“I had a very, very interesting morning,” Mr. Trump said as he met with Mark Rutte, the prime minister of the Netherlands....
July 2, 2018
"White House officials declined to say which potential judicial nominees Mr. Trump talked with Monday morning, but the short list of candidates..."
"... is believed to include six federal appeals court judges: Thomas M. Hardiman, William H. Pryor Jr., Amul R. Thapar, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Joan L. Larsen and Amy Coney Barrett," the NYT reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
138 comments:
I think Trump will have as much trouble with Republicans as Democrats getting confirmation.
Barrett.
All the possibilities must be racists.
The chosen one will be the worst racist.
Trump met with Senators Collins and Murkowski yesterday.
Collins reported that Trump "listened."
I bet he said a few things to them, too.
I bet also that they vote for the nominee.
The President ad Tank had a very nice chat.
3 Questions to pro-choice folks:
1. Do you think it's a reasonable opinion to believe, constitutionally, that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided?
2. Do you think any judge who believes 1 should get a "No" vote on the confirmation?
3. Does the Democratic Party believe that, as a precondition for a "Yes" vote, the nominee must commit to upholding Roe?
I say this as someone who is generally Pro-life, but has voted for several pro-choice candidates (such as Arnold the Terminator)
Yes, no, yes.
I know nothing about any of these judges, so just for the obvious reasons I hope he picks a woman (a Gay Black Woman would be best), who is an Originialist.
etbass said...
I think Trump will have as much trouble with Republicans as Democrats getting confirmation.
I think the nominee may have as much trouble with Trump statements, Tweets, outbursts, etc., as with Democrats. With the Republicans, all that Trump needs to do is to make a deal. He's the great deal-maker. Everybody says so. A really great dealmaker. A dealmaker so great, it will make your head spin. You'll say, "We can't take any more great deals!" An A+, among dealmakers.
I think it is Kavanaugh now, and Barrett or Larsen with the next appointment.
I think the names of Hardiman, Thapar and Bill Pryor are message-sending devices right now, along with the two women. No list, however small, can be all-white/all-male.
Chucks transparent desperation is a joy to behold.
LOL
If Trump nominates a woman, the Democrats will scream SHE'S HITLER'S DAUGHTER!
1. Do you think it's a reasonable opinion to believe, constitutionally, that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided?
First of all, it wasn't decided, it was created. Second of all, even if you believe in a 14th Amendment right to abortion (which is absurd) it should still be easy to admit that Roe is both ridiculous and embarrassing. Easily one of the worst cases ever.
2. Do you think any judge who believes 1 should get a "No" vote on the confirmation?
Obviously I don't, but the Left disagrees with me.
3. Does the Democratic Party believe that, as a precondition for a "Yes" vote, the nominee must commit to upholding Roe?
Yes. I believe it is even said explicitly in the Democratic Party platform.
I'm guessing Thapar, just because Trump would love to bait progs into another Clarence Thomas moment. Given the Internet, this time the Democrats would come out absolutely slathered with their own feces.
The nominee can't talk about his position on a decision, can he? And hopefully hasn't spoken or written anything in the past.
@Chuck,
I think the nominee may have as much trouble with Trump statements, Tweets, outbursts, etc., as with Democrats
This is an observable dynamic. I have a handful of really good friends, life-long Reagan-Conservatives, who still can't stand Trump. I ask them, Why focus on Trump's tweets and statements and tone, as opposed to his actual policies?
They don't have a good response.
Pryor would be a big "piss off!" to the Left and the 3 liberals GOP Senators (McCain, Murkowski and Collins).
Trump has to be prepared for his first pick to go down. The Dems feel like cornered rats, and are acting like it.
CBS has an intern who overheard a drunken rumor in a D.C. bar that it's down to Kavanaugh and Barrett. Take with the usual grain of salt.
@Chuck-
I'd flip them. There are several benefits to nominating Barrett now and Kavanaugh to (hypothetically) replace RBG. First, it raises the likelihood of anti-Catholic and anti-Motherhood rhetoric that can be exploited in the election. Second, it'll be harder to make the usual noise about an old white man trying to control the woman's uterus. Third, it gets us away from the idea that Supreme Court seats have race and gender quotas -- which is what replacing RBG with another woman could look like.
Pryor would be the best one, but probably the most difficult to get through. He's been pretty clear that Roe is hot garbage.
Where the fuck is Judge Jeanie and Judge Judy?
I want a real jurist on the court who knows that when they are pissing in your ear it isn't raining.
"...Trump's tweets and statements and tone..."
I don't like them myself. But I don't believe he would have the support he has without them. Conservatives have been forced to accept liberal B.S. without complaint for years and now they finally have someone who will speak up and get in the face of the leftists in a way that is bringing them down. He brings out the worst in the leftists and it is helping him get crowds in flyover country.
Barrett. No way Murkowski and Collins can vote against a woman - and she is superbly qualified. Save the guy for when there is a larger R majority in the Senate.
Chuck hates any conservative wins if Trump gets them.
It is more important to help his Democratic friends than advance conservative priorities.
Even as far as the Supreme Court.
Unexpectedly.
Have you ever baked or eaten cornbread in the shape of Texas?
Bay Area Guy said...
@Chuck,
"I think the nominee may have as much trouble with Trump statements, Tweets, outbursts, etc., as with Democrats"
This is an observable dynamic. I have a handful of really good friends, life-long Reagan-Conservatives, who still can't stand Trump. I ask them, Why focus on Trump's tweets and statements and tone, as opposed to his actual policies?
