September 9, 2020

Trump gives his new list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz — and challenges Joe Biden to produce his own list.


There's a reason why Trump can produce a list like this and Joe Biden can't. Prove me wrong, Joe.

131 comments:

mockturtle said...

Ted Cruz!!!! Unless he's rather be the next AG or even President in 2024.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Joe can’t. If he does he either loses the “looney left” or he loses the so-called “middle”.

Ryan said...

"There's a reason why Trump can produce a list like this and Joe Biden can't. Prove me wrong, Joe."

Because RBG will never retire and will live until she's 120 years old, and because Biden doesn't know which others may retire early.

tcrosse said...

This presupposes that RBG is ever going .to die. As likely as Hillary ever going away.

Yancey Ward said...

Best sentence I have read today was in response to the course offered at Washington and Lee University in "How to Overthrow the State".

"If the nation’s academic elite really want to overthrow the system, they would start by committing suicide".

madAsHell said...

Because Biden can't even read answers from a teleprompter?....or is it because Biden can't make lucid decisions?

Has anyone seen my old friend RBG?

The Vault Dweller said...

Even though I like Ted Cruz's judicial philosophy, and I think I would like his decisions, and I think he is qualified for the position, I still don't think Ted Cruz would be a good Supreme Court Justice. He is a politician. And he has been a very public and well-known politician. The appearance of being above it all is very important for a judge. Particularly for one on the Supreme Court.

Temujin said...

That sound you hear is the sound of heads exploding along both coasts and in every university academic lounge.

Dave Begley said...

Biden's list would be Ivy Leaguers and radical Dems.

Trump's list was very effective last time as it heightened the difference between him and Crooked Hillary.

BTW, Hillary will go to her grave with that nickname. It will be in her obits. And she totally deserves it.

Iconochasm said...

Hm. How many qualified black women exist, across the entire federal system?

But I'm guessing this is the reason Althouse is thinking of. Biden's lost would either be insufficiently woke, and thus get him pilloried, or continue down a niche list until he had people of questionable qualifications. It's different when, like Obama's two, you're just nominating someone for the appointment; it's not as obvious that you were *only* considering black women.

bleh said...

I could see Biden promising to nominate Barack Obama or Michelle Obama. That would be relatively safe, politically. Otherwise, he has too much to lose by associating himself with any liberal Democratic SCOTUS pick.

gadfly said...

There are no vacancies on the Supreme Court and naming an extremist like Tom Cotton is an effort to appeal Trump supporters. Four years ago, I was all for Ted Cruz but he has jumped the shark and now does not make my list of viable conservatives. BTW, neither of these gentlemen have served on the courts.

As for playing who can act the stupidest, Biden will likely pass on this wonderful opportunity since he will receive few votes from the wild-ass Trumpists.

And of course with the Woodward tapes, we know that Trump lies about all important subjects even when life and death are in play.

Yancey Ward said...

"The appearance of being above it all is very important for a judge. Particularly for one on the Supreme Court."

I like your comments, Vault Dweller, but this one is a bit naive given recent decades, don't you think?

Sebastian said...

"There's a reason why Trump can produce a list like this and Joe Biden can't. Prove me wrong, Joe."

See, that's funny.

But besides the reason why, there's another reason. Someone might ask Joe why he picked so-and-so: can't take that risk.

tcrosse said...

It’s been said that the Senate would unanimously confirm Cruz just to be rid of him.

boatbuilder said...

The Vault Dweller: "The appearance of being above it all is very important for a judge. Particularly for one on the Supreme Court."

That must be one hell of a vault.

Michael K said...

I think Cruz is better suited to The Court and said so in 2016.

Original Mike said...

"Trump gives his new list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz — and challenges Joe Biden to produce his own list.

Joe can't produce a list, Joe can't be interviewed, and yet this race is tied. Half the people in my country are idiots. And the press is evil.

Drago said...

The Vault Dweller: "Even though I like Ted Cruz's judicial philosophy, and I think I would like his decisions, and I think he is qualified for the position, I still don't think Ted Cruz would be a good Supreme Court Justice. He is a politician. And he has been a very public and well-known politician. The appearance of being above it all is very important for a judge. Particularly for one on the Supreme Court."

Which judges on the SC are considered "above it all".

Spoiler: Zero.

Kevin said...

Ted Cruz!!!! Unless he's rather be the next AG or even President in 2024.

Ted Cruz killed his chances to be President at the RNC in 2016 when he gave a speech without endorsing Trump.

"Vote your conscience" was as close as he could come, demonstrating he didn't have the class or judgment for the top job.

At least Rubio had the good sense to say he couldn't come because he suddenly was too busy trying to recapture his Senate seat.

doctrev said...

