approve or disapprove, i.e, consent to or not consent to, the President's nominees.
If a duty to do something means a duty to do nothing then words have no meaning and neither does our Constitution. But words do have meaning, and so does our Constitution.
In my view, Mitch McConnell's refusal to hold hearings on President Obama's nominee for Supreme Court Justice, Judge Merrick Garland, violated the plain meaning of Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution. His actions converted the constitutional duty of the Senate to "advise and consent" into an extra-constitutional power to withhold its performance of its duty completely. In the process he, in effect, nullified the Senate's duty to "advise and consent" and stripped the President of his constitutional power to meaningfully "appoint" "judges of the Supreme Court," in flagrant violation of the wording of Article II, Section 2. In doing so, Mitch violated his Oath of Office and has never been held to account.
13
Would love to see the woman appointed but anyone of the 4 candidates are solid nominations.
11
Devil 1 or devil 2 - there's no escaping the destructiveness of Trump!
1
Well, there is that ...
"Thank you again Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders and your respective supporters [for being] self-centered, egotistic ... At least you've saved us from WW 3 that Clinton would also have visited upon us."
Since WW 3 hasn't happened, we can only guess how bad it would have been if Clinton had won and "visited [WW 3] upon us." But I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been all that much fun.
Clinton is typically called the "peace candidate," presumably because she opposed the Vietnam War 50 years ago. In the meantime, of course, she's (1) voted to support George W. Bush in the US invasion of Iraq; (2) pressed Obama to intervene more forcefully in Iraq; and (3) vowed to establish a no-fly zone over all of Syria, thereby threatening thermo-nuclear war with Russia.
I guess we're supposed to pretend none of that happened, and look back 50 years.
3
why hasn't he nominated his sister, sons or daughters?
4
"why hasn't he nominated his sister, sons or daughters?"
Because the nominee must be confirmed by the US Senate, and despite, what leftist cynics seem to believe, they aren't totally stupid.
2
His sister is a federal circuit court of appeals judge one step below the USSC. How did she get that position lo those many years ago?
Check his sister out: Maryanne Trump Barry is solid, brilliant, non-partisan, well-respected. It appears she got that position because she was an excellent candidate and was offered the job and accepted it.
Who made the offer? William Jefferson Clinton.
Washington DC is an utter failure.
10
At 9:00 tonight, the deplorables will have the last laugh.
One insult that changed history and is transforming our nation for generations.
9
Deplorable.
2
No, that will happen when he fills RBG's seat.
Truth Hurts.
1
Sorry, fake president. The events in Thailand have knocked you off the stage today. No amount of stringing us along can replace the heart stopping rescue of 5 remaining trapped souls in Tham Luang Nang Non.
11
Just wondering, if Trump actually was a Russian mole what would he do differently?
7
Trump has gone from picking Miss Universe to Miss SCOTUS.
4
I'm not going to watch "the show".
8
RE. SIST.
I say Dems should go full McConnell. Unless he nominates Merrick Garland, no vote takes place.
6
Oh, goody. Trump's sister is also an adviser now. And her qualifications are what, again?
9
She is a Federal Appellate Judge (now inactive), Third Circuit. I guess that’s where the brains in the family went.
5
In fairness: she's been a competent federal judge for decades.
12
She's a federal judge whom Ted Cruz called a "radical, pro-abortion extremist." Oh wait, now you probably think he should listen to her.
5
The end of American Democracy is close, friends. It seems that our government delves deeper into corruption, greed, and narcissism with no regard for facts or lessons from the past. It is up to us to stand up to this fallacy. We the people are the only way this will ever get better. Do we sit around and dwell in our regret, or do we start a movement and initiate real change in our country? The question is, what future do you want?
6
Justice Kagan was nominated and confirmed in a mid-term election year (2010).
Should she step down?
7
Nope - The Biden Rule, created and unwritten by then-Senator Joseph Biden (D-Delaware), only affects nominations in presidential election years.
1
Donald Trump has once again conned the media to make the big announcement "all about him," no matter who the nominee might be. Great work, guys - keep falling for the narcissist's tricks.
5
And who does Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin want on the Supreme Court of the United States?
8
Beyond what the actual choice of this new conservative judge means for our nation going forward, does anybody else resent how this whole orchestrated ordeal has become yet another Trump reality show with all the hype and media build up? As always, the focus is on Trump, the star of the show. It's like a damn circus, but it's the Supreme Court we are talking about!
7
I appreciate and support you, NYTimes, but please quit providing marketing support to the traitorous administration by going along with the hype surrounding the SCOTUS announcement and so much else. You must know they're playing you. Why do you allow it when it's not just coverage of partisan politics but witting enablement of the ongoing assault on the republic?
6
This process is badly damaged by Trump, again, with the compliance of the GOP. The pretense under which Mitch McConnell declined to let the Senate do its duty was fraudulent. Now a president under investigation by the FBI wants to stain jurisprudence and again the GOP is supine.
If this is all they have left, they're finished. They can't set a shining example of rectitude and success that speaks for itself, Instead they have to try forcing their tainted philosophy on the people and try to do by law what they can't do anywhere else. What they seem not to see is that the law lags behind custom, technology, and the media. They can't undo reality. They can't make illegal what has long been accepted. And trying will only force the people to show this pinched, nasty little cadre who's really in charge of the United States.
4
O, the drama. Drum roll, please.!
It would be refreshing to have a Government that operated with dignity rather than reality television theatrics.
9
Great idea, Mr. President. Poll your sister and some random cronies at your overpriced golf club as to the next supreme court nominee. What a clown. Maybe if we stopped paying attention to Trump, much like one does a toddler throwing a tantrum, he will cease seeking so much attention. Unlikely, but one can hope.
5
It will be a winnah, rest assured.
1
Won't be watching this TV show..not going to contribute to ratings of a show starring this cruel fool.
8
Given the fact that Supreme Court Judges hold their job for life and the fact that it is the highest court in the land and whose rulings can affect the lives of millions of people...
...wouldn't it be a HUGE prerequisite of the job that each and every Judge chosen for the role have no personal bias, Ideological leanings or Personal opinions affect, influence or interfere with a fair, open and balanced eye that must be taken and at the fore of their responsibilities and role as the adjudicators of the People's voice , needs and protections?
In a Nutshell, aren't these Judges supposed to be Neutral Arbiters of Justice?
Otherwise it sounds that many of these Judges are chosen because of and due to their Personal, Political and Ideological beliefs and prejudices...NONE of which should any of them entertain or nor allow any possibility of influencing each and any of their own opinions when taking on a case.
If not, then what is the purpose of a group of biased and opinionated people ruling based on their personal beliefs, philosophy and political ideologies and not for the benefit of and regard to the implications their view will have on the 320 million people whose lives will be ruled by and affected by?
It sounds like decision and rule by 9 Biased Demagogues who hold their job for life and answer to none but the people whose ideology matches theirs ...
Great Democracy you have folks if that's how things go and seem to be heading!
3
"... it sounds that many of these Judges are chosen because of and due to their Personal, Political and Ideological beliefs and prejudices ..."
Supreme Court nominees must be confirmed by the US Senate, so they cannot be as biased as you seem to believe. The US Constitution uses the phrase "Advice and Consent":
"... he [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States ..." (Art. II, Sec. 2)
For more, Google "Advice and Consent".
1
MRW,
You wrote, "Supreme Court nominees must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, so they cannot be as biased as you seem to believe."
Tell that to Mitch McConnell.
2
And I suppose you are saying all those liberal justices don't have their bias?
6
Should Congress not take into account that the man making this decision (along with his many counterparts) is under investigation regarding election fraud, and the assertion (by virtually every US intelligence agency) that Russia may have played a part in his election, not to mention the multiple indictments received by said counterparts? . . .
If Trump were a hypothetical "Russian agent", would his actions to this point differ from what we are witnessing?
3
I don't think we are speaking of Garland. This said, how about waiting until after the general election in November to get the "sense of the people" as the Republicans did before actually submitting a nominee. But then again, fair play -- even fair play with compromised rules --- is not a Republican strong point.
1
Really? I heard he was going to name Merrick Garland, in the spirit of competence and bipartisanship.
3
He loves to keep us in suspense. Predictably, the media foam at the mouth and give top-of the page coverage to "What will he DO??" which pushes Trumps lies and mistakes down the page.
He knows what he's doing.
The phrase etched onto the front of the Supreme Court building - "Equal justice under law" - should be covered in funeral bunting.
9
did you say the same after Sotomayor?
10
@ Marcus Aurelis:
Because rabid conservatives do not CARE ABOUT equal justice. Get yourself woke.
4
@ Alan:
Oh, I wouldn't have requested funeral bunting after Sotomayor's confirmation, you're correct.
I'd only request it after any ultra-conservative receives a SCOTUS confirmation. Because the first word in that phrase - "Equal" is both foreign and not valued to them.
Karma visits the judiciary, too.
3
Trump should trust his sister.
4
Based on his actions over the past two years and what we have learned about His Majesty and his understanding of the three branches of the Federal Government, International Finance and relationships, and his dislike and persecution of all non-white Christian people . . . it is clear that Donald Trump is the LEAST QUALIFIED Citizen in the USA to "PICK" a Supreme Court Justice.
Be careful what you wish for GOP cowards.
3
Geez, you all have cried wolf one too many times for anyone to believe that the sky is really falling. From where I sit (sorry, I’m a well educated voracious reader of the NYTs, as well as a watcher of Fox News, for balance), the US seems to be humming along pretty well. My advice to liberals- be more selective and pick your fights more carefully, since people are tuning you out because everything is the end of the world, every day.
14
Watching Fox isn't going to provide "balance," unless you consider propaganda to be news.
10
We have a President who liked to separate babies from parents, and even your side (I presume you're a conservative if you can tolerate more than a minute of Fox News) had a few objections. Is that your idea of humming along pretty well?
3
Well, hands down, Trump should pick the one his sister wants him to, of course. Who could object to that?
5
I agree, its disturbing that the President of the United States is relying on a family member's advice when making a decision of this magnitude. But, at least she was a judge on the 2d Circuit and knows the potential pick. I guess there's that.
Check with William Jefferson Clinton, who nominated Maryanne Trump Barry to the U. S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, in June 1999. Judge Barry received 100% votes of confirmation by the Senate and served honorably.
1
Good lord, a hungry press camped out for hours in anticipation of this SCOTUS pick, a banner headline screaming "Coming Up Pres. Trump to announce Supremem Court nominee at 9pm ET."
I swear, the media, including the NYT, just takes Trump's attention seeking bait. Like fish in a barrel. Who cares if we find out this info at 9pm tonight or 9am tomorrow?
7
The great buffoon never, ever seeks advice from anyone. He is quite sure he knows more than anyone else in the world.
1
I know the stakes are high. As to all the drama, the drum rolling, the strutting - I really don’t care. Do u?
5
The poor Left...it been losing power for 40 years and all they can do is scream like babies. #maga2020
8
The Supreme Court is more important than this type of silly assessment. We have a duty as American citizens to consider things of importance as important and not partisan shallow barking. Raise the bar.
5
Ever watch Jay Leno talking to men and women on the street? Ever had some of the American citizens be stumped by a really hard question such as, "Who's the Vice President of the US?".
Here we go again. Another primetime Trump dog and pony show. None of this attention and dramatization will ever stop until we get someone with the same tenacity as Trump on the left, but also someone courteous and decent with high intelligence, courage and accountability . We need someone with no fear who will wipe Trump off the face of the White House.
5
Unless it is Merrick Garland, the democrats should vote "no" based on the premise that the people need to have a voice this coming November. It is the constitutional duty of Senate to give advice and consent.
1
Hardiman is the only nominee to the federal district court bench in Pittsburgh who n 2004 was rated by the local Allegheny County Bar Association as 'unqualified' and 'not recommended at this time.' Since as a policy GOP senators were ignoring local or national bar association ratings, he was nevertheless confirmed.
1
Putin's goals seem clear: destroy America's ability to influence other democracies; destroy America's ability to morally and militarily oppose Putin's new plan of Russian expansion and influence in the world.
The destruction of our ability to influence other democracies started with the destruction of the United State's State Department. It is almost complete, in one year of Trump's obedience to Russia.
The removal of the the United States from the Trans Pacific Trade agreement totally degraded our influence over the entire Pacific rim along with their trust in the U.S..
The removal of the United States from the Iran agreement made our allies in Europe and Asia trust us less than they have ever trusted us.
Our removal from the Paris Climate Agreement totally degraded our moral leadership in protecting the physical World for the future of our children and all posterity.
These are four major accomplishments of Putin in removing the opposition of America in the world against the military expansion and political free hand he wishes for himself, the Russian Country, and his allies, in influencing the people of the world to denigrate America, truth, morality, democracy, and freedom.