They don't have a good response.
My statement is based on recent history. Recent history, in terms of Trump claiming, "I will be appointing pro-life judges..." and, "I am pro-life, the judges will be pro-life..." and, referring to a reversal of Roe v Wade, "That will happen, automatically in my opinion," [because he would get to nominate potentially several justices to the court.]
Those are careless statements, and imply a promise to rule in a certain way that no federal judicial nominee can or should ever make in return for a nomination.
Then there is the recent history with Judge Gorsuch, where Trump tried to step on the news coming out of the meeting between Gorsuch and Blumenthal where Gorsuch said that it was "disheartening" and "demoralizing" to hear Trump talk about federal judges as he did in the Trump University and travel ban cases. Trump said that Blumenthal had mischaracterized Gorsuch (he hadn't) and reportedly Trump almost pulled the nomination in one of his rages.
I wouldn't pick Barrett because everybody knows that Catholic girls start much too late. The President would rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints. We know he will pick a good one because sooner or later it comes down to fate.
I mean look how long Ruth Bader Ginsberg is living?
For our hostess and lawyer commenters I as a layman I ask this question: what elements would a case before a circuit court need to start a path to the Supreme Court that could in principle cause the court to overturn Roe vs Wade? After forty years of numerous cases there hasn't been much of a chipping away of Roe never mind repudiating it.
"Chuck hates any conservative wins if Trump gets them."
There is actually no operational evidence that Chuck would support a conservative win under any President.
Though I would note LLR Cjuck considered obama "magnificent"
One of the memes floated by the left is that Roe has been "settled" law for nearly 45 years, and such long-standing precedent should not be overturned.
Proper Response:
1. Gov't segregation: Plessy (1896) => Brown (1954): 58 years
2. Sodomy: Bowers (1986) => Lawrence (2003): 17 years
3. Same Sex Marriage: Obergefell (2015) => ?: 3 years
It took a long time to uproot the horrible Plessy decision and does that imply Obergefell can be easily uprooted, since it isn't settled law after only 3 years?
@Chuck,
You're still focusing on Trump's "statements."
As judicial matters, do you think Roe was correctly decided or not?
Do you think the travel ban case, Trump v. Hawaii, was correctly decided or not?
Trump just keeps on winning and Chuck just keeps on complaining that Trump better stop being Trump or he won't win anymore.
C'mon.
Isn't obvious that the old ways of, "just shut up and be a good boy and it'll work out!" hasn't ever worked?
Drago said...
"Chuck hates any conservative wins if Trump gets them."
There is actually no operational evidence that Chuck would support a conservative win under any President.
Though I would note LLR Cjuck considered obama "magnificent"
You keep doing that. Claiming that my opinion of Obama is that he is "magnificent." And I keep asking you to quote me in full, and provide a link. And you never do.
I never voted for Obama, and never supported him. But Althouse did.
Now on college campuses liberals are seeking to reinstate Plessy under the guise of safe spaces. Ironic and worrisome.
Bay Area Guy said...
@Chuck,
You're still focusing on Trump's "statements."
As judicial matters, do you think Roe was correctly decided or not?
No!
Do you think the travel ban case, Trump v. Hawaii, was correctly decided or not?
Yes!
I also think that Citizens United was correctly decided. And that Obergefell was wrongly decided.
Et cetera, et cetera. Thanks for asking.
Chuck loves conservative decisions. Except if Trump makes them. Then they are uncouth or something.
He likes to harrumph and straighten his bow tie and pince-nez glasses before he meets up with George Will and Kevin Williamson to talk about how the white working class should just die already
Chuck is pretty darn good on the judiciary.
I am not his self-appointed public defender, I am merely stating facts (well, opinions disguised as facts:)
Let Chuck be Chuck!
p.s. Do you give credit to Trump for picking these good Federal Society judges to the Bench? It seems to me that Trump has been absolutely stellar on his judicial selections.
LLR said: "I think the nominee may have as much trouble with Trump statements ..."
Trump statements? Sorry LLR, this is a settled case. SCOTUS ruled in the Travel Ban case that Trump's statements regarding Muslims were irrelevant. When are you going to get on board?
No; I love conservative judges for their intellect and ideology.
As for Trump, I don't think he gets it, and if he does, he's wrong as often as he's right. I was always a much more involved, faithful supporter of Justice Scalia than Trump was.
In the oral arguments on the affirmative action case in Justice Scalia's last term, Trump listened to the fake news media (as he always does), and immediately jumped to some determination that I suppose was what his tv-watching gut told him to say. See, this coverage of that story:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-dings-scalia-for-affirmative-action-comments
In fact, that was the kerfuffle that led to Michelle Fields ultimately asking questions of Trump in Palm Beach when Corey Lewandowski grabbed her.
Humperdink said...
LLR said: "I think the nominee may have as much trouble with Trump statements ..."
Trump statements? Sorry LLR, this is a settled case. SCOTUS ruled in the Travel Ban case that Trump's statements regarding Muslims were irrelevant. When are you going to get on board?
No; the travel ban case was a winner (and never much in doubt to me; I was surprised it was 5-4) because the order was effectively rewritten twice (2 executive orders, 1 proclamation) so that in the end it looked nothing like Trump's verbal trashtalk about "a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States..."
Once all of the "Trump" was taken out of it, it was a perfectly decent order. It was only hard to defend because of all of the stupid stuff that Trump had said previously. And even that was (rightly) held to be non-dispositive.
Hardiman, since it's the closest thing to nominating his sister.