It's not even about votes at this point. The fact is, Joe Biden's desperately trying to keep this election as a "character" decision. Which isn't the smartest play for the Party of Epstein to take, but I understand it's being done.

The problem Biden has, which is also what sunk Hillary, remains that Trump has completely upended the policy debate. Biden's coming desperately late to the party with "America First and Better Trade." But Trump has a firm record on these issues, established in a very short time. By contrast, Joe Biden has the Obama legacy of free trade and being China's bitch (BIRM) tied around his neck. A debate would expose these facts in a matter of minutes- which, even more than Biden's advanced senility, is why the Democrats absolutely cannot permit a single debate this cycle.

Vance said...

Isn't Biden's Supreme Court list "Put the NYT editorial board on there! Maybe add some WaPo too! And for balance, some starlets from Hollywood! Got to keep the country in balance so it doesn't tip over like Guam! What? Ideological balance? Heavens no, what do you think diversity means? We take all comers, no matter what they look like as long as they all think the same!"

Except we all know Biden's not that lucid.

rcocean said...

Good to see Cruz and Cotton on the list. Hawley was on there too, but declined. Senator Lee is on there, but he'd be a terrible pick. The man's an open borders, pro-immigration nut case. I could see him, declaring it a constitutional right to come to the USA.

Anyway, Trump needs to appoint a conservative Senator. No more mystery picks. No more guessing about their views on Roe V. wade. the Left-wingers are always sure their nominees are Pro-choice. Its only the Republican nominees that are always a gamble.

And speaking of nuts. Senator Sasse just announced he was in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment, and taking away the people's right to vote for Senator. And he's currently running for office! He should lose, based on this statement, but Nebraska voters are so dense, they don't even understand he's insulting them.

Sprezzatura said...

“Prove me wrong, Joe.”

So Althouse won’t tell us the reason that only DJT can name potential SCOTUS folks.

Such a mystery. But, let me guess that it’s got something to do w/ the libs suck and DJT doesn’t suck.

Prove me wrong, Atlhouse.

Original Mike said...

"There's a reason why Trump can produce a list like this and Joe Biden can't. Prove me wrong, Joe."

While I agree with you, I would love to hear you articulate the reason.

But you won't. Prove me wrong, Althouse.

tim maguire said...

It forces Biden to limit his picks to moderates.

PB said...

Joe would never produce a list of originalists. His list wouldn't be anything like that.

Freder Frederson said...

Ted Cruz? Wasn't his father involved in the Kennedy assassination? Can't remember where I heard that.

Leland said...

I see Trump recognized that debating doesn't require the media or election commission to set aside a venue with moderators. It simply requires producing your arguments and challenging your opponent to respond if able.

JAORE said...

Biden boxed himself in to the K. Harris selection by announcing he'd pick a woman. He also hinted he'd like a POC. Then he was herded into that corner and Harris was the "best" option.

He's also said he'd appoint a black woman to the SC. Since a President can't count on how many appointments he'll get, Biden is basically locked into a black woman.

Any list he gave would either be all black women, pandering even beyond the ability of MSM to hide,or would put a lie headline about prior promise to POC.

dbp said...

Honestly, this is the smartest thing Trump has done so far this election season:

If Biden lists a bunch of radicals, that can be used against him. If Biden chooses a bunch of moderates, it does two things: 1. It takes the fight out of the activists. 2. If Biden wins the election, it holds him to appointing a moderate.

If Biden refuses to name anyone, it can be used to show he's trying to hide something.

This is a thing of beauty. Art.

Bay Area Guy said...

I think Biden could easily produce a list. Pick 9 Obama-appointed Judges of color, who are committed to upholding Roe v Wade, voila!

He won't though, because he's a coward. And a liar. And his Democrat party supports violence and looting and arson.

Harsh Pencil said...

Ted Cruz would be a great choice. He is very good at convincing lawyers and judges to agree with him. He isn't very good at convincing ordinary people for the simple reason that he is really unlikable. That doesn't matter so much for getting fellow conservative justices to go along with you. (The liberals on the court are a lost cause).

Dan from Madison said...

I would pay good money to watch Ted Cruz in a confirmation hearing.

Readering said...

Looks like a hodge podge and I will be interested in stories on its genesis. I will only comment on the 2 from 9th Circuit, both Trump appointees from battleground states. One had been a federal magistrate, confirmed with bipartisan support. Not Ivy League Federalist Society member. No way ideological conservatives would trust her. The other got a rare unqualified rating from the ABA for his toxic personality in government positions. Not a leading legal intellect. I can only imagine some of the beauts elsewhere on this list.

Readering said...

I bet if you asked Trump tomorrow about the names on the list that are not already famous like the 2 Senators, he would draw a blank.

Michael K said...

