According to a list released by the campaign, Mr. Trump’s potential nominees include several federal judges: Steven M. Colloton of Iowa; Raymond W. Gruender of Missouri; Thomas M. Hardiman of Pennsylvania; William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin; and Raymond M. Kethledge of Michigan; and several state Supreme Court justices: Allison H. Eid of Colorado; Joan Larsen of Michigan; Thomas Lee of Utah; David Stras of Minnesota; and Don Willett of Texas....Saying the reaction was "mixed," the Times quotes Nan Aron (president of the liberal Alliance for Justice Action Council), who found these people "dangerous" — "some of the most extreme conservatives on the federal bench today" — and Ed Whelan ("a prominent conservative legal commentator") who said it was "a good list of some of the outstanding judges who give ample sign of being faithful to the Constitution." Actually, that sounds like an unmixed reaction: It sounds like the reaction that the potential nominees all seem to be conservative.
As Whelan reminds us, we can't be sure a President Trump will actually pick one of these people or somebody like them. The list is part of the process of trying to get elected. But it's interesting as a political move. I can't remember ever seeing a presidential candidate do a list like this.
The closest thing I can think of is Ronald Reagan's promise in the 1980 campaign that he'd put a woman on the Court. He made an actual pledge, and, by the way, his opponent, President Jimmy Carter didn't like it, calling it "a mistake for a president to promise [to appoint] a particular kind of American." Reagan, of course, followed through on his promise. I remember my father scoffing at my naivete for thinking a politician would keep a campaign promise. (I wasn't a kid at the time. I was 30 years old and had graduated from law school. (And for the record, my father voted for Reagan and I did not.))
But Trump isn't promising. He's just saying these are people "he would consider as potential replacements for Justice Scalia." (At that link, to Trump's website, you'll find a short and very simply written statement of each person's biography.) Since he's not promising, there's nothing to believe or disbelieve. It's another suggestion. As he famously said last week: "Look, anything I say right now — I'm not the president — everything is a suggestion, no matter what you say, it's a suggestion."
Posts
130 comments:
Let's see Hillary!'s list.
And a woman from Wisconsin not named Althouse.
Sad. Just very sad.
Seriously, a decidedly swing state and non-Ivy list.
"Look, anything I say right now — I'm not the president — everything is a suggestion, no matter what you say, it's a suggestion."
I find that refreshingly forthright.
It was a bold move by Trump and not one that Hillary is likely to follow. After all, there are millions of dollars in donations to her charity at stake with a Supreme Court nominee. She needs to get elected first and then test the market....how much is it worth to the greens? Will the gays pay more? How about the abortionists, they have deep pockets? Lots to consider.
Some notes on the 11: Only one attended Harvard or Yale (Yalie Steven Colloton), nine clerked at the federal level (Gruender and Hardiman did not), three former law profs, two (Hardiman and Sykes) have experience as a trial judge, two (Colloton and Gruender) former US attorneys. Of the nine federal clerks, six made it to the Supreme Court. Three (Eid, Lee, Stras) clerked for Thomas, and one each clerked for Rehnquist (Colloton), Kennedy (Kethledge), and Scalia (Larsen).
Geographically, this list is a shot against the bi-coastal dominance of the current Court. One Yale graduate, one Georgetown graduate and one Duke graduate, with the rest from decidedly "flyover" country. (Stras attended U Kansas law school!) This is a "freshwater" list.
Finally, almost half (5 of 11) would come directly from a state supreme court. The last SCOTUS justice to come directly from a state supreme court was Bill Brennan (NJ) in '56. O'Connor came from AZ's intermediate appellate court.
Once again Trump hits his enemies (in this case the never Trumpers) in an unexpected direction. He may be just an incredibly sharp opportunist or he may have a master plan, I can't tell which. He has skills, though, which inky become apparent when you try to stop him (or root for someone who does).
Steven Colloton: Yale Law.
Raymond Gruender: Wash U St. Louis
Thomas Hardiman: Georgetown
William Pryor: Tulane
Diane Sykes: Marquette
Raymond Kethledge: Wayne State/U. Michigan
Allison H. Eid: U. Chicago
Joan Larsen: Northwestern
Thomas Lee: Chicago
David Stras: Kansas
Don Willett: Duke
Refreshing lack of Harvard.
Diane Sykes of Wisconsin
He put #nevertrump Charlie Sykes' ex-wife on the list.
Thanks for the breakdown, quizbowla.
Well, that's eleven more votes.
No problem, Prof. Althouse. Longtime lurker here. Just received my Ph.D. from UW's political science program (right across Bascom Hill!) on the background of federal judges. Taught a class called "So You Want to be a Judge" this semester, which was criminally undersubscribed given the events of the late winter.