It was a simple philosophy, ruthlessly accomplished, for little money and a small set of American traitors: Trump and a few Republican leaders. The smallest cabal in history to destroy the trust and power of a nation in a year. Machiavelli would be justly impressed.
2
Whatever...I don't even care anymore...all of this "I'll keep you in suspense" reality-TV drama is exhausting beyond anything I've ever experienced before, looking-back upon several decades of different presidencies...
I mean: so he picks somebody. Yippee. We all know the which side of the political spectrum he/she will be. Congress will either deadlock itself, or will just rubber-stamp. So let's just get it over with...
5
The choices will be extreme and more extreme.
Whomever is actually picked will be approved (not a sure possibility) by the closest margin in history of +1.
That in itself does a disservice to the Constitution, the laws of the United States and its citizens that expect clear consensus - not division.
5
Since we don't know the name of the person Trump has selected we also can't know whether he has made a final decision. Did he write down the name of the nominee on a piece of paper and give it to somebody to hold until the actual announcement? If not, how do we know that between now and 9:00 pm he won't have changed his mind several times before announcing his selection?
1
Being Trump, he could pick someone never mentioned. And the obvious choice has always been what he has chosen. Not worth the time to follow decision process too carefully. Just send out blanket objections to white house and senators.
As a lawyer and Democrat concerned about SCOTUS, if Hardiman is the nominee, the forces opposing Trump would be wise to consider holding their fire. Of anyone on Trump's short list, Hardiman has the most potential to be a moderate. The others are rabid ideologues.
Save the battle royale and political capital for, most likely, Ginsburg's replacement.
3
thanks to Harry Reid that won't matter. They have nothing to fight with. Unless the senate flips.
Thank you again Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders and your respective supporters. Your self-centered, egotistic my way or the highway politics has now given us a right wing Supreme Court for decades that will eviscerate every cause that you presumably hold dear (subject to your ego's off course.) At least you've saved us from WW 3 that Clinton would also have visited upon us.
6
In the infamous photo, Jill Stein was sitting across from Michael Flynn at Putin's table.
She was either wittingly or unwittingly recruited by the Russian government to siphon votes away from Hillary, who Putin despises.
I hope Robert Mueller and team are looking into this.
4
Thanks again DNC for rigging the system so that Clinton was chosen. We should have gone with the most popular politician in the US. Clinton was what--the most unpopular democrat in the country?
2
Now, Percy, let's not complicate things with nuance.
My fear is that Trump will respond to those who complained that Neil Gorsuch was "too liberal".
And sorry, having listened to a lot of his campaign speeches, he really is drooling over the possibility of replacing Justice Ginsberg.
2
So I guess "letting the American people have a say" by Mitch McConnell is now "don't let the American people have a say.
What an oily bunch this administration is.
7
If a family friend urged him to chose one, that obviously outweighs any concerns about the guy's ethics, legal record, etc. We're lucky he doesn't elect Barron for the Supreme Court.
Very little suspense here. Only in just how extreme the nominee's views are with respect to Roe v. Wade, immigration, civil rights, and participating in cases involving the President such as those stemming from the Special Counsel's investigation, Summer Zervos' sexual harassment case, and the campaign finance case by Stormy Daniels. It's inappropriate for Mr. Trump to nominate anyone who is unwilling to revise themselves from cases involving him.
1
To Democrats in Congress: Fight like the very heart of our democracy depends on it, because it does! Push the McConnell Rule in their faces!!!!
RESIST!
4
Mr. Trump has neither the intellect nor moral authority to select a Supreme Court justice. He is afloat in scandal with severe criminal implications. The House should be working on impeachment charges, and the Senate preparing the hearings. Instead, we see this charade. I think American democratic rule is doomed.
5
Can you imagine working your entire professional life to become a respected jurist, only to have your efforts debased by the fact that it was Donald Trump who nominated you? The man is an indelible stain on everyone with whom he comes into contact.
12
If they find that Trump worked with Russia to win his election, will his SCOTUS picks still be valid?
3
Tear down the children concentration camps!
Don't remove ICE, remove the Republican party from supporting them.
Why hasn't Mueller indicted Trump, declared the 2016 election null and void, and required a totally new 2016 election?
Flynn's guilty plea implies Flynn was a Russian spy getting Trumps desires passed to Putin through Kislyak.
Therefore Trump is a Traitor, the Entire election of 2016 is null and void because of the Russian interference with Trump and Flynn's, and others, help? Therefore the all the Supreme Court ruling made with Trumps appointment on the Court are null and void, as are all the laws passed by the illegitimate Congress. Fight the Right Fight: for truth and justice.
Is Muller really on the level? I hope so. But why has he let the Traitor Trump continue?
It's time to seriously consider evoking Article V of the USC. 28th Amendment: Eliminate life terms for SCOTUS.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html
1
This all reminds me of the (original) Star Trek adventure in which they fell into an opposite universe, where alt-Starfleet and alt-Captain Kirk were the bad, evil guys. For yet-to-be-born Trek fans of the future, the *good* Captain and the *good* Starfleet will be the strange, unfamiliar ones that they never saw and didn't know existed.
As Donald rushes through options with his golf partners to meet a self-imposed reality TV deadline, it's interesting to watch Republican spin doctors claiming Roe is not in jeopardy, in an apparent attempt to pre-empt opposition from women's groups. The Republicans have been mounting a counter-assault on Roe for the past 45 years, and now have the chance for a 5-4 anti-Roe majority, and are picking from a list of Federalist Society judges, yet nothing will happen on abortion rights? It's hard to imagine the American people be so easily fooled.....but look where we are.
5
I'm taking all the anti-nausea pills I can find in the house. I've warned the neighbor not to call the police when he hears me screaming and swearing.
12
I don't care who he nominates the answer will always be "no".
2
What if he nominates Hillary Rodham Clinton?
After all, William Jefferson Clinton nominated Maryanne Trump Barry to the U. S. Court of Appeals in 1999. Mrs. Barry was confirmed by the Senate without a single dissenting vote.
1
I’ll be asleep, probably will hear it the next day on Maddow.
3
“On one front he has been clear, however — while he admires Judge Kavanaugh’s credentials, he is also concerned by his work in the Bush administration.”
Personal loyalty vs. evangelical deal constraints.
McConnell/establishment deal constraints vs. a woman nominee.
This looks very symbolic of the win-lose worldview.
By picking a name off a list based on how it will help him with his base, Trump is developing his “legacy” a year and a half into his reign. He has always had a low bar to crawl over, now it is a crack in the sidewalk. His choice tonight will be treated as policy or ideology by commentators when it is no more than self interest. Regardless, he is destroying years of progress for the environment, women and minority rights, gay rights, worker rights, to name a few while all he really cares about is being loved.
4
Betting that he still has a list of three names, and that if the first name on the list leaks before 9 PM, he will just move down the list. Because it really doesn't matter to him which name it is, it matters that he gets his "dog and pony show" tonight to distract himself for all the stress he is under related to Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, etc.
Every member of the Senate needs to get a commitment from whoever is nominated that they will definitely recuse themselves, if charges related to Trump and the Mueller investigation (or Trump and any future investigations) come before the Supreme Court. But the R.s in the Senate really are not any more to be trusted at this point than Himself.
5
I wonder who these people are if they really exist. I would like the president to fire them unless he told them to leak this information. I bet he mostly decided a couple of days ago, but he does listen to people and might change his mind if a good reason comes up. Just like any decent human would do.
1
I don’t know of many “decent humans” who are being credibly accused by more than a dozen women of sexual assault and who publicly defend Nazis. But I guess that’s what Trump supporters consider “decent.”
3
I'm sure others have commented on the ridiculous, reality-TV staging of his decision. Unless he's nominating LeBron James to the Supreme Court, the only folks who will interrupt their summers to find out Trump's choice are legal scholars and the nominee's immediate family. Put out a press release and be done with it, like a normal person.
5
This high octane political thriller that is being presented by the two parties in DC regarding the US Supreme Court pick by the President is perhaps one of the reasons why swing voters are emotionally drained out, if not, wary and traumatized by the constant fear mongering by extreme partisans in both political parties. The Judicial Branch of the United States has always been for more than two hundred years of interpreting law, challenging policies, and upholding our constitutional values. It is one of the three major branches of government to which the founders wanted rather than a parliamentary system in the UK. Supreme Court Justices are trained to understand and interpreted the rule of law, not twist rules and fit into some sort of weird political football ideology.
To those on the right: picking an extremist for Kennedy's seat isn't going to cut it with swing voters who may view abortion is murder, but they will not advocating overturning Roe vs Wade. To those on the left: quit with this crazy partisan kabuki theater antics every time a qualified conservative judge is being nominated by the President just because your own ideology views may wind up being inconsistent with the rule of law or unconstitutional (e.g. gun control, housing rights, bakery guy with faith beliefs, or public unions holding IL hostage etc).
Look Democrats and Republicans, I am sorry you lived in the USA. Nothing is pure, perfect, one sided, and Pollyanna. We're ain't a dictatorship.
1
your ridiculous false equivalency is duly noted, and thanks for not voting to stop the Religious Right from seizing control of our government! The view from your lofty perch must be very self-satisfying
4
Doesn't this fake president plan to parade his candidates live on FOX-TV like some cheesy, godawful reality show?
Say goodbye to progress, liberalism, fairness, and democracy for a generation, America!
6
Liberalism in the same sentence as those other noble words ? What a joke. Sickening. Trump is Making America Great Again. Next up, Ginsberg for retirement. What a term this will shape up to be !
5
It's Amy Coney Barrett. She will move us closer to the theocracy that Trump's base yearns for. Trump couldn't care less!
4
This Barnum and Bailey routine that Trump is orchestrating around the announcement of this choice for the Supreme Court is really the measure of the man - he is someone who lacks even an iota of gravitas; he’s just a huckster, and a corrupt, stupid oaf of one at best.
9
Mr President, America eagerly awaits your Supreme Court selection. We The People are confident in your selection and anticipate a swift confirmation!
9
speak for yourself. The American people voted for the other gal.
8
My expectation is that Kavanaugh gets the nod because he has written in recent years that the president should not be sued or indicted while in office because it interferes with his execution of his executive responsibilities. That plays right into Trumps proclivity to act in his own best self interest, especially as the likelihood of conflict between the Special Counsel and the President is seemingly ramping up.
8
Well, I talked this nomination over with my hairdresser, and she thinks Kavanaugh 's nomination has been "saucered and blowed" (means a done deal), but she prefers Hardiman, given the limited options.
Kavanaugh will see that Trump does not go to jail for his high crimes and misdemeanors.
Hardiman is the only chance, however remote, that our grand daughters MIGHT have choice over their bodies.
My hairdresser thinks Trump's ability to pick a suitable Justice is as likely as his ability to style and color his own hair.
10
No matter who gets nominated, the number of women who will die due to botched back-alley abortions will rise; the number of innocent people in prison will rise; the number of consumer and workplace deaths will rise, because corporations will no longer be held liable for safety regulations; corporations will be able to rip you off and violate their agreements with absolute impunity; police officers will seize your possessions and cause you physical harm with absolute impunity; having health care will be as dangerous as not having it, since doctors and hospitals will have no incentive to do anything other than run up your bills and ensure your death if you can’t pay them; it will be as dangerous to send your child to school as it would be to enlist them in the military; local governments can do whatever they want to rig elections how they see fit; and even if the Democrats manage to flip Congress SCOTUS will negate any veto-proof legislation they pass.
There is no point in studying or debating Constitutional law any more, since the Constitution now means whatever the Republican justices and the corporate interests who own them want it to mean.
Our institutions won’t save us. And a civil war or revolution is already lost since the right wing has all the guns. And even if protest isn’t outlawed it will soon be rendered both too dangerous and ineffective.
They won. We all lose. The Trump voters will lose too. I wonder what they think they’re getting out of this.
2
His choices are between awful and awful.
Don't despair though. Vote in the 2020 election. When a Democrat gets in, (s)he will have the change will have the chance to replace the aging and bitter Clarence Thomas, who should have never been confirmed in the first place.
3
For all the hatred, anxiety, insane speculation and outright hostility toward anything our President does - and will do throughout this term and his second as well - the truth is that this is the way the finest system of government on this planet works.
7
Trump is approaching this major appointment like one of his self-touting reality TV promos. And the media is, as usual, obliging hims with semi-breathless 'updates' on each and every rumor. (Is the list down to one, two, who's in and who's fired?)
4
The excitement is too much. I can hardly wait for the Great Reveal. Will the chosen one get a rose?
Give me a break. It will be a right-wing conservative choice from an approved right-wing conservative list given to Trump before the election. Trump isn’t choosing - he could have thrown a dart at the list. Maybe that’s what he did.