I still don't think Ted Cruz would be a good Supreme Court Justice. He is a politician. And he has been a very public and well-known politician.

Earl Warren ? Never been a Chief Justice like that.

Diamondhead said...

Biden has the vote of every person anxious for him to get the chance to nominate a supreme court justice. He also currently has the vote of some people who'd rather not think about who he'd pick, so it can only hurt him. That's my theory.

Gabriel said...

@The Vault Dweller: He is a politician. And he has been a very public and well-known politician.

What do you say about Taft? He was President--doesn't get more public and well-known than that*--and then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

*Even when Millard Fillmore was President, no one knew he was President.

Paul said...

Biden's list?

Bill Ayers
Chandler Wirostek
Michael Loebs
Steve Hoffman
Bob Avakian
Brian Moore

and others!!! These are the kind of people Biden loves!

roesch/voltaire said...

The only list I need is found in Woodward's book Rage: Mattis is quoted as calling Trump "dangerous" and "unfit" to be commander in chief. Woodward writes that Coats "continued to harbor the secret belief, one that had grown rather than lessened, although unsupported by intelligence proof, that Putin had something on Trump." Woodward continues, writing that Coats felt, "How else to explain the president's behavior? Coats could see no other explanation."

gspencer said...

Biden's list will rival the invitees to the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.

tcrosse said...

If “Joe” supplies a list it could provide a clue who he’s fronting for.

Begonia said...

It's weird to put people who are politicians on the national stage on that list. It makes it clear he's just pandering.

Have there been any Supreme Court Justices who are well-known politicians (in recent memory, like in the past 50 years)?

D.D. Driver said...

Paul Clement would be wonderful.

Joe Smith said...

Cruz is too old. I want 30-year-olds who are to the right of Genghis Kahn.

Narr said...

Former governors like C E Hughes and Earl Warren have been supremes in later life; Big Taft went to the supremes after the presidency.

Personally I don't think the SC is diverse enough. Six Catholics and 3 Jews, and all Ivy?
And most never did anything BUT lawyering? Not enough to make this cranky old secularist and skeptic rest any easier.

Here's a measure of what our elites used to be: according to a historian on CSPAN (I'll look the name up later) Wilson, H C Lodge, and TR were all able to read German. Whether it helped or not in dealing with the Krauts is a question, but how many Swampcritters nowadays would know German if they saw it?

Narr
10% ?

J. Farmer said...

None of that is worth the paper it's written on. During a Bloggingheads following the Gorsuch LGBT decision, Mickey Kaus said that he believed the Federalist Society project was largely dead. I think he made a pretty persuasive case.

The GOP obsession with Federalist Society friendly judges has always been a mistake. If the GOP wants to be a relevant national political party, it must jettison its libertarian wing and make room for working-class populists.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

feel good link of the day:

BLM Riot Turns Into MAGA YMCA Dance Party

Opposite of leftwing Portland Nazis

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

blogger acting like a pie of shit

Rory said...

Biden can't put out a list because he isn't making the list, and the people who will make the list aren't looking for any unnecessary complications while they drag his carcass toward the finish line.

Michael K said...

adfly said...
There are no vacancies on the Supreme Court


According to the official Court taxidermist, that's true.

Gahrie said...

And speaking of nuts. Senator Sasse just announced he was in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment, and taking away the people's right to vote for Senator. And he's currently running for office! He should lose, based on this statement, but Nebraska voters are so dense, they don't even understand he's insulting them.

Why? I agree with him. (I think all three of the remaining Progressive amendments should be repealed)

Right now Senators are some sort of "super Representative". They're elected exactly the same way as Representatives, represent exactly the same people, and do exactly the same jobs. They're superfluous. Senators were designed to represent the States, not people.

Gahrie said...

I still don't think Ted Cruz would be a good Supreme Court Justice. He is a politician. And he has been a very public and well-known politician. The appearance of being above it all is very important for a judge. Particularly for one on the Supreme Court."

There's actually a long history of politicians being appointed to the Court. At least one ex-president was offered a spot, and at least a dozen Senators, some while they were sitting in the Senate. One of the most influential had been the governor of California.

Drago said...

Freder Frederson: "Ted Cruz? Wasn't his father involved in the Kennedy assassination? Can't remember where I heard that."

Oodles and oodles of anonymous sources running around.

And they all come pre-approved by the left!

By the way, Schiff is off and running on Russia Collusion! Again!

Oh happy days for Freder and Inga!

Gahrie said...

Joe can’t. If he does he either loses the “looney left” or he loses the so-called “middle”.

Bullshit. There is literally nothing this man could say or do that would convince 48% of the country not to vote for him. Nothing.

That's the fucking problem.