Long story short, it's what I do!
I've heard business leaders say what Trump is saying when they're in a position without formal authority. Also, I think Trump very much understands how to anchor a negotiation. He's masterful at it. I'm not sure we've had a president since Reagan who's this skilled at negotiations. Like Reagan, however, he also knows when to say "yes."
But it's interesting as a political move.
It is interesting.
Trump is willing to admit what we already know...
The Supreme Court is a political entity, and not some blind arbiter of justice or constitutionality.
Why on earth would he make a firm promise to nominate someone from the list? Judges are people who change, and it will be months or possibly years before anyone is actually nominated. That's lots of judicial opinions, speeches, dumb emails sent, etc.
But Trump isn't promising. He's just saying these are people "he would consider as potential replacements for Justice Scalia."
Interesting how Trump limited this short list to only replacing Scalia.
Trump can address any center-left backlash by saying these are the nominees he's considering to replace Scalia's "conservative seat" on the SCOTUS, giving him some wiggle room if criticism mounts about limiting himself to naming one of these to replace, for example, RBG's "liberal seat."
Good move by Trump. Without googling, I can opine that Colloton, Pryor, & Sykes are excellent judges (meaning conservative in the same manner than Scalia was).
So, if the remaining judges are of the same ilk, Trump, on the merits, has provided convincing evidence to the #NeverVoteTrump crowd, that he is superior to Hillary on this critical issue.
#NeverVoteHillary
I know a guy who was interviewing with a female Ninth Circuit Judge for a clerkship in the Judge's office at the exact time that the SDO announcement was made. As noted, SDO was only a court of appeals judge in Arizona (she was really smart though). The interview did not go well since it was interrupted by someone calling the judge every 5 minutes to say S.D.O.? -- are you f-ing kidding me? Apparently, the announcement was quite a surprise.
Will Trump--if elected--actually nominate any of these people? I mean the list looks pretty good if you are of the conservative persuasion. Not a wise Latina in the bunch as it were.
But this could be the old bait and switch. Even so, I'll take the bait.
Obama's promise of Hope and Change was also a classic bait and switch. All those fools that believed in his promises and pablum have not nothing but the switch ever since he took office.
(I wasn't a kid at the time. I was 30 years old and had graduated from law school. (And for the record, my father voted for Reagan and I did not.)
As a programmer, your unclosed parenthesis is giving me hives.
Good "suggestions" by Trump. Jeff Sessions' staff whispering in his ear or running his website?
"S.D.O.? -- are you f-ing kidding me?" Last time the 9th had the right reaction to anything?
Careful, Quizbowla, you sure you wanna hang out with the Neanderthals here? After all, everyone knows AA is "conservative," than which there is no greater sin.
Good move by Trump. God forbid we ever start designating seats as reserved for certain type of person.
And this list has given me a reason to vote for Trump rather than against Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife, or designated replacement.
Also interesting: The NYT says "all [of the potential nominees on the list] are white." At least, Stras is Jewish, which is apparently plain old "white" for Supreme Court purposes now. I think this was how Garland's religion was covered as well.
We've come a long way from having a "Jewish seat" on the Court, if we ever did in the first place.
Also in contrast to SDO (but in line with all on the current Court), none of the 11 appear to have elective experience as a legislator or chief executive. Pryor was Alabama AG, but state AG positions usually get treated specially for the purposes of "elective experience."
It's probably something he talked about with Paul Ryan. Maybe even with Newt Gingrich.
"Lots of the core of the Republican party, conservatives, care deeply about the Supreme Court. Give them the Supreme Court and they'll give up u their vote."
It works for me.
Say it with me: President Trump.
Get used to it. We have a long ways to go before America is what it once was, but I think he actually means to try. Perry is predicting trump wins 37 states. If the dem nominee is Hillary it will be in the 40's.
"The Godfather said...
Let's see Hillary!'s..."
The three most frightening words in the English language.
Trump has been consistent about saying he would nominate conservative judges.
Of course it could be a head fake to assuage conservative voters, but surprisingly, given his predilections for "suggestion", I believe him.
I have come to the realization that his policy speeches aren't so much suggestions but initial offers. It became apparent to me with his speech about US debt that made me very uneasy.
Building a wall, slowing the intake of Muslim refugees, haircuts on the debt are his method of telling average Americans that there are solutions out there. While they seem to be extreme, at least someone is talking about them.
Understanding that he is a promoter, not a politician, it actually makes sense.
When his supporters are given a suggestion by Trump that he intends to do something for them, it is his perceived ability to be faithful to them that makes it sound like a promise in their ears.