8
OMG, the suspense is killing me!
What has happened to our democracy? The supreme court, the highest court in the land, is supposed to be unbiased in interpreting the law as it applies to the Constitution. They are supposed to be picked according to their expertise, not on which side of the political spectrum they subscribe to or how they would react to one parties obsession to overturn unpopular laws that party feels hinder their agenda. We are now in an age where it is okay for politics to enter the legal system and fix the courts in favor of one parties agenda. This not only leans towards dictatorial style government, it is undemocratic and a stain on American values, which seem to have disappeared under Trump.
11
Yes, and where have you been for the last 25 years?
3
When will the reality show that is the United States get cancelled? Watch, 9 p.m. tonight to find out.
3
Tease, tease, tease.
He has a long list. Now he has a short list. The short list is W, X, Y & Z. But some establishment Republicans don't like X! Oh, no! But one of the choices is a neophyte woman opposed to birth control!!!! Oh, yes! A conservative woman! With a teflon shield, take that you MeToo moment women people of low IQ. Sources say he may pick someone not in the top four!! Yes, yes, he loves surprise!!!! But sources say he hasn't decided. OMG. Sources say he has decided. OMG. He's golfing! He's tweeting! He's dangling.
You're biting.
The future of our country is at risk, and our venerable institutions are covering this puppet show.
Don't stay tuned, I beg you Cover the actual announcement and not the foreplay. He just wants ratings. He doesn't care if he wreaks the world.
6
Typical Trump - all circus, no bread.
8
Typical Trump - all circus, too many clowns.
2
NYT is just helping Trump turn this into a reality game show. Stop it.
11
"But he has offered little about his thinking."
Truer words have seldom been written.
9
Exactly, because there is very little thinking which he can offer, just gossip with golf buddies, no original thought at all about who to chose, just taking a list from an organization focused on stacking the courts with the most conservative/pro-life justices and the overwhelming desire to have a "bigly announcement" to make on live television tonight. I would not have a problem with pro-life advocates IF they had any interest at all in providing a decent life for children once they are born. True followers of Christ know that "suffer the little children..." does not translate to "make little children suffer."
1
This "Big Reveal" announcement seems an awful lot like what happens right before the last commercial break of the show.
Oh, if only this were "Reality TV", and not...reality.
2
I thoroughly do not care who this monstrous disaster of a president picks for his Supreme Court nominee. They are all an extension of his evil mission to destroy American judicial liberties and set this country back one hundred years. Wake me when the entire nightmare is over.
6
"... his evil mission to destroy American judicial liberties ..."
There is no such thing as "American judicial liberties", so there is nothing to be "destroyed".
"Wake me when the entire nightmare is over."
You would do better to spend your time reading the US Constitution:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution
1
Why not drop the pretense and just give the nominee a rose, already? The reality TV president loves nothing better than staged, artificial drama.
Whomever he picks will be an unmitigated disaster for the country, so why bother giving him the ratings he craves?
2
I am assuming that the White House events planner has worked for days on the program for this evening's announcement. I realize that the program is secret but I have a few guesses. Will the US Naval Academy Band regal us with the National Anthem first? And then perhaps some of the Rockettes, who volunteer, could perform. That could be the warm-up for President Trump walking to his desk in the Oval Office with two accountants from Price, Waterhouse at his side. In their hands is a burgundy velvet pillow upon which a sealed golden envelope rests with the President's secret choice. Only the President knows what is in this envelope. They pass it to him at exactly 9 PM with the presidential letter opener, he opens the envelope and reads the selection on air for all to revel in. Yes, Americans can now know President Trump's new choice for Supreme Court Justice to follow in the footsteps of Oliver Wendell Holmes, John Marshall, Louis Brandeis, Earl Warren. Perhaps his new justice can even have a casino hotel or a line of steaks in his name like Trump or go even bolder with perfume! How much longer till we regain some dignity to our country? I am disgusted with this nonsense.
8
Mitch McConnel has reached Darth Vader standards.
5
The promotional campaign is laughable. The reality show star is working hard to excite the media, fuel maximum anticipation and squeeze every rating point he can get. In reality, these potential nominees were all screened and chosen by a conservative think tank, the Federalist Society. They are extremists, and likely to try to legislate to the right from the bench.
5
Hoping against hope that it is not another gorsuch or thomas. Trump has cornered the market on appointing incompetent individuals to important government positions. Gorsuch has no clue of what a SCOTUS justice is supposed to be. He, like Thomas, just goes along with whatever Roberts et.al conclude.
1
I wish the press would stop playing into Trump's promos to build audience for his Big Prime Time Reveal. Isn't it enough that Fox News does that 2/7? Come on NYT...you are much better than that.
8
This is what we achieve by electing a Republican majority to our Congress. One person, the Senate Majority Leader, decides whether the Congress will consider a SCOTUS candidate, regardless of what the other 99 senators or the American people want. Candidates for this supposedly non partisan office are chosen by an unelected extremist group. Selection is entirely controlled by Republican primary voters. This is not democracy, this is despotism.
5
"Trump Has Decided on Supreme Court Nominee, After a Morning of Seeking Advice"
Doesn't matter who it is. EVERYONE this hideous excuse for a president chooses nominates, appoints, endorses, supports or otherwise associates with is ALWAYS sure to be the most horrible choice for the job... for our Constitution... for America. The very fact that a president would have to "seek advice", much less set up a reality-TV-style spectacle in front of the Supreme Court, is itself a slap in the face of all this country has stood for over 240 years. Trump is not a president. He is a destroyer of all that made this country great. He is a blight upon this land. Please God and Mr. Mueller, deliver us from Donald Trump before it is too late.
12
Nobody knows more about judges than Trump. With all of his bankruptcies and lawsuits, he has met many terrific guys sitting on the bench. Nothing like life experience to qualify Trump to make this monumental pick.
2
Three branches of government, acting as checks and balances on each other. I am so fond of that system. Now it will be gone.
The GOP has turned the Legislative branch into a lapdog for the maniac who incompetently heads the Executive branch. Now he and the GOP are colluding to destroy the Judicial branch by appointing someone who will not rely on precedent and the rule of law, but instead will do as Gorsuch does, lick the boots of his master.
3
Every other country limits the terms of their Supreme Court. The US is abnormal in that respect. The fixes needed that will normalize the court to what actually represents the country (i.e., NOT ultra right wing religious fundamentalist as it is now) are: 1) 18-year term limit; 2) Senate confirmation vote within 60 days or the nomination is automatically confirmed. Just those two things will churn the court and ensure that corrupt senators cannot subvert the process of nominating justices.
3
I like this idea. I support this wholeheartedly.
1
I'm sure it will be like the last time, staged for the cameras and maybe some added suspense....whooooo will it be.
I'll read the paper in the am.
1
I will not watch this dog and pony show.
1
This is the kind of reporting that is really getting my goat lately. If Trump wants to make the presidency a reality show, I suppose that's his prerogative, but does the media have to enable it? He will choose, and then it will be time to assess the choice. This kind of thing reads like an advertisement for the season finale of The Voice.
2
It seems to me that Trump, always a lover of surprises and theatricality, will not choose one of the two rumored to be the two "top choices." Both are Catholic, which would result in a SCOTUS of six Catholics and three Jews, hardly representative of his base. Kethledge, on the other hand, is an evangelical Protestant, yielding an attractive choice for Trump's base and preventing a religious representation that excludes that base entirely. Trump would certainly like to solidify his evangelical supporters. I'm guessing that most reporters and commentators don't want to mention that religion might be the chief criterion of a president's choice, but of course in this instance such a criterion might well solidify a crucial segment of the president's followers. It would certainly fulfill Trump's penchant for "reality TV" surprises. I can almost hear him saying, as he introduces Kethledge, "Could you have guessed that, people? Did you really guess that? Is this a surprise, or what?"
3
This is the same guy who is picking the next Supreme Court justice, speaking in Montana last week:
“I have broken more Elton John records. He seems to have a lot of records. And I, by the way, I don’t have a musical instrument. I don’t have a guitar or an organ. No organ. Elton has an organ. And lots of other people helping. No, we’ve broken a lot of records. We’ve broken virtually every record. Because you know, look, I only need this space. They need much more room. For basketball, for hockey and all of the sports, they need a lot of room. We don’t need it. We have people in that space. So we break all of these records. Really, we do it without, like, the musical instruments. This is the only musical – the mouth. And hopefully the brain attached to the mouth, right? The brain. More important than the mouth is the brain. The brain is much more important.”
Well that's terrifying, and nuts.
Our democracy is teetering on the brink of madness.
10
@
Larry M,
Thank you for posting that quote. Truly alarming. while representatives stand idly by.
It seems as though in the last three sentences he is subconsciously revealing to us his lose of brain power.
His father was afflicted with dementia at age 70.
1
I encourage everyone to not tune into Trump's announcement of his choice for SCOTUS. We can all get the news from the NY Times right after and we need to deny Trump his ratings to deflate his massive ego. Ratings are more important to Trump than being a good president. Let's not give him a ratings win.
1
Let's hope this is his final final rose ceremony.
Gotta vote.
1
Which Donald clone did he pick? Which one gushed ("I would be so blessed to serve on YOUR Supreme Court!") and pledged his or her complete and undying loyalty most effusively? Which one agreed that "this Russia thing" is a "witch hunt"? That a president can pardon himself? We'll see. We'll see.
"Which Donald clone did he pick?"
You must have a very strange definition of "clone", because Trump doesn't even have a law degree.
1
Trump should be forbidden from appointing a Judge who will end up hearing trumps case
2
Dear media, Please stop playing into Trump's grubby hands by hanging onto his every bit of drama. His tweets and his rallies are not news. Pre-empting a 'reality' show so Trump can put on his own 'reality' show? This is not normal.
Please stop enabling this sharade.
2
"Dear media, Please stop playing into Trump's grubby hands by hanging onto his every bit of drama."
Readers love "drama", and you do too, or you wouldn't be commenting on this article:
"The drama-focused president is going to announce his choice for the Kennedy seat in a Monday night address to the country at 9 p.m."
What's the real story here? It should not be the media in a frenzy trying to handicap which Trump contestant will get the rose from Trump in the final lightning-round. The Fourth Estate has reduced itself into an advertising platform for a Trump reality show. The real story is that Trump is appointing a judge to the Supreme Court while being investigated for a host of illegal acts, including colluding with a foreign power which has consistently been America's greatest enemy for approx. a century. In US v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), the US Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision against President Richard Nixon, ordering him to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials. US v. Nixon is considered the crucial precedent limiting the power of any US president to claim executive privilege, yet Trump has already repeatedly claimed that he has virtually unlimited executive privilege in direct violation of US v. Nixon. The press needs to stop playing along with Trump's circus and ask some hard questions like whether Trump has any right to appoint a judge while under investigation, especially as any Trump appointee will be one of nine justices deciding any case before the Supreme Court in which Trump ultimately seeks to have US v. Nixon overturned. If it’s overturned, Trump’s power will be far closer to absolute, and what remains of American democracy will be in shreds. But how can this possibly compare to Trump's bright shiny objects, superficial, yet so alluring?
2
I wonder who Putin picked? Guess we'll know soon enough.
2
I don't believe that Putin had anything to do with the pick.
But Justice Elena Kagan did - Judge Kavanaugh was hired at Harvard Law School by current Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who was appointed by Barack Obama to the court.
2
This is not a reality show; I'm tired of Trump's "reveals." Just tell us the name. In the meantime, it would help if the press didn't breathlessly give him airtime, like the whole thing is his personal TV show. Supposedly, he has told aides not to reveal the pick because he wants to do it himself.
1
"Just tell us the name."
The Times doesn't know "the name", so you will just have to wait for "show time".
"Supposedly, he has told aides not to reveal the pick because he wants to do it himself."
No President would leave the announcement of a Supreme Court nominee to his "aides".
When the Democrats regain control of Congress, the first order of business will be to remove Gorsuch and Kennedy's replacement from the SC. Republicans are stacking the SC with Conservatives who are making no attempt to interpret the Constitution with impartiality. Bush v. Gore, the case that may not be named in US jurisprudence, lives in infamy. McConnnell violated the Constitution by refusing to "advise" on Garland. Democrats must restore probity to the SC when they return to power.
Justiceshere is no longer any attemptConservatives now view the SC as a branch of the Republican Party. While the SC has always been political
1
Just curious, where did you study the United States Constitution? Democrats can no more replace Trump's nominees to the Court than the Republicans, who now control Congress, can replace Obama's nominees. Would you really like to have it any other way?
4
"When the Democrats regain control of Congress, the first order of business will be to remove Gorsuch and Kennedy's replacement from the SC."