Nah, I'm still going with Kavanaugh.
Then there is the recent history with Judge Gorsuch, where Trump tried to step on the news coming out of the meeting between Gorsuch and Blumenthal where Gorsuch said that it was "disheartening" and "demoralizing" to hear Trump talk about federal judges as he did
Does it ever occur to you that Gorsuch's statement defused some Democrat objections ?
Gorsuch disagreeing with Trump on superficial matters probably defused some Democrats' criticism.
See I don't agree with his tweets."
Trump is the most media savvy president we've had since Coolidge, who was the first to use radio, not FDR.
Bay Area Guy said...
...
p.s. Do you give credit to Trump for picking these good Federal Society judges to the Bench? It seems to me that Trump has been absolutely stellar on his judicial selections.
Yes. Thanks to the Federalist Society, formed in my first year of law school, the process on our side has gotten a lot better.
But be careful about giving Trump too much credit on judges. The very simple reason that Trump (and believe it or not, this is not a knock on Trump) is getting to pack the federal judiciary with new conservatives, is because the rules changed.
The Democrats, eager to pack the DC Circuit with liberals, dropped the filibuster rule for judicial nominations below the SCOTUS level, in 2013. And so now, needing only 51 votes to confirm everybody, it is a whole new ballgame for filling Article III judgeships. Plus the McConnell-led change to add SCOTUS nominees.
It is a bit like saying that there is an new offensive explosion in football, but that it occurred after they changed the rule so that you only needed 5 yards for a first down.
Trump is having a historic level of success in appointing very conservative judges, because Trump has a historic procedural advantage over every president in modern times.
No judicial filibusters. it doesn't just change the numbers; it qualitatively changes the kinds of judges that can be put up for nominations.
I ask: Do you give credit to Trump for picking these good Federal Society judges to the Bench?
Chuck answers: No; I love conservative judges for their intellect and ideology.
Let's explore this a bit. I love Scalia too. Greatest SCOTUS judge in modern history. But I do give credit to Reagan for selecting him. Not total credit, but some credit.
In the modern era, there has been one reasonably good Democrat appointee -- Byron White. He was pretty good. I would give credit to John Kennedy for selecting him.
Why wouldn't that general principle apply to Trump? George HW Bush picked Souter -- what a disaster that was! Often GOP presidents make bad picks to SCOTUS, whereas Dem Presidents rarely make similar mistakes.
I would stay Trump gets credit for picking Gorsuch, and, if he picks a good one next week, gets more credit.
My 2 cents.
Of course Trump doesn't pick these conservative judges. It just happens.
If it were Bush or Romney we would have hot and cold David Souters coming out of our ass.
LLR said: "No; the travel ban case was a winner (and never much in doubt to me; I was surprised it was 5-4) because the order was effectively rewritten twice (2 executive orders, 1 proclamation) so that in the end it looked nothing like Trump's verbal trashtalk about "a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States..."
Wrong, the opposition's entire case was based on Trump's statements ... Muslims, Muslims, Muslims, even though other Muslim countries were excluded.
"During oral arguments in April, Katyal (attorney for the challengers) cited Trump's postelection tweets about the issue, and argued that the travel restriction amounted to a "Muslim ban."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-muslim-travel-ban-case.html
Whoever Trump picks--two things will happen:
1. Steam will come out of our friend Chuck's ears and nostrils.
2. At least one thousand Democrat/Progressive heads will explode. Pelosi and Durbin hardest
hit.
I don't know if the first nomination will get through; but there are (or were) 25 names on that list that Trump had in 2016. Like a Chinese banzai charge on the Yalu, some will get through--maybe not the first. Maybe even not the second. But the patent obstructionism is going to hurt the Dems in November.
Barrett, 45, is a female version of Scalia. She's a pro-life Catholic with 7 kids. And she's a professor. She would be great.
We have a lot of good options, actually.
Here's a great article about Raymond Kethledge in NR. He's 51.
I want to read his book!
I am also impressed with David Stras (who clerked for Thomas). He's 43.
Mike Lee would be fantastic. He's 47.
Thapar - Ever to Excel
Lifelong Rachel Maddow Republican Chuck once again stands up for Richard Stolen Valor Blumenthal and complains about Trump.
The purity of Chuck's conservative bonafides is truly staggering.
If you think the Democrats are really willing to scorch the Earth to stop confirmation, you go with a female pick or Thapur.
I still think Kavanaugh is the most likely simply because he has a longer record than the others.
Whoever Trump picks will get through. Collins is blowing smoke up Schumer's ass.
The truth is, Trump's list of 25 potential nominees is simply outstanding. He has, essentially, delegated his selection process to Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society. And these fine legal eagles are to the Federal Courts what the NRA is to the 2nd Amendment.
They are the guardians -- and they're doing a fine job.
Bay Area Guy:
The change in judicial selection now is almost indescribable. With no filibusters, a president doesn't even need to seek moderate picks. Trump is the first President with any considerable time in this new role. Obama had the power, but only for a matter of months and it never included SCOTUS. There's just no comparison.
And Mitch McConnell warned the Democrats not to do it; they did it anyway (with some old-guard Democrats like Carl Levin declining to support the change).
Now, when and if there is a Democrat in the White House making judicial selections, and a bare majority for Dems in the Senate, the payback will be hell.
btw; blame GHW Bush for Souter (maybe Sununu in particular), but give him credit for Thomas. Give Reagan credit for Scalia, but blame him for O'Connor. (Might be too hard to blame him for Kennedy. We can blame the Senate Dems for "Bork." Which then produced Kennedy.)