That is a unique Trump ability among today's politicians. He is seen as a tough man who will bend but not break under bad future circumstances. The last time one of those type leaders was seen, said he was said to be tough as a hickory branch.
Based on that feeling they followed their Old Hickory down to New Orleans, where his leadership style, they saved the Father of Waters from the Bloody British's elite War Machine by horribly slaughtering it's officers and men.
"...Trump and not one that Hillary is likely to follow. ..."
Well, she can't respond. At all. She's locked into Merrick Garland. And if she wins, she gets Merrick Garland. I suspect Trump new all this when he released his list. A true masterstroke of persuasion and campaigning. I look forward to his presidency.
As an aside, the Austin daily just released the news that the APD is sending 90 officers to Cleveland to assist with the convention. There was not one mention in the story of who might be protesting, only that they were protesting Donald Trump. The word "Democrat" never appeared once.
4 of the Trump Judges were Clerks for Scalia and Thomas (Lee, Larsen, Eid, Stras).
If you are a pure, ideological Conservative (I'm not quite), you should be enthralled with these suggestions.
#NeverVoteHillary
Trump is saying...."Barry, I'll be making the next supreme court appointment". I love it because if Hillary attempts the same stunt, then she undermines Obama. Bernie doesn't know what hit him.
If Trump really wanted to shake things up, he'd pick Mike Lee, not Thomas Lee. Compare to FDR making his first pick Hugo Black, not Felix Frankfurter. Lincoln's first pick was Noah Swayne, not Samuel Miller. And, of course, Reagan's first was SDO, not Bork (recognizing the pledge made SDO more attractive, but Reagan didn't pick a female career jurist or law prof).
Trump is getting good advice and is taking it.
This is the opening round of his appeal to the GOP base. Many of the Democrats who are going to vote for him don't care much about this.
I was talking to day to a doc who is a life-long Democrat and who was teasing me about Trump 6 months ago.
He is voting for Trump because he "can't stand Hillary." She is in deep do-do.
"...However, not only did Trump box her in, he flummoxed the Never Trump crowd. His list is so conservative that not supporting him is now akin to not supporting the nomination of a conservative justice.."
Don Surber, earlier this afternoon
Pragmatic POTUS conservative Supreme Court? I honestly am starting to like this guy.
I prefer conservative judges but I didn't think SDO was that bad. She was super smart, probably was one of the top 5 at Sandford Law but couldn't get a job out of law school (Truman was still President) because she was a woman. While she was a swing vote on the court, per wiki she would side with the conservative bloc 75% of the time. A court full of SDOs would be a pretty good court.
The news cycle has met its Master. I almost feel sorry for those Clintonistas and their CruzBot friends.
my father voted for Reagan and I did not
The biggest regret in my life is selling my '57 Chevy.
The second is not voting for Ronald Reagan.
I agree with Newt Gingrich who thinks Trump might win in a big way.
"The NYT says 'all [of the potential nominees on the list] are white.'"
Get ready for the #SCOTUSsowhite campaign.
God bless Trump for not buying into identity politics ... whereas Hillary's probably got her campaign staff scouring the country for a transgender judge.
"my father voted for Reagan and I did not"
Father knows best, then.
"The second is not voting for Ronald Reagan."
A lot of people will not share the fact that they voted for Carter which is understandable and after all these years can be forgiven.
A lot of people will not share the fact that they voted for Carter which is understandable and after all these years can be forgiven.
Thank you. Can I get absolution for Mondale too?
I voted for Carter, the first time. I was sobbing in my beer with my friends at Billy's on Main Street when Reagan's win was on the TV.
I voted for him next tie around, after graduating and actually working for a little while.
Thank you. Can I get absolution for Mondale too?
LOL You're the one?
Now Hillary should present us with a list as well.
Fun fact about Steven Colloton: He is the only federal judge (and certainly the only federal circuit court judge) I know of to receive all three ABA ratings simultaneously. He was rated Q/WQ/NQ upon his nomination to the 8th circuit. In other words, a majority of the ABA committee thought him qualified, at least one thought him well-qualified, and at least one thought him not qualified.
If we are reminiscing about proud votes I am still proud that my first presidential vote was cast for Barry Goldwater. I knew in my heart that Lyndon was going to bury us in Viet Nam no matter what he said. I was right. A year later I got my draft notice and rather that be drafted I ran to 100 Summer Street in Boston and got snagged by the Corps.
My first vote was for Nixon and my family was outraged.
However, I had taken an economics course.
My one vote I regret was for LBJ because I thought Goldwater was an incompetent nominee. He was a pretty lousy candidate.
I only wish I could say I voted for Goldwater.