Evidently you haven't read the US Constitution, because a two-thirds vote to convict by the Senate is required in an impeachment case:
"... no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." (Art. I, Sec. 3)
2
Article 3, Section 1 states that judges may hold office only during periods of "good behavior". Otherwise Congress has the power to impeach and remove a judge. Partisan interpretation of the Constitution is not "good behavior". It is not "good behavior" for Gorsuch to sit on the bench while he knows that he is there only because McConnell violated the Constitution.
It’s sad that Trump is so psychologically frail and hollow that he needs belligerent, name-calling rallies and run-ups to a 9:00p Eastern announcement of his pick for SCOTUS to sooth and appease himself.
It’s sadder that the good citizens of this country and world are subject to the dangerous chicanery he and his enablers put forth.
8
Under normal circumstances my intitial impulse should be, oh, let’s just wait and see, before commenting. Now, it’s, oh great, a place to make my opinion know regardless and as if anyone cared. This social media stuff is like poison to our systems.
3
Any Justice that Sean Hannity supports is probably the worst possible choice. It’s appalling that Trump even seeks input from his chief media cheerleader.
8
Mitch needs to go. No longer in the Majority. And, who the heck cares what the Oval Office Occupant picks, Mitch has set the new rules so that HE gets to decide what person gets the job. Pathetic.
3
This judge will be a blight on true freedoms in this country and on working Americans, nothing more. It doesn't matter who the pick is. The media is being used again like a reality TV special.
Merrick Garland would have balanced the court. Everyone since chosen, history will consider illegitimate and irrelevant.
November, 2018, four months away.
7
Oh, for heaven's sake. Trump plays the media like a violin. All this hype so Trump can brag about his ratings tonight. NYT, stop feeding the beast.
4
This isn't news. It will be news when he announces it. Stop feeding the beast.
8
The Supremes in prime time. I love this country.
1
Trump will nominate Merrick Garland to confound his friends and confuse his enemies.
2
It would actually be politically unwise for him to do so, because his enemies will still oppose him for any number of other reasons (immigration policy, corruption, the Russia investigation, etc.), whereas a significant number of his political friends are friends specifically because they trust him to nominate conservatives for the Supreme Court and will desert him if he veers from that.
I'll know first. I'm watching Russia TV.
7
Personally I feel Trump will choose Barrett. She may never get the job but her nomination will cause the sort of social conflict that Trump relishes. A nod to Barrett would also give Trump a chance to grandstand during the confirmation process for a full eight weeks. A full eight weeks at the center of the media spotlight? I can't imagine he'd pass that all up!
Never mind the countdown. This just plays along with Trump's ta-da strategy. Just tell us the nominee when there is one.
2
WSJ is reporting it's likely Hardiman.
The media loves to portray this big promotion as a big presidential deliberation. Honestly, after 18 months in office, does anyone believe Donald really deliberates?
The president was handed a list of arch-conservative judges well out of the mainstream of American jurisprudence. Only one in 20 American lawyers join the Federalist Society, but now, six of nine Supreme Court justices will be members.
And what happens to compromise? More than half the country didn't vote for Donald, and yet, the Court will be on the reactionary edge for the rest of our lives.
Whatever the Founders imagined, it's not this.
8
The exciting part is when the confirmation hearings take place after the candidate has been chosen and the confrontations begin between the various Democrats and the selected candidate. That is what I look forward to seeing on television. That is where the real drama lies.
1
children on the payroll making decisions. now his sister on the payroll making decisions. we've truly been taken over by a crime family.
7
President Trump's sister is not on the payroll.
His sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, was appointed to the U. S. Court of Appeals by President Clinton in 1999. Her Senate confirmation vote was 100% in favor of her taking the seat on the Court.
1
They are all good candidates but I hope Judge Amy Coney Barrett will be picked by President Trump. I also grew up with Catholic faith. It is about time to have a Supreme Court justice is a Catholic, especially love children.
1
These are the kind of comments with strange sentence constructions and grammatical errors that really make we wonder if the individual is a native speaker. ("grew up with Catholic faith"; "Supreme Court justice is a Catholic") Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with that, but it does raise the question of whether these accounts are attempts to interject foreign influences into the discussion.
And, by the way, Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alioto and Sotomayor are Catholic. Gorsuch as raised Catholic. There is no underrepresentation of Catholics on the court.
1
There are 4 Catholics on the Bench now. Isn't that enough?
3
Um, there's already four of them. Five would be crazy disproportionate to the populace.
3
He will pick a white man, on that there is no doubt. The one woman of the four had no chance. Remember that everything Trump does is based on his competition with and hatred of Obama. Obama appointed 2 justices, Trump wants to appoint more than 2 if he can. He orchestrated Kennedy's retirement in order to have a shot at this before November. I hope and pray that there are enough senators to deny a vote at all-we will see. or vote this nominee down if he proves to be too conservative.
3
We are all witnessing a theft in progress. And it isn't a Petty Theft.
4
McConnell, blah, blah, blah. You do realize that all this crying and complaining is falling on deaf ears.
Trump is getting his nomination, period! Ain't nothing the Democrats can do about it. I wish this kind of call to action energy existed when it could have made a difference, during the 2016 election. Remember how confident we were that Hillary was going to win, everything was supposed to go our way.
We have only ourselves and our arrogance to blame. No use crying about it now.
6
Well I believe I have read the most ridiculous statement of my lifetime. "All justices drift left over time". Has Clarence Thomas drifted to the left? Has Samuel Alito drifted to the left? Both of these justices have had ample opportunity to drift into reasonableness. If anything, both men have drifted to the right. Whomever Trump nominates will be a right-wing ideologue first with allegiance to the government hating Federalist Society.
7
I've decided and tipped off some of my pals, who are still making book in Vegas. They promised me a cut. I'm a very stable genius.
DJT
3
Trump has been "circumspect about his thinking." Now that is an understatement for a man very much removed from any kind of deep thought. This is a person focused on bra size for the women and what it is the men can do to scratch his back. Thinking from this president? I think not.
7
Wouldn’t the actual announcement be the news? Otherwise, aren’t you just feeding the attention-craving Administration?
6
We need to be very, very careful with Hardiman.
Without a robust and extended body of decisions, we could be repeating the profound mistake of appointing Souter II.
Another Souter? You mean the single most thoughtful jurist of the last generation? I would be happy with that...
5
Supreme Court nominations have become an obsession for many conservatives because they feel like they've been "betrayed" by many of "their own" (nominees of Republican presidents) over the years. (Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and Souter were all Republican nominees. Even Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy and John Roberts have disappointed conservatives at times.) The resulting advance of social policies which, let's face it, could never be legislated into existence at the federal level otherwise has hardened the resolve of many conservatives to "get it right" (emphasis on the last word) going forward.
Stop whining.
We had an election and elected a president. The president chooses a nominee, the Senate confirms, or not. It’s not Trump’s fault Democrats threw out the rules allowing filibusters and failed to force a vote on Obama’s last nominee.
Really people, it’s not rocket science.
Move on.
5
failed to force a vote???
1
True. It isn't his fault. It is McConnell's fault. Let me fix your comment for you...
"We had an election and elected a president. The president chooses a nominee, the Senate provides advice and consent (per the Constitution)."
Except that McConnell didn't allow for the proscribed duty of his chamber - he didn't do his job as assigned by the Constitution that he swore an oath to uphold - there was no option for Democrats to 'force a vote' on the nominee of the elected President (by popular vote no less).
4
Unlike the unending turnovers, departures and resignations of the Liar-in-Chief's other major picks, with the Supreme Court we will be subjected to the unending tenure of at least two judicial extremists and maybe three in RBG cannot hold on.
1
It’s a stunning day when an accidental president, who only took the job for personal gain, colludes with Russians out of sheer stupidity and becomes the subject of a federal investigation, gets to set the courts for years to come.
Make sure you vote in November. Make sure your friends vote. Even the musicians.
17
The votes in SF and NYC are meaningless.
But "even the musicians" is a great line...
3
And the question is, how does this ignorant mafia guy get to pick two Supreme Court Justices? Shame on us!
15
It would be a stroke of luck if President Trump were limited to only two Supreme Court nominations. If re-elected in 2020 (and don't laugh at this prospect, his approval rating is higher than President Obama's was at his 18-month mark), President Trump could wind up getting to make up to FIVE nominations.
2
He was elected president. As Obama said “elections matter”
1
It's going to be a question of the thinnest shade between the chosen and the also-ran. There isn't going to be a surprise.
I heard that he's chosen Merrick Garland, in order to restore confidence in the integrity of the nomination process, and make amends for Mitch McConnell's actions. The idea is not to cherry-pick judges who support your positions, he said, but to bring the best mix of experience and temperament to the bench.
I'm impressed! There is hope, after all!
4
Hilarious. What a joker you are!
In your dreams.
If only.
It may be Amy Coney Barrett as President Trump's choice because she is a woman and it is time for a conservative woman to be chosen. The only thing that may prevent her from being selected is that she is a Catholic and the Republicans might feel it would be more difficult to get her confirmed by the Democrats. She may be too Catholic for them which is a shame because she is highly qualified. If she was a liberal she would be a shoo in. This is a pity but that is just the way it is.
2
Awesome - maybe he can spend the next few hours looking for the children he lost after ripping them from their sobbing mothers.
9
The three most terrifying words I can think of: Trump has decided.
The three most wonderful? The House flips.
7
OH Boy.. His pick! Stay tuned kids. Grab that bag of Doritos and squeeze in because our leader and chief and star of your favorite show: The Heck With It! will announce his favorite pick for the Evangelicals! or will he? We can only guess. Its all OK because life is a game show and we are all contestants. Brought to you by the same folks who gave you Citizens United, The Mafia and Endless War! Yippee!
5
It’s a giant leap backward for this country, regardless of which crypto-fascist he picks.
3
Why are you even reporting the he has decided without knowing what exactly has been decided? How is this relevant except to play Trump's stupid media game?
7
Who the heck wants to watch this blabbering idiot on t.v? No thank you. He has nothing to say that is worth listening to.
5
Please don't let him turn our government into a reality contest show. Watch something, anything, else. Deny him ratings.
5
Given the cheating over Merrick Garland, as an American, I cannot abide the current unconstitutional Supreme Court.
4
This is NOT must-see TV. We know it will be someone who is willing to carry out the Trump/GOP agenda to put women in their place and have men make all the decisions for them. Not exactly news.
2
If Roe v. Wade falls, then the conservatives will have lost their favorite fund raising device. My guess is that this next justice will leave it intact but diminished, so that the states can all but outlaw abortion, but conservatives can still use its existence.
You know, America was not great when women were dying of botched illegal abortions, don’t you?
7
The media is allowing Trump to manipulate the appointment of a justice to the Supreme Court into a reality television event. Turn your TVs off. He wants attention to make himself feel important. Don't give him what he wants.
1
Please, please tell me this isn't going to be covered live by every major network, CNN, Fox, and MSNBC! Previously I don't ever recall a president having a address to the nation to announce a Supreme Court justice nominee. This just reinforces his megalomania and authoritarian impulses. This is not some Reality TV show but a national horror story.
6
I'm hoping that Rachel Maddow will continue with her tradition of not showing any video of Trump, but NBC News will probably override her.
It'll be like watching P.T. Barnum announce a Supreme Court justice chosen by Satan.
1
Did you need any more evidence that Trump is producing a reality tv presidency? Look at how he tries to build suspense on who will it be. And then he schedules the announcement at 9:00 p.m. on prime time tv. I can tell you who will be selected. It will be the one who is most photogenic on television. That is what matters to the Sun King.
2
SCOTUS currently has four women justices:
Ginsburg
Kagan
Sotomayor
Breyer.
We don't need another one right now.
5
This seems like the ultimate in meaningless journalism. OK, he's made his decision: flash! Breaking news!
All of the people on the famous list he's using are terrible. What difference does it make?
2
This was Obama's biggest mistake . He should have forced a Constitutional Crisis and sued for a vote on Garlamd's nomination. He bet on Hillary and lost. After tonight's imperial presntation of the Federalist society and GOP's choice to upset the delicate balance on theCourt, it is essential to have a Democratic party in control of Congress. Otherwise there will be a roll back of every progressive decision since Roosevelt became President.
3
If Kavanaugh & Hardiman are, in fact, the finalists, Trump will go with Hardiman. Kavanaugh seems like another Roberts, & one Justice Roberts is one too many.
All justices drift left over time. Liberal bias of American constitutional law is one explanation. Judicial process calls for evenhanded application of principles, & as Cardozo put it, a legal principle tends to "expand itself to the limit of its logic."
Another reason for the leftward drift are the massive leftist electoral losses in recent decades, e.g., the Obama yrs. The Left sees the appointment of activist justices/judges as the only way to regain power. Contrast this with textualist/originalist justices/judges on the right, who, by definition, are faithful to the constitutional principle of separation of powers & do not write law.