I didn't even realize that 4th tier shit hole Cooley was open in 1982. You learn something every day.
Comanche Voter said...
Whoever Trump picks--two things will happen:
1. Steam will come out of our friend Chuck's ears and nostrils.
...
Like, uh, when I was praising the nomination of Gorsuch?
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=6316780715431992132
@Chuck,
The change in judicial selection now is almost indescribable. With no filibusters, a president doesn't even need to seek moderate picks. Trump is the first President with any considerable time in this new role. Obama had the power, but only for a matter of months and it never included SCOTUS. There's just no comparison.
Largely true. As noted by Michael K in one of these threads, Harry Reid nuked the filibuster to get more DC Circuit Judges (Obama picked 4), but then got nuked when the Senate flipped in 2014.
After the Dems tried to filibuster Gorsuch, McConnell nuked the filibuster for SCOTUS.
So, with Trump as Prez and a slim 51 seat Senate Majority -- he can pick a lot of Fed Society judges, without much interference. And, so far, in my opinion, he has picked really good ones.
President-Mom-Jeans said...
I didn't even realize that 4th tier shit hole Cooley was open in 1982. You learn something every day.
LMFAO.
Cooley is where Trump-attorney Michael Cohen went to law school.
Bay Area Guy said...
@Chuck,
The change in judicial selection now is almost indescribable. With no filibusters, a president doesn't even need to seek moderate picks. Trump is the first President with any considerable time in this new role. Obama had the power, but only for a matter of months and it never included SCOTUS. There's just no comparison.
Largely true. As noted by Michael K in one of these threads, Harry Reid nuked the filibuster to get more DC Circuit Judges (Obama picked 4), but then got nuked when the Senate flipped in 2014.
After the Dems tried to filibuster Gorsuch, McConnell nuked the filibuster for SCOTUS.
So, with Trump as Prez and a slim 51 seat Senate Majority -- he can pick a lot of Fed Society judges, without much interference. And, so far, in my opinion, he has picked really good ones.
Yes! That is all true. But you always have to count the votes. 51 votes is a slim majority. Trump better not piss off Susan Collins, or Jeff Flake or Bob Corker -- OR ALL OF THEM! -- or else the nomination goes down. And Flake is on the Judiciary Committee!
"And Flake is on the Judiciary Committee!"
Flake already pussied out of a SCOTUS nomination fight with Trump. Keep hope alive, Chuck! Lulz
" Trump better not piss off Susan Collins, or Jeff Flake or Bob Corker -- OR ALL OF THEM! -- or else the nomination goes down. And Flake is on the Judiciary Committee!"
So all the RINO establishment cunts that Chuck pretends to cheerlead to are the danger faced from getting a conservative replacement for Kennedy out of spite, or being "pissed off." But Trump, the only reason Hillary isn't cackling over changing the court over to the libtards for decades, it the problem.
No wonder you never passed the bar, like many Cooley grads.
Trump's nominee doesn't need the votes of those three. At least five D senators up for reelection in blue states won by Trump will vote for confirmation. Keep hope alive, Chuck! Lulz
At least five D senators up for reelection in blue states won by Trump will vote for confirmation.
3 of 'em already voted Yes on Gorsuch (Heitkamp, Donnelly and Manchin). That's why the Dems are pushing to delay the vote until after the election -- to ease up the pressure on these Red-State Dems.
That's how I see it at the moment, Bay Area Guy -- and conversely why Mitch and Trump want to press forward immediately.
There are some really horrendous judges out there. Trump will no doubt pick a truly bad one to screw the small guy in favor of his rich cronies. It'll be one more black mark on his presidency. He need not pick a jurist at all. God forbid another moron like Thomas, or a Scalia clone like Scalito. The best we can hope for at this point is that he doesn't start WWIII. People will suffer and some will starve, and others will die from lack of medical care. There is no limit to their greed. Trump's smelly erection will go down in infamy like the Pearl Harbor attack did.
Trumpit, sweetheart. You're an idiot.
Hopefully whoever he picks gets to the hearing unscathed.
"
Trumpit, sweetheart. You're an idiot."
He's crazy but hopefully confined somewhere.
btw; blame GHW Bush for Souter (maybe Sununu in particular), but give him credit for Thomas. Give Reagan credit for Scalia, but blame him for O'Connor. (Might be too hard to blame him for Kennedy. We can blame the Senate Dems for "Bork." Which then produced Kennedy.)
Souter was indefensible.
Thomas is a treasure. I gave his book to my daughters to read.
O'Conner was OK. First woman and all that.
Bork was a mortal sin for Kennedy and, if there is a god, I hope he burns in hell, if not for Bork, for Mary Jo.
I saw the movie, "Chapaquiddik" and it is good.
"... Trump better not piss off Susan Collins, or Jeff Flake or Bob Corker ..."
LOL
Trump has already pissed them off continuously for 3 years.
But when one or more of these 3 sabotage the conservatives (again!) as they have over the years this time it will be Trumps fault!
Thats what I love most about our Chuckie! How his analysis is wrong on every level 100% of the time, in addition to always providing a roadmap for dem/lefty success.
There is something to be said for consistency....
The flakes of Arizona, Corker, Collins, and Murkowski plus Rand Paul, the wild card.
Trump needs 5 Democrats to vote for or 10 to go fishing or cleaning out their garages.
Hope it isn't Thomas M. Hardiman - his immigration decsions give me the willies
Hope its Pryor since the Court hasn't had a White Southerner since Powell.