"Thank you. Can I get absolution for Mondale too?"
Fool me once, shame on you ...
Like timinvermont - I voted Carter as well and hated the idea of a Hollywood actor like Reagan being POTUS.
And like Tim - voted for Reagan in his second term. I think it was the Air Traffic Controllers Showdown in like 2 weeks into his term that impressed me but - it kept happening.
I think of my dislike of Reagan a lot now when looking at Trump - but all I know is that Ronald Reagan never mocke a disabled reporter - and Trump did - and that I can NEVER reconcile.
Also - time for a 5 to 8 year appointment for Supreme Court Justices. They are already so super-politicized - they need to run for re-election. Time to forget tenure (on this court and many other places folks LOL)
My parents had things like job security in pensions and tenure - and I'm getting old. Tenure should be dead in USA in all ways possible.
Also To TiminVermont -
You really voted for Mondale?
Good Gravy!
No one did except for our crazy state Minnesota.
Wow.
Trump accused Bill Clinton of rape tonight in an interview on Hannity.
Trump is going to beat Hillary like a red-headed bastard. Oh, wait!.....That would be Chelsea.
Judge Diane Sykes, from Wisconsin, is the former wife of #NeverTrump leader radio host Charlie Sykes.
This is just too rich. I'm going to need to check my cholesterol tomorrow.
The list is basically the Heritage Foundation wish list put out last month. I bet that's exactly where he got it - from the Republican Party, or as they are affectionately now known "the GOPe". Maybe, that was before, and now they are "our GOP".
http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/30/the-next-supreme-court-justice/
According of one source (which may be wrong), on this list judges who are former Thomas clerks (natural law guy who thinks the Constitution is inherently a natural law document and hence the abolishment of non-criminal abortion at both state and federal levels is prima facie required by it) outnumber judges who are former Scalia clerks (not a natural law guy, a tweedy classical liberal scholar who thinks abortion is a state issue because he read somewhere that federalism is important) Three to One. People may have expected Trump to pivot to the center after wrapping up the nomination, on issues like abortion. They may have been wrong, it seems. Either Trump knows what he is doing or he doesn't. I am not going to look it up because I think i already know whether Trump knows what he is doing or doesn't. If the Thomas to Scalia ratio is really 3 to one, that is kind of funny; if it is not, at least I was entertained by wrong information. Life is hard and even tenuous entertainment is important.
I'm starting to warm up to this Trump fellow. He's not nearly as bad as the NYTimes says he is.
Thank you. Can I get absolution for Mondale too?
No. That was idiotic beyond belief.
I think of my dislike of Reagan a lot now when looking at Trump - but all I know is that Ronald Reagan never mocke a disabled reporter - and Trump did - and that I can NEVER reconcile.
Let it be known PianoLessons has never done a retard or deaf person voice.
"tim in vermont said...
I only wish I could say I voted for Goldwater."
We had a mock election in my grade school. I was the Goldwater campaign manager.
AuH2O!
Goldwater was elected president of Einstein Elementary in Des Plaines, IL.
quizbowla FTW.
For people like me, the thing is I cannot count on Trump actually nominating any of these people or others like them, but it's an absolute certainty Hillary will nominate their exact opposites.
Same thing on immigration. I have no idea how far Trump will go in the direction of building any wall anywhere or enforce internal controls, but we all know what Hillary will do.
Since the Supreme Court and further uncontrolled immigration are the two main issues permanently affecting the future nature of this country--choosing a fork in the road you can never really retrace--it's an easy choice.
The New York Times doesn't like Republican's picks for judicial nominations. In related news, dog bites man.
'Trump has been consistent about saying he would nominate conservative judges.
Of course it could be a head fake to assuage conservative voters, but surprisingly, given his predilections for "suggestion", I believe him."
why would he lie about it? It would seem like he needs to provide some meat to republicans to get elected. If he was elected and then said "Ha ha! Fooled you!" and then elected liberal judges his career as Republican would be OVER. He might be able to get stuff passed with democrats, but republicans, even his supporters, would have to renounce him (well maybe not Trumpbots).
So, it wouldn't be in his interest to really go back on his word.
Unless he plans on ruling as a democrat and doesn't care if he has Republican support at all. That is a distinct possibility. But I'm not sure that the Democrats would rush to support him. And if they did, again, it would end any support from his base. So, odds are these are the judges he'd nominate.
"Trump accused Bill Clinton of rape tonight in an interview on Hannity."
If hillary has a problem with that he should say that Hillary herself said we should always believe those who cry rape. IN YOUR FACE, HILLARY!
Goldwater was elected president of Einstein Elementary in Des Plaines, IL.