Trump is saving Barrett for Ginsburg's replacement. Barrett is about Roe & Roe is about doctrine of stari decisis, which is telling: The point of invoking precedent is to perpetuate judicial error. Courts reaffirm their decisions on the merits otherwise. (NB: Precedent is not constitutionally mandated or even constitutionally authorized. Rather, it is tautologically rationalized by doctrine-of-precedent precedent!)
Actuarial mathematics, a seditious conspiracy, the durability of the American idea & sublime irony combine to ensure Trump's re-election in 2020 & at least 7 conservative justices before the end of his tenure.
I can think of no better definition of "poetic justice."
3
hope it's the season finale!
5
Watch the announcement on TV? No, thanks. I won’t give this reality show “president” any attention. I’ll read about it later in the NYTimes!
25
It’s exciting, isn’t it?
1
Once again, the press is allowing Trump to turn a function of the executive into a reality TV show.
13
The best judge Koch money can buy appointed by a president bereft of character, judgment, intelligence, or decency. What could go wrong? America voted for this. America is what has gone wrong.
14
We must let the will of the American people be heard, and delay the senate confirmation until after the upcoming midterm elections. Otherwise the Republicans will prove themselves to be full liars and hypocrites.
4
The fact that people keep repeating this, even sarcastically, shows how little liberals think about strategy and tactics.
You are like the soccer fan still yelling at the ref about a foul after the other team has scored the final goal and is walking off the field. Your team lost but instead of learning from it, you remain obsessed with the idea that your team somehow should have won.
There are no points for good sportsmanship in politics.
2
Obama nominated Kagan in 2010 just before the midterms. Was that an issue for you then?
The Biden rule, which you are referring to, relates to the presidents last year in office, not the midterms.
1
There is a baseball game on TV most places at 9 tonight. No need to waste time watching this farce. The Federalist Society list is all the same. Trump didn't pick anyone.
14
So now failing Trumps sister is a legal expert ? and is deciding who is qualified to be a life long supreme court judge?
This sickening and national disgrace
14
She is a well-respected federal judge
5
Trump's sister is on the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, so presumable does have some valid insight.
1
Fake Justice for the Fake Supreme court. You stole one third of our government Mitch McConnell.
When the riots start there be a lot of people looking to have a word with you.
10
So when your political leaning doesn't align with the makeup of the Supreme Court... you insinuate there will be, or should be, mob justice for the other side?
How fascinating that you don't see the irony in that, much less the immorality.
5
My pitchfork is sharpened.
I give you this quote from JFK
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK
3
By “mob justice” you’re referring to the Trump supporters who waved swastikas while marching in Charlottesville last August and murdering a young woman and attacking others who stood up to them, correct?
1
Dang - how come there's never a press leak when you want/need one - "Those who discussed the president’s decision, and spoke on the condition of anonymity, did not disclose the name of the president’s selection." Why the suspense and/or delay? Out with it already!
2
The Envelope, Please!
1
I hear ya "otherwise". So I wonder who's permission Trump is waiting on . . . that's the real suspense for me.
a sure sign that it's fake news - there is nothing there. it was decided months ago by rabid righties. Trump = rubberstamp.
1
"As the president deliberated, the conservative Judicial Crisis Network prepared for a seven-figure advertising buy in four states to support the eventual nominee." So much for democracy. It's a sad for the Republic.
6
This all just theater to boost Mr. Trump's ego so he can say how many people were watching.
Whoever he anoints will push the court farther to the right than it already is.
So good bye Roe, good bye affirmitive action, good bye to labor, good bye separation of the branches of government.
9
The NYTimes is once again being manipulated into the role of a marionette whose every gesture is controlled by Donald Trump. This isn't news reporting, it's reality TV. The NYTimes belies the truth that Trump is not capable of acting responsibly as this report infers. Whatever else this may look like, it's nothing more than a malignant narcissist with anti-social features reacting as he must to further his megalomania.
8
LIVE from the steps of the SCOTUS, it's the Donald Trump Show! "And the nominees for SCOTUS are...."
"The envelope please (drum-roll begins, model in bikini enters)... but first a message from our Sponsor, Vlad Putin.
50
" He has quizzed golf partners, visitors to his club at Bedminster, N.J., and friends and advisers about how they view the candidates."
The president of the United States shouldn't be discussing Supreme Court nominations with visitors to HIS golf courses.
This has got to be one of Trump's most brazen examples of pay to play.
15
Why shouldn't he. Every POTUS from Ike through the last one (what's his name?) did. Yes, they didn't own the courses where the confabs occurred. So what!
7
Upside,
Donald Trump is being paid by the visitors to his golf courses. (They're his customers.) He then asks these visitors for feedback.
Connect the dots.
2
I'll reiterate, just in case you didn't get the email:
So what!!
"The drama-focused president?" Again, the journalist focuses on Trump. It looks more like a reporter's bias that the selection process is superficial and made for TV. Making a decision too fast? More nonsense and more focus on Trump - time is an obvious issue regarding hearing and confirmation prior to the mid-term election to remove the issue from the election. Dislike Trump all you will, but the only drama has been manufactured by the doom sayers and journalists who cannot focus on the issue, only on Trump. When you've done your homework about candidates, there's no reason artificially to delay a nomination. While most of what Trump does is reprehensible and often crass, this is one subject in which the candidate selection work has been done carefully and seriously. It is a big deal to nominate a USSC justice, regardless who the president is. Instead of Trump hysteria, consider that the executive branch reaffirms the importance of the judicial branch by making a production of the announcement. So far, it is the media making everything about Trump - he'll do that himself eventually. Take the opportunity to put the spotlight on the nominee and the court, and stop obsessing about Trump.
3
Chuck Schumer just said Trump did not do his homework. His list was done for him.
Considering that SCOTUS is likely to hear interesting separation of powers type arguments if/when Mueller indicts the president he should NOT be allowed to stack the court with a second pick.
Mitch's argument to wait until after the election was rubbish when he used it to spike Judge Garland. But having made and enforced it, he should abide by it in this case as well.
4
I will not be watching. Instead I will be watching a much more entertaining and talented clown than Trump in the film "It."
3
The idea of a lifetime appointment for federal judge is to keep justices immune from political pressures they might otherwise be susceptible to. But what Trump and the Federalist Society's list of prospective justices is instead working to do is to assure that the justice he chooses votes the way he and more conservatives would approve of. In the process, the point of a lifetime selection is completely undermined. The solution: either justices are chosen for a certain, preordained period of time or more justices are added to the Court. Keeping politicization out of the Courts is essential, but the way it's now working is contrary to the entire notion of the selection of justices, and needs to change.
7
This thought of “ packing the court” , which has been suggested by many liberals/ Democrats over the last ten days, were it to occur, would obviously spell the beginning of the end for the judiciary as a separate but equal branch of government. If Congress is simply going to add seats to the court every time they disagree with the court’s current ideological balance, the court, by definition, becomes little more than an ideological football, with ultimately no credibility with the American public.
This is why FDR’s associates talked him out of his court packing scheme. I can understand that liberals are upset at the direction the court is about to embark on but destroying it as a separate branch of government with an ill conceived court packing scheme is a horrible idea.
4
Whomever the pick, we will all be equal in our suffering. And who knows, perhaps after many years of shared misery, the citizens of this country will finally come together and do the right thing.
Nah, I don't believe that, either.
5
No-brainer: Appoint the one with the lowest handicap at Woodmont.
4
I can hardly stand the suspense. Will it be the white Federalist society conservative, the white Federalist Society conservative, or the white Federalist Society conservative?
67
Not watching the spectacle from this phony tv reality conman.
16
The reality show continues. I wonder if TV networks have jacked up the price of a 30-second spot in the 9 PM slot. TV and cable networks are loving ($$) this insanity of non-stop "breaking news" and " made up" crises. I have no idea how the end of this craziness is going to be, I just feel it'd be ugly and messy.
1
Can someone please thank Hillary Clinton for being such a pathetic candidate. She couldn't even win the states that Obama won, twice.
6
You run.
3
So pathetic. She only got 3 million more votes than the candidate who won. The question remains how many more votes does the "winner" need over the "loser" to be elected?
2
Tony,
You're forgetting that Trump had a little help from his comrades.
2
Let’s all stay tuned for the announcement! Maybe we can view some important commercial messages in the meantime.
May the Senate Democrats' boycott of Trump's Supreme Court nominee (and McConnell) commence at 9:01 p.m., and proceed without compromise, without surrender: indeed, without mercy.
6
Let's see...the worst one is Barrett, and it's Trump choosing, so that's where my money is.
It's really sad that Democrats can't let Garland go. Obama nominated him, and the Senate had the obligation to "advise and consent." The Senate, through the majority leader, advised Obama that he would not be confirmed, and he wasn't. Live with it.
9
Not be confirmed? The man was never even granted a hearing.
6
The GOP’s conduct in this matter is a disgrace to this country and our democracy
If you were really a patriot and cared about this country instead of your own short term political agenda - you would see the long term damage this has done to the Nation.
Shameless
5
The word "thinking" does not even come into the equation when you talk about Trump. He is the most unthoughtful man on the planet.
My guess is that whomever he talks to last will be the pick. Or the one who flatters him the most. Credentials are not important to Trump. Just look at his Cabinet, his Press Secretary, his Chief of Staff. The main criteria for Trump is who will lie for him. Need I say more?
7
Why does the media dignify Trump's reality TV antics with 24/7 coverage? Every rally gets live CNN coverage, every tweet gets hours of analysis, and even minor announcements like 'expect a press conference at 9' get a story in the New York Times. This story is not news: this is just the presidential version of an Apprentice commercial.
18
Um...because he's the leader of the free world maybe?
1
Well he’s the leader of a small group of people who will wake up soon and realize they been conned and their country is damaged and weaker in significant ways for years to come. By the way Trump clearly has no interest in a “free world”
I’ve been watching this fiasco for 7 months - so what else is new? I’ll be watching the more interesting Trump show.
The Apprentice - Russian illegal real state and money laundering edition!
1
@Steven
You mean the "small group" in 30 states who elected him will "wake up" and magically be as smart as you are because they now agree with your politics? Oh, I see.
There's still another 6 hours before the announcement..I'm sure he'll change his mind a few times before then.
3
Kiss you pretense goodbye. You can't even pretend this is a democracy, now that our Supreme Court is owned by Corporations who really aren't people, and indeed, don't value human life.
5
Who cares! Everything trump does is a circus act on the American people.
5
It cannot have escaped Chief Justice Roberts that the Court is in the center of a public relations maelstrom. With McConnell's machinations, many view the selection process and by extension the Court with a cynical attitude. I know I do. However, if Roberts has at all been affected, I expect him to regain his judicial equilibrium just as soon as McConnell's Republicans have voted in whoever.
He should have just picked Cohen and been done with it.
All problems solved.
I have a Peloton bike. I'll be taking a class at 9pm.
3
If you have enough dough for your own Peleton, you're a Republican---no matter what you say.
2
Fake exercise.
2
You'll miss the real spin...
1
I struggled with the criticism of Kennedy stepping down, and now struggle with the media interpretation of a very distinct, honorable, and momentous occasion in U.S. history, that is a SCOTUS justice appointment. These justices serve our great country, regardless of political background. I wish there was a historical presentation being given by some news outlet so that the public could be educated on the process and understand how exactly they can still have a voice (or not).
1
Would appreciate some indication of what causes struggling with the media interpretation? For example, what detracts from the honorable and momentous aspects?
Today's media contain the fullest spectrum of political views and approaches; take Fox News and this paper as but two examples of hundreds of media outlets.
Would also help this observer to have an understanding of "...serve...regardless of political background." For example do the justices undertake not to make any reference to their political views? Seems as though in recent times candidates of all political stripes have refined the art of saying just about nothing substantive or revealing about how they would decide cases; with the possible exception that no one looks askance at stare decisis but even then you've got to know the precise facts.
Without going on at length, how would the historical presentation enhance the public's knowledge? What in general terms is lacking? And how is the public's voice expressed differently in the case of the Court.
No, don't have the sense this is a pedantic approach to the comment.
So this is where we are here in the United States: the occupant in the Oval office will select the next Supreme Court justice which has long-term national repercussions and who, at the same time, can not even pay his chauffeur a proper wage - which escalated today into his filing a law suit for back overtime wages and health care.
Thoroughly disgusted with this appalling Oval Office occupant - who is an utter disgrace on every level.
20
Trump will select whoever he thinks will be in his OWN best interest.
Nothing new here.
22
There certainly has been a lot of intrigue building up to the last day selection of President Trump's Supreme Court nominee. First it was between Judge Kavanaugh and Judge Barrett. Now the selection is said to be between Judge Kavanaugh and Judge Hardiman. This could even change between now and 9:00 PM tonight when the final announcement is made.