Hagar -- Trump may nominate a woman. Would that change your analysis for either side of the aisle?
I would bet on Thapar.
If some shithead like Corker or Flake wants to ruin their reputation as a "Conservative" for the rest of their lives, by sinking a Conservative SCOTUS Judge, go at it.
Nobody expects anything from Collins. She's a New England wanker.
All the Redstate D Senators up for Re-election had better have some good excuses if they vote against a Conservative SCOTUS judge to replace moderate-conservative Kennedy.
"Thomas is a treasure."
I agree. I don't know how conservative he was before he got nominated.
But the "High Tech Lynching" he went through at the hands of Joe Biden, probably didn't make him anymore Liberal.
That too was a disgrace of the highest order.
New England wanker. I'm stealing that.
Off the top of my head I prefer Joan Larson, the only one with a Protestant background. The Supreme Court needs more judges with a Protestant cultural background since that is the founding culture of this country and still the largest single cultural group in the nation. At present there are how many judges who are not either of Catholic of Jewish background? I think either one or zero. Not good.
I also like that she did not go the law school at Harvard or Yale but rather in the Mid-West.
"Blogger cubanbob said...
For our hostess and lawyer commenters I as a layman I ask this question: what elements would a case before a circuit court need to start a path to the Supreme Court that could in principle cause the court to overturn Roe vs Wade?"
Not that I'm a lawyer but ... here goes.
Roe v. Wade affirms Buck v. Bell which allowed enforced sterilization for eugenic reasons "a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards...". These phrases referred to eugenic considerations. And Roe v. Wade denies that "one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases." Hence Roe v Wade could be revisited to eliminate its eugenic sections. This might happen because NIH tried to impose behavior regulation through health regulations and because these health regulations were based on behavior research done by current members of the eugenic societies. When challenged Roe v Wade and Buck v Bell as affirmed by Roe v Wade would come as the justification for the state imposing heath rules for eugenic reasons.
I'm sure this seems far-fetched but in my opinion the issue is no further away than gay marriage was in 2006. Behavior modification is being intensely studied at NIH by members of the Society for Biodemography and Social Biology and the decision to implement the results of these studies by regulations has already been made. Justice Robert's opinion in the Obamacare "Tax" case that the government cannot regulate behavior is in the way but Roe v. Wade supports this backdoor to eugenics.
The Buck v. Bell quote in whole is:
"Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200 (1927) ( sterilization).
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."
I think whoever Trump nominates is going to sail through the confirmation process. Do the Dems really want this as an issue in November? Look where it got them in 2016. The red state Dem senators are going to want to get this off the table as soon as possible. That includes Tester and McCaskill as well as the others who voted for Gorsuch. I am still going with Barrett because she will be almost impossible to "Bork". As always it will be interesting to see what Trump's strategy will be.
Collins is a Wanker, but she treads a fine line in a state like ME where the bulk of the voters are concentrated in Portland and tend to be liberal while the rest of the state is rural and pretty conservative. She does manage to hold the seat for Republicans the only R senator in NE. She's sure as hell a lot better than "independent"(my ass) Angus King.
I wouldn't pick Barrett because everybody knows that Catholic girls start much too late.
I'm a Methodist, but I have first hand experience with Catholic girls. They were never late!
Bay Area Guy said... I love Scalia too. Greatest SCOTUS judge in modern history.
Scalia paid exaggerated deference to stare decisis. To his credit, he shifted over time towards the position of J. Thomas, who is in fact the greatest justice of the modern era.
Thomas is spectacular. Debating whether he or Scalia is a better judge is like arguing whether Brady or Manning is a better QB.
Boy, Chuck is either a dumpster fire or en fuego! One or the other.
Chuck, don't be sockpuppetin' "Craig" or "John Pickering" tonight.
Or tomorrow night.
Or afternoon.
Or morning.
Or... just don't do it Chuck.
He do a good impression of She Who Shan't Be Named minus the stupidity.
Good work.
Wildswan thanks for the reply. Very interesting. Following the logical conclusion of your quote from Roe, it would appear to me that Congress could simply short circuit the issue by declaring human life begins upon implantation and prior to birth personhood is a state issue.
Oh, and sorry for posting off-topic.
I think Chuck is always on-topic.
As a topic, that is.
Thapar is the choice
I sense that Trump really enjoys inter acting with smart SCOTUS candidates. He seldom has many quality intellects around him in the District of Criminals.
Barrett. Or Kavanaugh. Or any of the 25.
But Barrett is my first choice.
"Blogger cubanbob said...
For our hostess and lawyer commenters I as a layman I ask this question: what elements would a case before a circuit court need to start a path to the Supreme Court that could in principle cause the court to overturn Roe vs Wade?"
Are you asking how a case gets to SCOTUS through the court system? How the present law in Iowa would travel up the court system to SCOTUS?
Or are you asking what legal logic might be in a opinion?
If you're looking for an example of the legal logic, look at the dissents in Casey versus Planned Parenthood by Scalia or Rehnquist.
Best conservitive candidate or not the best but lotsa identity politix tick marks?
"Complicated buisness".
We shall see.
traditionalguy - I am not a big fan of the sort of guy who became a 4 star general when Obama was president but they are another batch of very smart people, which is why so many of them got appointed to offices that they were not capable of being excellent at .....