You grew up in Des Plaines?
Small world.
"Rusty said...
Goldwater was elected president of Einstein Elementary in Des Plaines, IL.
You grew up in Des Plaines?
Small world."
Yep. The City of Destiny. What its destiny was I don't know. But a great place to grow up. Des Plaines Theater. The Sugar Bowl. Johnson's Sporting goods. Waycinden Area Boys Baseball.
"If Trump really wanted to shake things up"
You surely must be a Phd.
SO stupid.
!
You have succeeding in the stupification of others to extentwise gloatness seems only natural.
I DEMAND YOU DEFEND.
"You have succeeding in the stupification of others to extentwise gloatness seems only natural."
I wish I could add to that, but it says it all. I give up on the internet thingy.
I give up. Write it ver bate m on my fuckin' toomstone.
Oh wait.
"But Trump isn't promising..."
I'm not giving up after all. If he isn't promising, well, that changes everything.
Hope and strange.
All over again.
Justice Willett's a good man, one can follow him in Twitter. Which probably is probably where Mr. Trump found out about him.
"and CruzBot friends."
Brilliant TradGuy. You should trademark that.
Mr. Trump is trolling the Clintons the way he did "Jeb!". This is not going to end well for them. He's as unshameable as they are.
Perhaps Trump understands more than many beltway Republicans that it is good business to give the base something they want from time to time as a means of keeping the alliance together.
It also addresses the #NeverTrump argument by suggesting a much more palatable bunch of judges than pretty much everyone in the Republican party would assume to be the best-case scenario with Clinton.
It's one thing to say that Trump would be worse than Hillary. It's hard to look at that list of judges and maintain that position, at least on this score. Certainly Trump could be lying, as could any politician. I think that in Donald's world of The Deal, judges aren't something he has much of an ideological investment in, so if he can manage to win an election or get some other policy dearer to his heart in exchange for nominating these kind of judges, I think he'd do it.
Is Trump breaking up the Yale/Harvard Catholic/Jew lock on SCOTUS with his picks?
Don Willett! Damn, maybe I will vote for Trump after all.
Go Willett! Known him for 20 years and consistent supporter of the Constitution.
Trump, you magnificent bastard. You're trolling the entire presidential political process, and you're doing it on the cheap.
The only anaology and metophor, and I ain't be knowing any disticitctions, apt is this damn one here:
The old Casinos in Vegas with the Old Blogs of the Right.
Who is whom and why?
Fuck it; ain't got time to tell ya.
Others though?
Oh, others got time baby.
I voted for Nader in 2000. That was before I started following politics. I was raised in a democrat party household and was brainwashed from birth. I started reading The Boston Herald and Howie Carr in the Clinton years after being weaned on The Globe. After the election of 2000 I realized I should start learning what's going on here. I started listening to talk radio, Air America and Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt and other republican shows. I was struck by how obscene, crass and offensive Air America was. Where Hewitt or Prager would engage and explain, lowlifes like Al Franken and Stephanie Miller and Randy Rhodes mocked and derided. On the internet I found the same phenomenon- The Daily Kos and Huffington Post were just humorless cesspools of contempt and hatred, while Hot Air was informative and intelligent, and Ace was full of contempt and hatred, was obscene and vulgar, and mocked and derided, but was fucking hilarious! Then I discovered the Althouse blog- Smart and classy! Enjoyably eclectic! The Satin Doll of blogs...
That and anyone convicting Trump of Obama's crimes is/hasbeen/willbe described again and again; you just didn't see it.
Fighting the last war has blinded you, so you scream louder.
We feel your pain brother.
Thank you everyone. The post and this thread really brightened the day.
Latest Fox News poll has Trump up by +3.
In 2012 at this point, it had Obama up by +7.
Justice Don Willett on Trump: @JusticeWillett -- "Can't wait till Trump rips off his face Mission Impossible-style & reveals a laughing Ruth Bader Ginsburg."
More here.
He mentioned Sykes and Pryor by name during one of the GOP debates.
By the very next day, he'd forgotten Pryor's name.
Michael you are as perverse as Beta; why you frontin?
Bitch.
Don't fuck with my homey. This is your first and hopefully among many many more warnings.
That would be the accomplishment of starting a dioloque, Rush even thinks this cuntshit is immmmportant.
For fck sakes.
CHrist me crying out loud.
Derp derp trhis is EXACTLY WHAT I TOLD YOU:
TRUMP IS A LIBERAL DIEHARD SU{P{PORTING ONLY LIBERAL DIEHATRDS.
I told you this.
I done did damn told ya this.
Yet;;;;;
Liear.
He lies.
So... Lies. Lies. Lies.