Is it possible that none of these people will be the chosen one and it turns out to be someone whose name was never on the remaining list? Anything is possible so we will have to tune in this evening to see who the real winner will be. We may all be very surprised at the final candidate being chosen with some being very happy and others less so. No matter who is chosen the Democrats will be none too pleased with any of the picks. They wanted to be the one who did the picking.
If Donald Trump is proven to be a traitor when the Mueller investigation is finally reported then we as a nation will need to rethink Trump's court selections and decisions. That is only fair in my mind.
5
What a buffoon. Remember when dignity was an integral part of the presidency? Not any more. Trump treats everything like it was an episode of "The Apprentice".
13
Speaking of Judicial Crisis Network, this report is a must read, especially for those concerned about the extreme right-wing Catholic takeover (who also finance Protestants now that they're on board with anti-pro choice, anti-gay, everything anti-liberal, etc.) and the dark, dirty money they use to do it. Motto: "you can keep the Government out of religion but you can't keep religion out of the Government".
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secrets-of-leonard-leo-the-man-behind-...
1
What? You are telling me that Trump is going to appoint a conservative white man? I was certain it would be a Black or Latino LGBTQ. I guess you can never tell.
Ye who enter here (modern America), if you can somehow get in, should abandon all hope.
3
Don't be disillusioned, Disillusioned.
Still the greatest country on Planet Earth, and there is a clear, distinct path in (it's called legal immigration... it's becoming more difficult for law abiding immigrants to do so, in part, because the left is so gung-ho for illegal entry).
So yes. Immigrants can still "somehow get in" (legally, like so many of their brethren that are choosing the high road) and the rewards, and opportunities remain unparalleled regardless of your doom and gloom "abandon all hope." If you want to encourage somebody to abandon something, encourage illegal immigrants to STOP breaking our laws, and making it harder fortheir fellow countrymen to immigrate LEGALLY. Do something for the good...
4
As long as its not Rudy, I think I am gonna be okay.
Here is a thought. Since the entire country has pretty much always agreed that Alan Dershowitz knows more about law than Moses, why not give him a shot? Yes, he is as old as Methuselah but with age comes wisdom and we do not need some youngster learning on the job.
1
Dershowitz is a show-boat. More to the point, however, Trump must not be allowed to put anyone on the Supreme Court. Trump will be facing a criminal indictment, and I hope one of the charges will be Treason.
1
re, ". . . knows more about law than Moses."
Do you mean Robert Moses -- or the guy whose views on "Law" were so rigid as to be (literally) carved in stone?
"...the president’s sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, a former colleague of Judge Hardiman’s, has pressed him to choose."
If he's picked, I hope the media will continue to watch what matters come before the court that are LINKED to her OR the people she fronts for.
This family does NOTHING that doesn't DIRECTLY benefit themselves.
24
Which lobbyist can send the trump war chest the most money to "help" make up his mind? Does the alt-right have enough? Possible with the Mercers. How about the bloc associated with making sure women have no choice? Maybe they'll have to spring for Collins and Murkowski too!
That is what this presidency and the GOP on a whole boils down to. They absolutely reek of payola in every single arm of government and in every single action.
6
I will be watching a re-run of PBS Antiques Road Show at 9pm.No one should support the demeaning process of selection of a candidate for the Supreme Court.These professionals are examined like a specimen in a biology lab.Whether you agree with them or not, they should not become part of a sleazy,political tug of war overseen by the original carnival barker, all in prime time.It is beyond disgusting.Trump was going to drain the swamp- by now he is neck deep in slime.
9
I'm sick of this "all Me all the time" made for TV stuntsmanship staged by Trump. Is America so addicted to The Bachelor and The Bachelorette that even the most sober events are turned into a cheap reality show?
Look at this one! Trump's tawdry antics make the pick for one of the most important jobs in the universe look like "A Winner!" It might as well be Miss Universe.
Of course Trump will paint himself as the real winner in rally after sickening sycophantic rally. As if he were responsible for engineering this opportunity.
Oh, wait, maybe he was! Kennedy's son being his banker and all.
Trump has brought our national culture to the lowest, most sordid level in our history. I am in Tanzania as I write, and the infallibly polite Tanzanians can't help mocking Trump. I hang my head in shame.
5
I went back to Canada. Same mocking from nice, polite people. Dropping my US citizenship won't be a hardship.
4
Why are we (i.e, YOU--The New York Times) going along with the carnival barker/reality show impresario routine? Just announce it when it's announced. We don't need the endless, 'coming up...in two weeks...by nine o' clock tonight....' Enough of this man!
24
NYT, you are acting as a willing accomplice to a metaphorical drug addict’s need for his next fix.
This is not news. It is showmanship, and it being done in conjunction with a sacred tenet which many citizens consider to be one of the most important decisions of their (and perhaps their children’s and grandchildren’s) lifetimes.
Please. Please. Please...do not give this phony, charlatan con-man any more attention than he deserves.
To everyone else, the message is much simpler, yet no less urgent:
VOTE. 11/6/18
33
Must he torture us with his unbearably disjointed, dishonest, off-topic, inappropriate speeches at 9:00p?
He can just tweet it, and we'd be okay with that.
4
Well, better than to have to listen to him talk about what a great justice his choice is and how he or she will make America great again, which dollars to donuts he will somehow squeeze in tonight.
This is all we really need to know about primate decision-making, in light of the far-reaching importance of a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court: "He has quizzed golf partners, visitors to his club at Bedminster, N.J., and friends ... about how they view the candidates."
Putin's useful idiot continues to be a "stable genius" -- as in a stable for livestock.
5
Tease tease tease.
Won't somebody find the witch who stole our president's manhood?
1
I just want to know why there is so much hate coming from the left, I grew up a Dem we th to the Right, now I'm I the middle, but why so much hate and anger from the left?
2
Judge Merrick Garland.
2
Why so much hate from Dems, you ask?
1) Theft of seat from Merrick Garland
2) Destruction of the US's rule of law
3) No respect for the presidency; constant lies
4) Profit over people, the environment, health of the planet
5) Ruination of all agreements which came before he took office
6) Destruction of international relationships; our friends are now our enemies and our enemies (Russia, North Korea) are our friends
7) Efforts to end freedom of press, speech
8) Ending the Middle Class
Should we go on?
4
Because some how we ended up with Donald Trump as POTUS!
Had any of the other GOP candidates won, we'd have suffered thought it because they were NORMAL; do you think Trump is normal?
2
What the court needs most is another Harvard/Yale law grad...not! Time for some diversity on the bench! Like someone who's
...not from Harvard/Yale;
...who's held a legal job beyond sitting as a judge or academic, as important as those job are;
...someone who's life experiences are broader than our insane legal system
BTW, really, a prime time address to nominate a court justice? Someone please stop the insanity!
2
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that "elections have consequences" and "I won."
Consequences, indeed.
5
I predict Hardiman. Reasons why:
1. "Central casting"
2. No Bush tie-in
3. Limited judicial record to be picked over
4. Trump's sister's endorsement; member of the "family" will be useful when the court has to make decisions about the Donald himself.
2
Donald Trump cannot and should not be allowed to install a Supreme Court Justice who will likely be deciding whether or not Trump must adhere to a subpoena by the special counsel. Or, who may be a deciding factor in any eventual impeachment trial.
Until Robert Mueller wraps up his investigation, and the full truth of the Russian attack on our election is known, Trump cannot be allowed to nominate this Justice. There is a cloud of illegitimacy that hangs over this administration.
7
Bla ... Blah ... Blah ...
Oh, nonsense. Trump, as the elected president, has every right to nominate someone. And the senate has every right to confirm (or not) him or her. It's called following the constitution.
5
How is it I picture Trump having his candidate picks sitting on chairs, facing an audience, and Donald Trump walking behind each one, and stopping intermittently with an applause-o-meter over their heads?
8
Every possible SCOTUS nominee on The Federalist/Trump list should demonstrate their integrity, honor, and dedication to the Constitution by refusing to be considered for the Supreme Court until Merrick Garland’s nomination is voted on. Period.
By such action, these jurists would “walk” their originalist “talk” in nullifying McConnell’s unilateral usurpation of the senate’s advise and consent responsibility. By demonstrating devotion to country over dogma, they might even heal some of the division in our traumatized Union.
Too bad Neil Gorsuch didn’t display such integrity.
4
The media need to stop taking Trump's bait. Quit being a promo for his reality show. You decide what is news. When there is something new to report, report it. There are serious stories to report. Don't waste time on every Trump whim.
29
My guess it is for Hardiman. Though, I would prefer Amy Barret.
1
In the real world, a president would take his or her time to decide on a candidate and then make the best possible pick. We no longer live in the real world.
5
I agree. Portland is not particularly "real world" at all. It seems to be a place that worships at the altar of large, ineffectual, inefficient federal government.
We have a President that vetted many candidates for the Gorsuch selection early in 2017.
Those other candidates did not die... do you think those people vetted last year were not top of list, top of mind for Trump. Is 18 months "not enough time?"
1
Do we have Super Bowl priced commercials in the run up to the big announcement of the this unreality show?
3
Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland!
He deserves to get the "stolen seat" back.
7
We all deserve to get the stolen election back. But if Trump's atrocities result in the Democrats taking both the House and the Senate, that will at least be a silver lining.
Oh, and if taking kids from their parents is not an "atrocity," then I do not know what would qualify for that designation.
1
Not yet settled on his pick, baloney.
He's enjoying pulling the wings off his flies — er, judicial candidates — and hoping the suspense will draw a bigger crowd.
2
Doesn't really matter much. We know for sure that the cookie-cutter nominee will be an ultra right wing religious fundamentalist intent on forcing their outdated political and religious dogma on normal Americans. Just like ScAlito, Roberts, Thomas and Gorsuch. We face the prospect of being under the thumb of an ultra right wing religious fundamentalist court for the next 30 to 40 years no matter how liberal the MAJORITY of the country is (and is already MAJORITY liberal).
1
I would like to hear from someone who righteously declared, during the campaign, that a vote for Clinton and a vote for Trump were the same. Where's Susan Sarandon on these picks?
2
I know you HAVE to cover this NYT - but please find a way to do so without fueling this nightmarish commercialism of our democracy.
This is a Supreme Court Justice pick that will define our country for the next 40-50 years, not an episode of the Bachelor where we find out who Trump is giving a rose to.
26
Why would you or anyone let an ideologically biased Judge or majority of Judges DEFINE your country for the next 40-50 years???!!!
Are the ideologies of a majority from 9 Judges then the arbiters of of laws, rules and determiners of what happens to 320 million Americans in terms of what they can or can't do, rights that are or aren't theirs...based by just them?
I thought an Aristocracy was undemocratic ...but what do you call rule by 9?
Here's my advice. Call in "Chuck and Nancy." Listen to the Democrats Mitch McConnell cheated out of President Obama's nominee. One-party rule is not democracy.
Were you saying that to Obama when he rammed through Obamacare without a single Republican vote?
complete lie. Republicans literally installed hundreds of amendments in the ACA watering it down.
1
Totally FALSE. The Republicans had absolutely no say in Obamacare. That was all Democrats doing.
Trump needs the advice of the Times posters here.
6
The evening gown competition has yet to commence.
58
:) Best comment I have read in quite a while :))
Here's hoping he listened to his caddy during the weekend round of golf instead of Hannity.
30
Just think, if it weren't for the sheer hatred and spite of the Bernie Sanders crowd, we could be rejoicing over another liberal justice to join Associate Justice Merrick Garland. Oh well! I hope the Bernie crowd are happy with what they've achieved.
113
Yes, Bernie Sanders personally absconded with Merrick Garland's "stolen" seat. Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schultz heroically tried to stop him, but were unfortunately destroyed by the frenzied hoards of Bernie Bros.
1
Stop. As a Sanders supporter, I ended up voting for Clinton as did all the other Sander's supporters I know. Blame people who voted for Trump or failed to vote altogether. Your comment is not helpful.
3
Mike sorry to burst your bubble. If it wasn't for the arrogance of Hillary and company we wouldn't be in this mess. Wasserman Schultz, Podesta, Brazil and the rest of them thought they could coronate a flawed candidate who has Wall Street ties and a questionable past. People who truly cared about the country looked elsewhere. The DNC should have thought about this when they handed the nomination of the party to someone who referred to voters she needed as deplorables while the leader of the party Obama was equally as insulting by referring to voters as people who cling to their guns and religion. While I do not support many of Trumps actions the corporate Dems put him there and if anything good is to come from this, I am hoping they learned their lesson Given the two
Year temper tantrum they have been having , it appears not
5
9pm announcement? Prime time ratings much?Trump’s need for attention is insatiable. Let’s look away, go to bed, and find out who the SCOTUS pick is in the morning.