My best guess is that about half of the 25 on Trump's list are dullards, by the way (to be fair, all but one or two - at best - of Obama's top 25 were pretty much dullards too, unless, like everyone, you got them talking on something they were really interested in, at which point nobody is a dullard - to be fair I am a dullard often too)
God loves us all, of course, but just as God's favorite animal appears to be the beetle, judging by the number of beetle species compared to, say, lepidoptera and mammals, even so God's favorite lawyers appear to be dullards
Which is why I am rooting against a couple of the frontrunners (just kidding, I don't know enough about any of them to know which is which, from the point of view of getting things right and not being a dullard - but I don't want another Scalia) I want another Alito or another Thomas
conservative
Drove over a mountain range today. (again)
So my brain is not working to the max.
Plus also, my spellchecker is wonky.
Sigh, life in the tens.
Blogger traditionalguy said...
I sense that Trump really enjoys inter acting with smart SCOTUS candidates. He seldom has many quality intellects around him in the District of Criminals.
Tradguy, you can remove your tongue from your check - I laughed out loud.
This, from CNN's White House Correspondent Jeff Zeleny, speaks to the casting-call nature of Trump's search:
"President Trump is increasingly intrigued about selecting the first female conservative Supreme Court justice, people familiar with the search say, repeatedly telling advisers that he likes the idea of making such a historic choice in a climate where women on the other side of the political aisle are playing such a pivotal role. ...'Can you imagine?' the president said with a smile during a conversation about the prospect of selecting a woman for the pivotal spot on the court."
If you combine Trump's love for making history (everything is record-setting or never been done before) with his emphasis on appearance (the next SCOTUS nominee has to have immaculate academic credentials, yes, but also, the robe simply has to look like she -- or he -- was born to wear it) then there is a big, flashing red arrow pointing at Coney Barrett.
First, she is attractive and she is, a woman (did I mention attractive); an (attractive) mother of seven; young (in her mid-40s ... and attractive); Who cares if she is "a person of faith" and happens to be "reliably conservative, particularly on social issues."
CNN's White House Correspondent + [unnamed] people familiar with the search say = profit?
7/2/18, 10:26 PM
Blogger wwww said...
"Blogger cubanbob said...
For our hostess and lawyer commenters I as a layman I ask this question: what elements would a case before a circuit court need to start a path to the Supreme Court that could in principle cause the court to overturn Roe vs Wade?"
Are you asking how a case gets to SCOTUS through the court system? How the present law in Iowa would travel up the court system to SCOTUS?
Or are you asking what legal logic might be in a opinion?
If you're looking for an example of the legal logic, look at the dissents in Casey versus Planned Parenthood by Scalia or Rehnquist.
7/2/18, 10:32 PM
I'm asking with respects to legal logic. Dissents are not the rulings of the court ( as I understand it) and the lower courts are bound by the Supreme Court so I have a hard time conceptualizing how a district court judge would hear a case that seeks to overturn existing Supreme Court rulings.
I see that our resident "Poor Man's LLR Chuck" gadfly is running full speed with the already totally discredited Chris Cilliza "hot hot hottest hot take" that Barrett will be the choice due to her looks alone!
LOL
Good old gadfly! He/she never fails to fail, often by piggy-backing onto already those hot takes, AFTER those have failed!
Hilarious beyond words!
Appalachian? Rocky? Sierra?
Opsec.
"I'm asking with respects to legal logic."
This is a fast summary. Short explanation: SCOTUS decides if there is a constitutional liberty that overrides the ability of the states pass laws.
States have passed laws in the last couple of years that could be appealed to SCOTUS. The legal question will be if the states have the right to pass laws.
SCOTUS needs to not find the liberty in the 5th or the 14th Amendment for a constitutional right. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.. The dissents have suggested how this would be done.
SCOTUS says:: no constitutional right the state gets to pass laws.
How could a state law get to SCOTUS?
example: About a year ago Iowa passed a heartbeat law that would outlaw at 6 or 7 weeks. Lower courts allow injunctions because of Casey, which Kennedy signed onto. With a new justice replacing Kennedy, the state of Iowa could appeal the case up to SCOTUS, and if SCOTUS wishes, it could choose to take the case.
SCOTUS could use this Iowa law, or another state law, to overturn Casey 1992 and Roe.
"Dissents are not the rulings of the court"
They aren't the rulings because they don't have the votes. They show the legal logic the justices could use if they were in the majority.
We don't know what the justices will write in their decision. That said, there's plenty of legal work to suggest how it could be written with a majority vote.
To challenge Roe, a state would have to pass a law banning abortion and then defend that through the circuit, Appeals, and SCOTUS level.
Of course, the states are constantly restricting it by method and gestation time- laws doing that don't really challenge Roe itself, but the lower courts, of course, then do toss the laws using Roe and the later Casey case as the precedents.
With anti-abortion replacement for Kennedy, the Roe decision is vulnerable, but the justice to keep your eye on in that case is Roberts- he might well uphold it and Casey as settled law. He really does mean to keep the court out of big political messes as much as possible, and he might be amenable to the argument that too much time has passed to undo Roe, and that to do so might not be worth it even if he personally found the original case wrongly decided.
Rubbers? We don't need no stinkin' rubbers!
Forceps!
Suction!
What are some other good words used when fixing a mistake?
Douchbag might have helped very early.
"No" seems positively archaic.
Sad Don Willett din't make the cut. He was awesome on twitter until he got a job where he couldn't be on twitter.
Soft Cell - Tainted Love - Where Did Our Love Go.
suction.
duh.
This is a very difficult subject to broach because there are a metric fuckton of people (rich, poor, inhaling federal and state dollars, whatever) who can empathise with the stories told of hit and run dads.