Abd>
ABd
ABNd///'
.
And?
Look you slovenly cunts, I am victory.
Smell me.
Know as victorios, I WILL NEVER SMELL YOU.
Now console.
I SAID CONSOLE.
These comments reminds me a nature walk when you come across one of those orange lizards in the woods and the big kids try to get you to hold it on your hand. "Come on, he won't hurt you" "No I don't wanna", "Look, see how cute he is", "No, he's got claws, I don't wanna","Those aren't claws, they just tickle, hold out your hand, you're scared aren't you", No, I'm not scared, I just ... don't wanna ... it might", "It might? be really interesting?" "It might bite ... or something ... I don't wanna."
one Third of commenmtators hers would have said "I told you" I Told You I TOLD YOU et al had Trump said "I name my sister as SCOTUS nominee."
But since he didn't they still feel their thoughts are as relevant as if he had had.
Think of this.
Their little mind is all their comprehension of events past, not to mention current much less future, opportunities speak toward.
So:
--If not everyone mentioned then at least supporters of everyone mentioned ought get busy now.
--Talk about preemptive leeway being set up.
Perhaps Trump understands more than many beltway Republicans that it is good business to give the base something they want from time to time as a means of keeping the alliance together.
RIGHT ON! I put that in all caps because I was shouting, BTW. Chuck and the GOPe, had they won through some kind of parliamentary mischief, would have dismissed Trump's supporters as "losertards" or "trailer trash," or something.
To be fair, they wouldn't have called them "Hillbillies" since the Democrats have trademarked that ethnic slur.
Let's see Hillary try to get everybody to look away from the mid air explosion of a flight out of Paris this morning. I am sure it was probably Right Wing American terrorists behind it. The flight was to Egypt.
Trump is loony tunes to think we ought to vet Muslim refugee immigrants. Loony tunes! Xenophobic racist pig!
Anybody who jumps to any conclusions about how this Egypt Air flight exploded this morning is an execrable racist hillbilly!
The funny thing is that you don't even have to reduce their arguments to get to absurdity.
Curious George said...
"Rusty said...
Goldwater was elected president of Einstein Elementary in Des Plaines, IL.
You grew up in Des Plaines?
Small world."
Yep. The City of Destiny. What its destiny was I don't know. But a great place to grow up. Des Plaines Theater. The Sugar Bowl. Johnson's Sporting goods. Waycinden Area Boys Baseball.
The Choo-Choo, Speigelers Dept Store, Kinders Hardware, Romano's. Lived there 40 years.
If this mollifies his conservative critics, then maybe Scott Adams was right about this "master persuader"--put together a list of names conservatives have suggested, say you'll nominate them, and boom, problem solved. As noted, none of this is binding and if he needs leverage with Democrats or has a different preference (e.g., a justice more comfortable with Trump's idea of executive power and less likely to rule against anything he wants to do) it's not as though they can do anything about it.
Of course, I don't trust a thing coming out of that guy's mouth so a Trump presidency is a total crap shoot. And not caring which crook gets elected is sort of calming.
I am sure it was probably Right Wing American terrorists behind it.
Coming soon to a local newspaper near you:
"A lot of terrorists don’t want to admit it, but Donald Trump supporters aren't the only ones playing with fire and recklessly courting an angry mob."
It's playing Russian roulette with a revolver v a loaded shotgun, not a pleasant choice, but not a hard one.
To answer some of the above, if unanswered above.
My guess is that the person most responsible for this list was Trump's sister, a federal judge.
He may or may not keep to this list, and the strong suggestion by it that he would pick strong constructivists. I think he will, but am a bit biased. But the alternative, a Democrat, is far worse. Hillary is trying to get to the left of Sanders, and has in one place at least - her promise to essentially overturn Heller and McDonald, allowing Australian style gun confiscation, or some such. This issue alone should scare any sane voter into voting against her. Heller, itself, was heavily grounded in history, thanks to the in depth scholarship of people like Eugene Voloch. Self defense really is a natural corollary of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This was well understood in pre-Bill of Rights days. Heller and McDonald require increased scrutiny of laws that impact the 2nd Amdt. The Circuits seem to be coalescing around a standard that utilizes traditional strict scrutiny when a law acts close to the core of the 2nd Amdt (esp, it seems, when it limits the right of self defense), and intermediate scrutiny otherwise. On the other hand, the 2nd and 3rd Circuits have apparently taken a different tact, essentially defining the Heller required increased scrutiny down almost to the level of rational basis scrutiny, which mans that they are extremely differential to state justifications for gun control. Which means that there is now a clear Circuit split, making the issue potentially ripe for more action by the Supreme Court. We pretty much know how a Hillary (or Obama) nominated Justice would vote here, breaking the current 4-4 tie in favor of the 2nd and 3rd Circuit approach. I think it likely that any Trump nominated Justice would vote the other way. (I think Sanders would have a hard time finding sufficiently liberal Justice nominees who were as strong as he on the 2nd Amdt, but I think that he would try). No doubt, there are numerous ther issues where the differences between Trump's claimed type of Justices would differ from Hillary's - such as the questions of how much deference to give govt nterpretations of laws, how strongly should rule limiting laws (such as the APA) be enforced, how much can the federal get move around money to pay for things when Congress ntentionally refused to allocate funds, etc. These are all issues that have popped up recently, and haven't been completely resolved by the Supreme Court yet.