208
Missy I hear you. I was listening to MSNBC this morning complaining about the 9pm announcement and how it was like a reality show distracting from other important matters in the world. Agreed but tonight along with all the other stations they will give it wall to wall coverage buying into the craziness. Why not flash the name of the new justice on the screen and cover those other important matters. Just a thought.
2
I think most people will do exactly that. But the left is so incensed that they will swell viewership so they can hyper-ventilate in real-time as the selection is announced.
1
MissyR - YES, look away!! What is wrong with the media, that all (even the Times) are suckers for the attention-getting games played by this prez? You aide and abet nearly as much as the Republican party.
1
Will the swimsuit competition be televised ??? Huge ratings. He debases us ALL, daily. Seriously.
170
No swimsuits needed for this display of naked ambition. I’m sure the candidate gushed about his loyalty to Trump over country and Constitution.
2
Swimsuits? Pfft. "covfefe" judges HIS contestants right in the dressing room.[1] But don't worry, he has seen (and perpetrated, and supported) all of the wrong-wing cruelty and bigotry before, so he's, like, totally not a creepy guy or anything. He's just checking up on the requirements for putin's next paycheck.
We're about to see a lot more of that wrongwingery, since we can count on the two GOP women and weak red-state "Democrats" to do exactly nothing about it. Yay!
[1] Ask the then-15-year-olds from that 1997 pageant, when Ivanka was 15 too. Yeah.
At least Judge Hardiman's wife is a democrat.
7
I wonder what he threatened Justice Kennedy with . . .
46
My understanding is that Trump (or his puppet masters) assured Kennedy that Kennedy's "legacy" would be left intact.
With that assurance and three dollars, you can get a cup of coffee.
I don't know if Trump recently said he would exclusively nominate "pro-life" justices or if earlier comments were revived due to the news, but he's announced that he has that litmus test.
It seems like swatting a fly with a nuclear bomb.
If a jurist assures Trump of his/her stance on this issue, does nothing else matter?
Do we need another conservative lap dog to keep Clarence Thomas company?
It's too bad that the entire process has become such a political dog and pony show. Rather than having the best selected we have the most acceptable selected. And not acceptable by standards that make any sort of sense to anyone. If there was ever a position that should be limited it's that of justice on the United States Supreme Court. It may have made sense when this country came into being to have lifetime appointments but it doesn't now. Just as we're supposed to have citizen legislators, we should have Supreme Court justices who will be replaced not decide which president will be allowed to select their replacement.
If I were a senator the first question I'd ask any nominee is what their understanding is about the separation of church and state in America. The next one would concern freedom of speech. And then I'd ask the nominee what he/she would do if an ongoing investigation found evidence that Trump had broken the law in a way that called for prison time. In other words, is it glossed over or is he told, just as Clinton was, that being president doesn't excuse him from being called to testify or being questioned?
18
I would not even bother to ask a single question. People have lied to my face since I first appeared in this thing called life.
I would simply read everything the nominee has written and look at all of their decisions. The nominee is gonna tell a senator what they want to hear just like our presidential candidates did in 2016, 2012, 2008, etc.
1
The Scotus became a Dog and Pony political show the day Thurgood Marshall was confirmed to the SCOTUIS.
1
My advice for Trump he will never take. But I will give it to him all the same, as a sign that we have not forgotten how a fit and competent president fulfills the duties of the office. Trump should nominate a candidate whom all Americans can live with. For example, he should not nominate a candidate who promises to make the dogma of one religion the law of the land. He should nominate a candidate who has a reasonable ability to empathize with the working class and the middle class.
4
I'm not certain as to all the permutations, but I think that's how we got Rid of Bork and ended up with Thomas. Neither would be 'my guy' , but the former had the credentials and core that the other lacks.
1
Thank you for your reply, Jane. Didn't we oppose Bork in good part because Bork happily went along with Nixon and fired the special prosecutor? We got Thomas because the other n women who were willing to testify that Thomas had sexually harassed and groped them were not permitted to testify--not permitted by both Republicans and Democrats, Biden among them. Of course, had Bork been approved there would have been no Thomas. That aside, Thomas should never have been approved.
Jane Bidwell wrote:
"I'm not certain as to all the permutations, but I think that's how we got Rid of Bork and ended up with Thomas. Neither would be 'my guy' , but the former had the credentials and core that the other lacks."
He will announce, he himself will serve! No one can do better!
He will serve as both President and the Supreme Court. No one knows more about the law than he. Who better to pick to enforce the law than one our flouts it he will tout!
It is his destiny to make the law and the enforce the law! To rule. To reign Supreme!
6
"Who better to pick to enforce the law than one who flouts it?" he will tout!
...as it was supposed to come out.
4
If the Democrats don't win back Congress, Trump will resign and Pence will appoint him to the Supreme Court. And the Republicans will support him.
Imagine if a Democratic president would only consider Supreme Court nominees that were approved by groups such as the, ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center?
I don't think most of the public really understands how radically Right the Federalist Society is. What they support is mostly un-American.
146
Or how radically right the country is. Except on Fox, trolling sites, etc. there is no radical left. The pendulum never seems to swing even back to the center any more.
indeed, there most certainly is a Radical Left. It's the progressive wing of the Democrat Party and it's why Long time Moderate/Centrist Democrats are walking away from the party.
I thought that is what Obama did.
1
All the judges are Federalist darlings. The fact that Trump, who more than likely is not even a legitimate President, gets to set us back 100 years makes my stomach churn. Will our country ever recover? I am worried for my children and grandchildren.
64
I hope Trump is getting some good advise from, well, someone with knowledge of judges and the Constitution. Considering the picks he has made for his Cabinet, his level of personal decision-making is not awe-inspiring.
Just think, fellow boomers, we are all probably going to be dead before the Trumpian Supreme Court loses influence, especially if Trump has the opportunity to make one or two more SCOTUS picks.
Maybe that is a blessing.
Having allowed The Enemy to take control of the courts, we're going to have to reclaim and defend human rights the hard way: legislatively, starting with the states. Take heart. Anything that Republicans can break, Democrats can fix.
8
Historically, since the early 1900s, everything that Republicans have gone out of their way to break, Democrats have been elected to repair as best they can: economy, civil rights, social security, equal protection under the law, etc. etc.
Not to burst your bubble, but ...
"Judge Garland needs to be seated first."
If there HAD been a vote on Garland, the Senate's decision would have been "no." The odds that the Senate would have OK'd Garland, thereby creating a 5-Justice liberal majority, were slim to none, and Slim had just left town.
A few commenters replied that several conservative Senators actually thought highly of Garland and would have approved him. I have no doubt that many Republican Senators thought highly of Garland. But that would NOT have translated into a "yes" vote for Garland. Again, the odds that the Senate would have OK'd Garland, thereby creating a 5-Justice liberal majority, were slim to none, and Slim had just left town.
Vote or no vote, Garland would never have made it to the SCOTUS. It's tempting to pretend otherwise, but that's just "pretending."
12
@MyThreeCents: "Vote or no vote, Garland would never have made it to the SCOTUS. It's tempting to pretend otherwise, but that's just "pretending.""
Let's "pretend" for a minute that your scenario had played out.
At least, HALF THE COUNTRY could be satisfied that this Supreme Court seat hadn't been STOLEN.
But, you see, it WAS stolen. The process, set forth in the Constitution never played out, because the TRAITOR Mitch McConnell refused to do his duty and uphold the Constitution.
No matter what Justice Gorsuch may do in his career on the bench, his legacy will be forever tainted by the FACT that his seat was stolen.
2
Minimally, they should have voted.
2
It doesn't matter whether he would have been approved or not. It was a dereliction of constitutional duty not to even "advise" whether or not you are going to "consent."
Interesting, too, that McConnell held up confirmation hearings for 10 months so the people could have a say through the election, but can't wait 5 months for the people to have their say in the midterms.
The fact that he calls that his proudest moment shows the level the Republican party has sunk to. More Chavez/Maduro than Abraham Lincoln.
2
9 p.m. Eastern - prime time. The (un)reality TV show is never over. I can't wait until we can tell him,"You're fired!" Followed by, "Book 'im, Dan-o."
6
We are doomed, no matter who it picks. It should not have the right to choose. wjat with the huge criminal cloud hanging over its head.
3
The sideshow continues. Being smug and cute is no way to shape the highest court in the land that will impact the country for at least a generation. One thing is certain about this Court selection. The president will demand personal loyalty from the judge and Americans will always wonder if the judge has the country's interests at heart or the president's. That's a cloud that no Court Justice would ever want hanging over his or her head. Any choice by this president will stain the Court and his own legacy for all time.
5
Donald Trump has already made up his so-called mind. Like a schoolboy, he’s yanking everybody’s chain. Please remember: this is a reality television production. People: take a chill!
37
Schoolgirl, actually.
SCOTUS should be apolitical it isn',t, it is becoming just a rubber stamp for this admin., therefore changes need to be made: first, no politician should be appointed for life, and especially NOT by another politician; nomanee's should serve no longer than six years, they should be selected by a bipartisan commitee, nominees should be selected purel'y on merit and the committee should have a rotating Chairman, that should increase Democracy in the US!
4
But if Barack Obama were the nominee I am guessing you would want him for life:) Should RGB step down since she has put in her time?
The Hillary camp does not like how the last election went and now suddenly they are screaming for doing away with the electoral college and changing just about everything.
We have a Democratic Republic which means that in a LOT of elections, people will win that I did not vote for and laws will be passed that I do not agree with. I have yet to read of a better system of government then what we have.
6
It really doesn’t make any difference anymore. The Supreme Court was originally designed to be part of the check and balance process. However it is no longer that. It’s nothing but a puppet for the politicians. Sad that the nation is going down the toilet
56
Very true. SCOTUS has been a political body for too many years to count. But I’m guessing that’s been true for most of our country’s history. The only saving grace is state’s rights and the legislatures - outside of Washington, that is. We should thank Trump I suppose for reminding us how important it is for us to all vote.
has even asked the advice of the people on the senate judiciary committee?
it would be wise, since djt's only court experience is 3500+ law suits and 4 bankruptcy hearings.
18
Well, he sure gets a lot from the NYT:
"Trump gets way too much attention from the media."
Trump announced last week that he'd announce his SCOTUS nominee today. Since then, every media outlet, including the NYT, has tried to guess who the nominee will be. The NYT is simply expressing its frustration here at its inability to guess.
Result?
Trump gets "why too much attention from the media," exactly as this commenter writes.
4
Whoever is nominated, if I were a Democratic senator on the Judiciary Committee, my first question would be, "There are a number of investigations of the president's conduct underway. If any issues surrounding Mr. Trump's conduct were to come before the court, would you recuse yourself?"
205
Absolutely correct. What happens if Trump is found guilty of treason? Do we get a do over Supreme court?
10
I can tell you what any nominee's answer to that question will be:
"The Supreme Court has detailed rules on when a Justice should recuse himself or herself. I would follow those rules. Where individual discretion is called for, I would err on the side of recusing myself."
Being a lawyer myself, I can assure you that Trump's Justice will get over his or her "gratitude" to Trump in about 17 seconds, maybe sooner. After that, all that Justice will be thinking is this: "I've got a lifetime appointment. There is absolutely nothing Trump can do to change that, no matter how I rule on some claim that may or may not be asserted against Trump (or anyone else) down the road."
7
Actually, the Supreme Court does NOT have detailed rules about recusal. It's pretty much up to the whim of the individual justice. And the record of justices suggests that they feel gratitude, or affinity, with the president who appointed them, if not loyalty. When Justice Holmes differed with Theodore Roosevelt in an important case, it was a big story.
The Con Don is such a demented ego-maniac. "Look at me. Look at me. Look at me."
One of the news television shows ran the clip of him pushing the president of another country out of the way at his first meeting with allies. It was humiliating to know that this fool is supposed to represent OUR United States.
The media insists on promoting every stupid tweet as "news". They are just the proof of a demented bully.
Now the media is promoting his announcement of a supreme court pick as a major news event. It is not - unless the news is that he is trying to take one more step to destroy democracy in OUR United States of America. I, for one, will not watch.
The talking heads are weighing the pros and cons of the three "contenders". There are no pros. They want to destroy the civil rights of everyone but their Robber Baron pay masters and they think they will be protected. Wake up, boys and girls. Mafia people kill/destroy each other. Every day. You are no exception. You are low hanging fruit.
WE THE PEOPLE are the only ones who can/will stop them and NOW is the time.