Yeah, Delilahs too.
Most families have a case or two.
Hard to be judgmental.
Crosses many lines.
I blame Goldie Hawn.
Florence Crittenton might not be an option for some.
Asian term "losing face" works for all Americans.
Few attend church.
The Kardashians.
Tough issue in the voter domain.
Gorsuch didn't have much trouble now did he
The betting man should be taking this nomination going the same way
When was the last time a nominee wasn't someone who can convincingly speak no matter what. They can and do tell the Senators whatever and it was and will all be highly polished and as eloquently vague and noncommittal or as committal as they want. And it will work. All these recent nominees succeeded in being confirmed.
Democrats can get fired up, Republicans will too. Tremendous pressure will be placed to confirm based on the confirmation hearings. As it has been with Republican and Democrat nominees for a generation. The majority will line up and vote to confirm. As it reliably has.
Wut?
Toastmasters For The Win?
Watch bug-eyed Nancy.
Literaly Hitler!
With anti-abortion replacement for Kennedy, the Roe decision is vulnerable, but the justice to keep your eye on in that case is Roberts- he might well uphold it and Casey as settled law. He really does mean to keep the court out of big political messes as much as possible, and he might be amenable to the argument that too much time has passed to undo Roe, and that to do so might not be worth it even if he personally found the original case wrongly decided.
Chief Justice Taney and the 19th century Democratic Party would agree.
"All the Redstate D Senators up for Re-election had better have some good excuses if they vote against a Conservative SCOTUS judge to replace moderate-conservative Kennedy"
Not so sure, at least for Tester in MT. Starting early this year they have spent crazy amounts of money on advertising. It is so bad that you sometimes see two of his campaign spots in a single commercial break. Significantly worse than 6 years ago when he last ran. And worse than during the last Senate election. I expect similar in the other Trump/Red State Dem Senate reelection campaigns. I expect that they will look at their polling right before the confirmation vote and decide which way to jump. They have already voted for Obamacare and against the tax cuts that have been so essentially for the economic boom this that a vote against the SCOTUS nominee would be probably little more than noise.
Jual Vimax Obat Pembesar Penis?
Non.
"Off the top of my head I prefer Joan Larson, the only one with a Protestant background. The Supreme Court needs more judges with a Protestant cultural background since that is the founding culture of this country and still the largest single cultural group in the nation. At present there are how many judges who are not either of Catholic "
I would put it right in the middle there. If I remember, Thomas is Episcopal, but attends a Roman Catholic Church. And Gorsuch appears to be Roman Catholic attending an Episcopal church. Currently, all 5 conservatives are, or worship, Roman Catholic, along with Sotomayor, and the remaining three liberals are Jewish. No real Protestants.
What is weird though about Thomas and Gorsuch here is that theologically, Episcopalian may be closer to Roman Catholicism than to mainline Protestant, but many more Supreme Court Jusices have been Episcopalian than any other religion. Despite that, they have been solidly on the Protestant side of the Protestant/Catholic split since Henry VIII wanted another wife. They are first with 33 Justices, followed by Presbyterian at 18. I suspect that in the past, it was more socioeconomic than anything, with the Protestant ranking (outside the South) being (if I remember correctly): Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, and Baptist. Which is very likely why Episcopalian and then Presbyterian were so prevalent with Supreme Court Justices until this spate of Roman Catholics mostly appointed by Republicans, starting with Reagan. The Jewish is easy - they are the legal and political brains of the Democratic Party. If the Dems nominate anyone to the Court on merit, they are highly likely, any more, to be Jewish. Sotomayer was very obviously a quota pick, as evidenced by how poorly she performs in comparison to the other eight Justices. I think that we may be seeing the Catholics moving into that position in the Republican Party.
Yo, Bruce Hayden
What do these fellows hear in the pews?
Does it penetrate?
Who writes the Sermons?
thx
Trumper complains about Justice Thomas being unfit for the Supreme Court. This is, of course, leftist soun and misinformation. They have hated him fromthe time he was nominated for being outspokenly conservative taking over the Black seat on the Court. They belittle him for not engaging in oral arguments. But I think that he is correct - at that level, they really don't very often change the outcome of a case, and are more often an opportunity for Justices to show off. I love most of his writing for the Court. Like no one else on the Court, he sees through, and articulates the BS. Scalia was a master at finely splitting legal hairs, as is CJ Roberts. Both brilliant. But Thomas cuts right through that to the fundamentals, to the bottom line. Scalia and Roberts draw legal lines with an extra fine pen. Thomas uses a bright line marker. The Dems claim that he ignores the intricacies of the law. Thomas cuts through them to the bottom line, to basic principles. And does so forcefully. He isn't like Sotomayer, who seems to go off on irrelevant, emotional, tangents, often seeming to completely miss the point. She sees the trees, and misses the forest, or maybe even sees bushes, and mistakes them for trees. He sees the forest, and ignores the trees. For a conservative, his legal writing is a joy. And esp his dissents, where he routinely eviscerates the majority. And, the great thing is that with Kennedy retiring, Thomas will now be senior, after the Chief Justice, which means that he will be able to pick and choose which decisions and dissents he wants to write, whenever he ends up opposite Roberts.