"tim in vermont said...
It's playing Russian roulette with a revolver v a loaded shotgun, not a pleasant choice, but not a hard one."
You can't play Russian Roulette with a shotgun. You need a revolver.
Some of the National Review guys seem close to reaching Kubler-Ross's stage of acceptance of Trump. I like Goldberg and Williamson. They are NR's star pundits. But their early, rabidly anti-Trump stance contributed a lot to the #nevertrump attitude among the magazine's other writers and editors.
Desperation move.
Desperate, as in desperate to woo the Movement Conservatives, the Federalist Society, the NRO crowd. The educated conservatives who have not yet warmed to Trump.
There's no doubt about any of that, is there?
Why else would he release such a list? A list like this is like giving a rival your playbook while everybody is still in summer football camp. It will draw attention to these judges in their current positions; it will supply an early start on oppo-research, and it will allow Trump opponents to fish through any questionable decision, article, statement, question, etc. and use it against Trump by proxy.
That is why candidates never do things like this.
Most presidential candidates at this stage have secured the base of their party, and are trying to reach out to the broad, non-ideological center. Trump is still trying to sway Republicans to his cause!
You can't play Russian Roulette with a shotgun.
Yes, you can, but it takes all the suspense out of the game.
"MadAsHell said...
Yes, you can, but it takes all the suspense out of the game."
No, you really can't. It requires, by definition a revolver.
Curious George said...No, you really can't. It requires, by definition a revolver.
If .410s count as shotgun rounds then the Taurus Judge and the S&W Governor work.
If you load a shotshell round any of the Colt revolving rifle style rifles could count--Uberti makes some nice-looking examples.
If you mixed the load tube with dud rounds and one live round, had someone blindly load it, and then emulated the "spin once and take turns pulling the trigger" method (as opposed to the "take turns spinning and pulling the trigger each time" method) then a standard shotgun could work.
Look, America needs your creativity now more than ever, ok? Let's make America good again, or something...I'll think of a better slogan.
Michigan Supreme Court Justice Joan Larsen (newly appointed to the Michigan Supreme Court) was just interviewed by the conservative radio host (and Trump-sympathizer) Frank Beckmann on Detroit's big clear channel station, WJR.
She sounded a bit befuddled, and caught completely off guard by her mention. Which means that Trump hasn't vetted her in the slightest.
This is a peculiarly strange situation. Larsen was appointed by Governor Rick Snyder after the oddly sudden retirement of Justice Mary Beth Kelly. Larsen has little record as a judge. She was pulled out if the administrative faculty at the University of Michigan. She's got a fine resume, but isn't known as a leading light of conservatism here.
Any of you guys ever heard of "figurative speech" and "poetic license" or even "rhetoric"?
If everybody is literal minded enough, we can prevent the entry of any new ideas into the language. I think that was one of the central themes of 1984.
Here is an object lesson in the generalized perils if the Trump candidacy for all Republicans...
I just got a bulk email from Michigan Republican Party Chairwoman Ronna Romney, with a special fundraising request for the party, to support the election of Justice Larsen in the fall, inasmuch as she will be a special target of state Democrats, branding her as a 'Trump judge.'
Because she was a gubernatorial appointment to fill a midterm vacancy, Judge Larsen is required by law to run for the unexpired part if the term in a special election. Which means this fall, when the Presumptive Nominee will also be on the ballot.
It is a kind a a perfect microcosm of how Trump wil pose challenges to Republican incumbents in purple states.
President Jimmy Carter didn't like it, calling it "a mistake for a president to promise [to appoint] a particular kind of American."
As a matter of principle, Carter was completely correct, too.
Right Chuck, because she never would have faced any kind of vicious opposition from Democrats otherwise, and as if you can believe everything you read in a fundraising mailer.
See, Tim, this I where I just know more than you do.