81
"Decision" is a word trumpty is uncomfortable with as it implies consideration of different viewpoints mixed with pondering, soul searching, and even some existential analysis. Webster's defines it as: "a determination arrived at after consideration." Based on the preponderance of empirical evidence, he does none of this. His main decision making is based on: How does it profit me and my cronies? Mitch, Jeff, Stephen you guys hash it out and give me 2 names and a coin. I'll make the call--heads or tails. Let's get this done. And make sure the letters on the teleprompter are larger--add in something about crooked Hillary and the electoral college. My fans love that stuff. And don't bug me any more about this-- I've got to pick out my ties for next week's face to face with Vlad.
22
The NYT is simply helping Trump to build the "drama," as are numerous other media outlets. All Trump has done is to announce when he'll announce. The rest is journalistic reaction, and the NYT is just as guilty as the rest.
449
In a perfect world - hah! - the news stations wouldn't show him. Just report the results. He lives off the attention. Start refusing the direct platforms so he can't get his face on TV. Don't show the troll. Only report the end result.
' The president lied about x, y and z before announcing his supreme court nomination. You can read the transcripts and associated cliff notes HERE.'
Sadly it almost seems that honesty ratings are needed for all politicians. Fall below a certain rating? I'm sorry, you no longer qualify as a politician. BTW, you're now fired for blatant public dishonesty and can no longer hold public office...
Trump gets way too much attention from the media.
356
Actually, I think he needs to get more attention from the media for alleged criminal and unethical activities.
1
Why does the media collaborate in the farce over Trump's "narrowing the field" and "nearing a decision"? Isn't it obvious that he decided last week whom to appoint, and that the fake suspense since then is just another example of how he merrily manipulates the media?
166
Judge Garland needs to be seated first. Then Trumps choice can be considered after he is cleared of the investigations of him.
225
Good joke!
1
I'm sorry, but the time to insist that Merrick Garland be seated was November 7, 2016. And if you didn't vote for Hillary this is your fault.
1
Steve, I would go further. NONE of Trump's federal judicial nominations should be recognized until he's cleared by a full and complete Special Counsel investigation. As a compromise I would allow the seating of current nominees if they can pass the recognized process before the filibuster and blue slip processes were eliminated. It's really the same thing as removing Trump's nominees outright because almost none of these right wing ideologues would pass that muster.
“Mr. Trump appeared to be going back and forth between Judge Kavanaugh, the favorite of the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, and Judge Hardiman, whom the president’s sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, a former colleague of Judge Hardiman’s, has pressed him to choose.”
Are you kidding me with another possible Trump family connection and hard sell/pressing? Good grief, we’re not talking about purchasing a new car, breed of dog for the family or new China pattern for the dishroom. Choosing the next Supreme Court justice could impact this country for decades. I would find it refreshing if once, just once, a Trump family member could simply stay out of crucial and decisive decision making process which will affect us. The fact that “Maryanne” is pressing Trump to choose Judge Hardiman worries me and I find greatly troublesome. What’s in it for her? Why would she care?
I guess I’m too Pollyanna to hope and wish for the next justice to be cut from a similar cloth as Thurgood Marshall – a man brimming with integrity, honor, intelligence and a sense of fairness across the board.
48
Actually, Judge Trump is a well-respected jurist. Given the other advice that the president has been getting, taking hers would probably be as good a step as we could hope for.
9
"I would find it refreshing if once, just once, a Trump family member could simply stay out of crucial and decisive decision making process which will affect us. The fact that “Maryanne” is pressing Trump to choose Judge Hardiman worries me and I find greatly troublesome."
Hmm...do you feel that way about Joe Kennedy's and Bobby Kennedy's enormous influence on son and brother respectively, President Kennedy? Joe Kennedy pressed JFK big time to appoint Bobby Attorney General.
Is the issue you raise one of principled opposition to nepotism, or simply one of furthering policies you yourself prefer?
1
What we need is a Judge Roy Bean on the court.
The game-show-like farce of the Supreme Court pick deserves as much media coverage as possible. This is much more than just a pick for the high court; an ultra-conservative idiology could shape decisions for years to come and have scary consequences. Whoever gets the nod should be fought tooth and nail by Democrats for many reasons.
131
There is no mention of either teeth nor nails in the Constitution. And Democrats think that wailing and whining is fighting. Supreme Court nominations have always been akin to a game show farce.
1
You're right, Peter. We don't need ideologues on the nation's highest court. Unfortunately, we already have Bader, Sotomayor and Kagan. You know, the three "ladies" who thought it was OK for the state of California to force organizations to promote the state's position on abortion, even though they oppose it? A justice who bases his/her decisions on the Constitution rather than (unConstitutionally) creating laws in line with their politics is what we need EVERY time a SCOTUS seat is filled.
Have to think it will be Hardiman for three main reasons. First, and more importantly, the Senate confirmation process would go smoother for Hardiman than Kavanaugh. In particular, Collins and Murkowski, both pro-life, would be more likely to approve of the nomination -- and those two votes are critical. Dems would have a field day delaying the confirmation of Kavanaugh with his extensive past with U.S. presidents, and Republicans cannot afford to lose time. Second, Hardiman's background story appeals to Trump and more importantly his base. Trump would love to say he appointed an ex-taxi driver to the highest court. Lastly, and perhaps less important, is the Bush effect. Trump wants to distinguish himself, and be seen as the president to turn the court towards the right for years to come, and appointing Kavanaugh links Trump with Bush. Which, from a distance, seems like something Trump does not want.
40
And Hardiman is loved for wanting to arm everyone.
1
Federalist Society has vetted all of the candidates. Roe is history.
Collins is going to vote for whoever Trump names, don't kid yourself.
It doesn't matter which conservative justice he picks, except to the family of the chosen one. There will be a conservative justice added to the court.
The Democratic party leadership better be prepared to use the "abortion issue" and the "activist conservative judges" who are going to take that right away from every American woman, against the Republicans for the next 2 years just as the GOP used it against the Democrats for the past 45 years.
95
The Democratic Party leadership brought us to this black hole event horizon spot by it's craven cynical incompetent perfidy,
1
Since McConnell ignored the constitutional oath to grant advise and consent to Merrick Garland, the current seating Scotus is illegitimate. If our government ignores that unconstitutional act never happened, it still occurred.
Now we have a POTUS under investigation for criminal acts, possible impeachment and significant campaign abuses involving a foreign power and the Senate is allowing him to nominate another judge to the Supreme Court.
The GOP has created an illegitimate government and that state of abuse of power is increasing each day.
330
If it was an unconstitutional act, surely someone would have sued to contest it. How did that lawsuit go?
1
We can't forget what McConnell did when he refused to hold hearings for Merrick Garland.
Just as we can't forget how Donald Trump and his corrupt administration have violated countless norms and ethics rules.
If our nation is to survive we can't allow the Republican party, or any party for that matter, ignore ethics standards and their Constitutional oaths.
1
It was not unconstitutional; it would gave been a waste of time. The Senate would not have confirmed Garland, so why waste the time going through the process. In a way, ignoring the nomination was advising and giving a thumbs down.
1
Trump's judicial mind is a blank canvas beyond his own personal jeopardy. Self preservation is paramount and related to how slavishly conservatives will support him. Particularly through likely jeopardy for impeachment and later criminal charges.
But the horse race aspect and Trump's simple minded calculations are just a distraction from the real issues at hand.
Republicans, a party supported by a minority of voters and a party that lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, is trying to shape the federal judiciary to their most extreme views for generations to come. Not because their thoughts have prevailed in the marketplace of ideas, but simply because current contingencies allow it.
The other issue is presidential legitimacy to make appointments. Mitch McConnell, without precedent, decided to withhold a duly submitted nomination from consideration, presuming Obama was illegitimate to do so. Three Senate Republicans stated they wouldn't allow Hillary to make SCOTUS appointments if she won because of the dastardly affair with her email server. But Trump, a man under criminal investigation for possible conspiracy with a foreign enemy and a man widely recognized to have the lowest moral character of any president in at least a century, is somehow more qualified to give out lifetime picks to the federal bench.
It all boggles the mind. It also markedly diminishes our courts credibility to fairly judge our most contentious issues.
190
Winning the Electoral College majority vote is the only vote that matters in our divided limited power constitutional republic of united states.
The Supreme Court of the United States blessed slavery and Jim Crow. The Supreme Court of the United States was for Native colonization and conquest along with misogyny.
Lawyers do not do legal research by going to mountains so a deity can give them the law on stone tablets.
2
So, it is official: Russia is a foreign enemy. Is it?
2
When McConnell violated his oath to the Constitution by refusing to conduct hearings for Merrick Garland, he said, "The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide."
President Obama had almost a quarter of his term left. The midterm elections are in roughly 4 months.
Donald Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million and won the electoral vote by only 77,000 votes in three states. On top of that, only 58% of eligible voters went to the polls for the 2016 presidential election.
A large majority of the American people DO NOT support Donald Trump.
So Mitch, let's wait until the November midterms and, "let the people decide."
448
Trump won 30 states. The majorities that mattered -- and that cared -- have spoken.
1
not "three states" THREE COUNTIES !!
How do we make Mitch do anything at this point. The only thing that matters to that man is power and to hell with the American people.
1
"He has quizzed golf partners, visitors to his club at Bedminster, N.J., and friends and advisers about how they view the candidates. But he has offered little about his thinking."
So this is where we are. The president of the US consults his golf partners, visitors to his private golf club, and "advisors" about his choice of a life-time appointment for the Supreme Court. We are living in a daily reality show with a man who is making critical decisions that will affect all Americans and is basically saying, "Stay tuned. We'll be back after the commercial." Has there ever been a time in this country when we have been so embarrassed by our government? I think not.
365
Considering he is starting with a list of 25 candidates vetted and approved by the Federalist Society, it hardly matters who he consults in picking the ultimate nominee. That person will be a solid conservative justice. This huffing and puffing about peripheral issues clouds the basic truth that the Democrats can't do anything to stop Trump from getting his next pick confirmed. You want to control the judiciary, you have win elections.
1
What difference does it make who he talks to? Oh that's right, only Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Maxine Waters should have a say in selection of a Supreme Court Justice. No need for nominations, hearings or confirmation. Save so much time.
1
What difference does it make. All the “candidates” are exactly the same - they come from a list given to Trump before the election. He can ask golf buddies, the person cleaning his room or throw a dart - it makes zero difference.
Trump is turning this into a “media event” like it was the finale of The Apprentice. In a way I guess it is, Trump isn’t in charge, he just following the script.
1
To those on the left, who failed to consolidate their vote behind Clinton, here is a major consequence of that failure: Decades of a Supreme Court controlled by the right, hostile to every progressive issue you hold dear.
Say what you will about Clinton, that she is a DNC puppet who supports an adventurist military policy, a puppet of Wall Street, whatever. She would not have nominated Gorsuch and she would not have nominated whoever Trump will tonight. In fact, if she had been elected, we may have had a moderate (if not left-leaning) SC for the next few decades.
I would like to think this is "lesson learned" for the left for 2018 and 2020, but I'm not sure it has been learned and it may be too late to reverse the severe damage being done across the boards by Trump and the Republicans.
322
The lesson has not been learned and the consequences from failing to manage reaction to Trump's tweets, allowing his lies and distortions to go unchecked as well as moving further to the left foretells a midterm election that will not solidify Democrats in the Congress nor prevent Trump from being re-elected.
Focusing on Comey, the electoral college, Hollywood's bashing and so on does not create an strategy providing positive alternatives. Personally, Robert Dinero's rant did way more harm than good.
1
Dan88, I totally agree with you and frequently try to make the same points.
1
It's time to seriously consider evoking Article V of the USC. 28th Amendment: Eliminate life terms for SCOTUS. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html
2/3 of the states need to act, and "Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval."
1
Lawyers for Trump are now indicating that he will not submit to Mueller for questioning. In that case, legal challenges by the Mueller team will probably wind up in the Supreme Court. So, don't be surprised if Trump's pick for the court will be a nominee who does not believe that a president can be prosecuted and would rule in Trump's favor, along with the other conservatives.
That is how the Machiavellian White House is thinking now. Always ulterior motives.
109
I believe this wholeheartedly. It’s a matter of survival now, Trump knows he is very vulnerable and is ready to use every means at his disposal.
1
Wouldn't a Trump nominee have to recuse himself from involvement?
So why the reality show "Pick your Supreme Court Justice" rolls out, we have the Trump administration hiding the fact that they cannot find all the parents of the children they separated. Nor are they telling the taxpayer how much money the incarceration, etc. is costing. On top of that we have the "anti-breast feeding campaign" and the Rudy Giuliani road show to kill the Mueller investigation. You got to give credit to Trump....he can throw out more hornets nests than a tornado and then pat himself on the back while he kisses Putin's ring. Oh wait....that's a little later in the week. Trump's ratings must be just as high as he wants in all the media.
66
The biggest secret of all is what it costs to fly Trump around to his golf resorts and pay them to put him up.