@Jon - not sure your point there. On the Protestant side, any more, there is a lot of preacher shopping going on. And, the clergy in the mainline churches tend to be significantly more liberal than their parishioners. The Catholics in my life claim that priest shopping either doesn't happen, or shouldn't happen. But I know it does. They typically don't pick churches based on the preaching, but rather which services to attend, based, at least partially, on which priest is giving it. But again, on average, at least in the US, the clergy often seems more liberal than the parishioners. For the most part, I don't see what a minister or priest says to his congregation in the pews as having that much affect on the minds of the caliber of people nominated these days to the Supreme Court.
Now, if we are going to look at the dynamics of preachers on their parishioners in the pews, what about Barack and Michelle Obama who spent 20 years listening to the race and American hate spewed by Rev. Wright. Could that be why many are now calling Obama the Manchurian President, who seems to have done everything he possibly could in his 8 years as President to destroy this country? He destabilized Iraq by prematurely pulling out our troops, turned Lybia into a failed state, tried to give Egypt to the organization that spawned al Quaeda and ISIS, instigated the refugee problem destroying Europe through his actions in Syria, and gave the Iranians billions and billions of dollars to fund terrorism throughout the world, while removing the sanctions that hindered their ability to acquire nuclear weapons. Meanwhile he transformed what should have been a short recession into the longest one of our lifetimes through his feckless economic policies, increased racial tensions, reduced police effectiveness, resulting in increased violence in inner cities, opened our borders to all comers, from illiterate peasants from Central America through drug and human traffickers, to terrorists, while destroying our respect for our justice system through the politicization of the DoJ. So, did the Barack Obama try to destroy Amerikkka because he listened to Rev Wright in the pews for 20 years? Or was he disposed that way already, and sat in Wright's pews, listening to his hate filled sermons for those 20 years, because of that predisposition?
The Cracker Emcee Rampant said...
I'm guessing Thapar, just because Trump would love to bait progs into another Clarence Thomas moment. Given the Internet, this time the Democrats would come out absolutely slathered with their own feces.
They're easily available in San Francisco! '20 pounds of human waste' dropped on San Francisco street corner
If you're going
To San Francisco
Be sure to wear
Some noseplugs in your nose.
If you're going
To San Francisco
Summer time
It won't smell like a rose...
@Fabi said...
CNN's White House Correspondent + [unnamed] people familiar with the search say = profit?
You certainly have the Trump line down. Fox News has joined the "Fake News" spew from our adolescent president. Jesse Watters and the blonds now tell us “We have a coup on our hands in America.”
So Fox and the Republican Party (which received every vote I ever made except last election when I couldn't bring myself to voting for one crook over another) have taken to obfuscating truth rather than admitting they chose the wrong candidate in the Primary. I guess that when Despot Trump (our resident carnival barker) tells lies (and he always does) you have to support his lies. Goodbye GOP - I will never join the Trumpers because the suckers appear to have a latent, perhaps deliberate, brain fart when it comes to detecting that Trump has no conscious concept of the rule of law and he is incapable of honest interactions with people.
" I will never join the Trumpers because the suckers appear to have a latent, perhaps deliberate, brain fart when it comes to detecting that Trump has no conscious concept of the rule of law and he is incapable of honest interactions with people."
were you asleep for the last ten years and just wake up? Trump has brought back the rule of law. it's one thing to be partisan but at least be honest. The previous resident had no problem stepping all over peoples rights.
Personally I'd like Trump to nominate a moderate centrist along the lines of Thomas or Gorsuch, but I can certainly see the argument for nominating a conservative as balance against the liberals Alito and Roberts.
And under no circumstances should he nominate far right-wing extremists that would be the mirror images of Breyer, Kagen, Sotomayor, or Ginsburg.
Fabi said...
Trump's nominee doesn't need the votes of those three. At least five D senators up for reelection in blue states won by Trump will vote for confirmation. Keep hope alive, Chuck! Lulz
Oh, it isn't much a matter of "hope," Fabi. What I "hope" is that Brett Kavanaugh is nominated and confirmed, 98-0, like Justice Scalia was.
After that, I "hope" that however Kavanaugh, or a Kavanaugh-equivalent, is confirmed, that it involves Trump having to prostrate himself before Senate Republicans. And after that (the least of the good options to me) is that Trump has to make a deal with the couple of Manchin-style Democrats, as you rightly point out.
Your point is a fair one of course; the three Dems from Trump states who voted for Gorsuch's confirmation. Who knows; something like this (because Dems will make a YUUUUGE deal out of this) might cause Joe Manchin to switch parties.
The "deal" might not be between Trump and Susan Collins. The "deal" might actually be between Susan Collins and Joe Manchin, or Joe Donnelly. She gets to vote no, and {he} gets to vote yes and it's a wash for the whip count.
Everything else being equal Thapar is the best strategic choice if DT wants to wedge-screw with the progressives and cause them to humiliate themselves with what will look like anti-asian racism. Can't wait for progressive ignorant twit-tweets about how asian men shouldn't count as minorities/POC because they have never been systematically discriminated against in U.S. Plus the tie in to the ongoing Harvard asian-cap fiasco will make this even more fun.
"You certainly have the Trump line down."
What does that even mean? I tried to make it as simple as possible so even a moron could connect the dots, but I didn't aim low enough. I hope you'll forgive me, gadfly. Elucidated for your pleasure -- I have no interest in believing a story based on an anonymous source and reported by CNN.
@Bruce:
Predisposed.
Just wondering if there were any whacked out pastors associated with the potential nominees.
That's why the Dems are pushing to delay the vote until after the election -- to ease up the pressure on these Red-State Dems.
And with 62 percent of the public wanting the SCOTUS appointment to be done before the election, the Ds are screwed.
Post a Comment