Justice Larsen isn't the only justice up for statewide election in Michigan this fall. Justice David Viviano, another Republican-nominated member of the Court is also up for re-election. Viviano was a Court of Appeals judge before his elevation to the State Supreme Court. He's a quiet, reliable conservative. A bit ungainly in an election campaign; unlike Larsen who is a personable, glossy, attractive, U-M connected social moderate. (To the extent that anyone even knows what she may think about social issues coming before the court.)
But this fundraising campaign doesn't mention Viviano. He wasn't connected to Trump.
btw, when I typed "Ronna Romney," it should have been "Ronna Romney McDaniel."
Chuck the Hillary supporter knows more than we do. Good to know.
Go vote for Hillary. You are no longer wanted in this party. We need people who actually want to win. That would not be you.
According to Krauthammer, the meaning/justification for this is a lot of conservatives were worried about supporting Trump because of the potential that he might appoint liberals to the Supreme Court, as was done by Republican Presidents with Justices Stevens and Souter. This move by Trump is a green light for them to support him. And this may trigger the expected preference cascade, where they all fall into line supporting him (except maybe JEB Bush who still seems butt hurt for being called low energy).
What is wrong with you Chuck? I am guessing you can't see how stupid your comment is or you are trolling and think I'm stupid. Keep up the outrage limbo.
I think of my dislike of Reagan a lot now when looking at Trump - but all I know is that Ronald Reagan never mocke a disabled reporter - and Trump did - and that I can NEVER reconcile.
I can't see why a disabled person shouldn't be as open to mocking as anyone else? Equal treatment, and all that....
Achilles: You are such a relentless fuckhead.
How many times do I have to write publicly in Althouse comments that I expect to hold my nose and vote for Trump, before you get it? I know the answer; you won't get it, no matter what. I will never matter to you, how many times I write it.
Because you want enthusiasm for Trump. And I won't supply it. And because I will continue to criticize Trump for his boorish ignorance.
I am voting for your shit for brains candidate; what more do you want?
You ought to be happy; a campaign ought to not care much about anything else past the marginal vote. And I am as marginal as it gets, when it comes to Trump.
A court full of SDOs would be a pretty good court.
Up to their armpits with dead babies.
Reagan could easily have nominated Mary Ann Glendon. They did shitty prep work and didn't care enough about Roe v. Wade. It's preposterous and idiotic that the Republican party has failed to nominate one pro-life woman to the Supreme Court. So, fast-forward 20 years, and SDO is stabbing babies in the middle of birth.
Literally every woman who has ever served on the Supreme Court is not just pro-choice, but viciously pro-choice, without any exceptions or qualifications. No pro-life woman exists, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.
I would frankly love and admire an emotional woman who recognizes the humanity of the unborn child and who speaks up about it. We want our judges to be unemotional and to have distance from the people involved in the dispute. And yet sometimes, as we see in sociopaths, a lack of emotion is itself the problem.
To Chuck, a political fund raising letter is an authoritative text.
Why on earth would he make a firm promise to nominate someone from the list?
He already made a firm promise to nominate someone from the list. He also promised to ask the Heritage Foundation for help in compiling the list (a promise he kept).
But now these names mean nothing. He's releasing a list of eight conservative judges, while simultaneously releasing himself from his pledge to put a conservative jurist on the Supreme Court.
It's entirely possible that Donald Trump will surprise me, win the election, and be a good president. I acknowledge the possibility. But the man's a blatant liar, and what he says has no value to me whatsoever. Yes, he can compose a list of conservative judges. So fucking what. Obama can compose a list of conservative judges.
Trump said he planned to use the list "as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justices" and said the names are "representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value."
Does that even sound like Donald Trump? Or did a lawyer write those weasel words for him?
You trust him. Enroll in Trump University! Buy his steaks! I will not give this man any money. I will not vote for him. I have no trust. None. Zippo. I'm voting Libertarian.
"Yes, he can compose a list of conservative judges. So fucking what. Obama can compose a list of conservative judges." Sigh. People are being crazy.
No, Obama cannot compose such a list. Clinton cannot compose such a list. They are firmly in the left's camp. Trump is not. He will do some things that upset us, and some things that are okay. Clinton is like Obama - she will never do anything that will not upset us.
St Croix, you are a bullshit artist.
Waah waah the babies! Stop abortion!
Trump is closer to that than Clinton. If only because he doesn't likely regard abortion as an absolute good. It is unpossible that as president, Trump would lead to more abortions than Clinton.
Your Christ was all about welcoming those with dirty hands who had good at heart. Your sneering at Trump's foibles is pharisaical. Libertarian means you do t really care about what you say you care about.
Soldier (in the war against abortion), shut up and soldier!
Post a Comment