Lem said...

omg, Trump is baiting Biden to name a Lani Guinier type. Biden can't because the minute he does, Trump is going to Willie Horton him. Pinned him as beholden to the ultra left wing of his party, at a time Biden could barely bring himself to condemn BLM and Antifa violence.

stevew said...

God he knows how to push their buttons.

Jupiter said...

gadfly said...
"There are no vacancies on the Supreme Court and naming an extremist like Tom Cotton is an effort to appeal Trump supporters. Four years ago, I was all for Ted Cruz ..."

Looks like we've found another LLR.

mockturtle said...

Kevin opines: Ted Cruz killed his chances to be President at the RNC in 2016 when he gave a speech without endorsing Trump.

Trump is a pragmatist and doesn't hold grudges, or at least doesn't let them interfere with his agenda.

William said...

There used to be a tradition of appointing elderly men to the Supreme Court. They would serve for a few years and then retire. It was like a capstone to their careers rather than their careers. Now the young or, at any rate, middle aged are appointed and hold the office until death and sometimes a few years beyond death.....Biden should hark back to that earlier tradition. He could appoint either Bill or Hillary Clinton. They could serve a few years, pick up a few bucks deciding on the fracking cases, and then retire with an added bit of luster to their already fabulous reputations. Then Biden could revert to the mean and appoint AOC to serve for the next half century. Everybody a winner.

J Melcher said...

Trump (and Cruz and Cotton) can somewhat imperfectly explain a philosophy of law and governance that has predictive power about what sorts of decisions they'd make over what sorts of controversies. Hardly a prefect predictor, but in theory it's out there.

Joe Biden can barely explain his own philosophy of governance. His list -- should he put one forward -- would be developed in explaining what identity groups are represented. Maybe another Wise Latina, maybe the First Trans-gendered Justice, most likely some Black Woman. Which is all well and good but NOT predictive. What will a Black Woman think about Eminent Domain? What does a Trans-Man think about Stop and Frisk?

Joe CAN'T because he has no theory, which I believe a theory I share with Ann.

Gospace said...

roesch/voltaire said...
The only list I need is found in Woodward's book Rage: Mattis is quoted as calling Trump "dangerous" and "unfit" to be commander in chief. Woodward writes that Coats "continued to harbor the secret belief, one that had grown rather than lessened, although unsupported by intelligence proof, that Putin had something on Trump." Woodward continues, writing that Coats felt, "How else to explain the president's behavior? Coats could see no other explanation."


But yet, none of these people have explained why Trump would allow U.S. forces to completely devastate a Russian unit in Syria: https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-us-forces-killed-more-than-200-russian-fighters-in-syria-attack Seems if Putin had something on him, this wouldn't have happened.

Russia would like to see the end of fracking in the US- a Democrat objective- despite Biden and Harris's latest lies. Trump fully supports it. Seems that Putin would spill the beans on Trump to get him to stop.

There is nothing in policy that Trump has done that is favorable to Russia. Or China. Both are rivals- and approach actual enemy status.

Drago said...

Readering: "Looks like a hodge podge..."

LOL

Whatever.

wholelottasplainin' said...

Michael K said...
adfly said...
There are no vacancies on the Supreme Court

According to the official Court taxidermist, that's true.
************

As I write, Democrats are desperately studying old episodes of "Futurama" to figure out how they kept Nixon's head alive in that fishtank.

Josephbleau said...

“Half the people in my country are idiots. And the press is evil.”

I think that 90 percent of Americans believe half the country are idiots.

wholelottasplainin' said...

"How else to explain the president's behavior? Coats could see no other explanation."

****

Thus committing the Fallacy of Ignorance: "What else COULD it be?"

Drago said...

roesch/voltaire: "The only list I need is found in Woodward's book Rage: Mattis is quoted as calling Trump "dangerous" and "unfit" to be commander in chief. Woodward writes that Coats "continued to harbor the secret belief, one that had grown rather than lessened, although unsupported by intelligence proof, that Putin had something on Trump." Woodward continues, writing that Coats felt, "How else to explain the president's behavior? Coats could see no other explanation."

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

That darn "dangerous" Trump refuses to start new wars, keeps delivering trade and peace deals and continues putting America first and the deep state/establishment and military industrial perma-war crowd is displeased!! Meanwhile, Trump is the ONLY President to call out our slacking "allies" and force NATO to increase spending while he continues to draw attention to the EU/Deutschland punks sellout to Putin via Nordstream!

We are a full 4 years into this and r/v STILL hasnt figured out how Trump got elected.

Hey r/v, dummy, your "critique" could just as well be a Trump campaign commercial. But thanks anyway, its already covered.

Seriously, now Dan Coats is the powerhouse intellect and leader that MUST be listened to....so say the lefties!

Trump is truly a magician.

Ray - SoCal said...

I can tell it’s after Labor Day and Biden was officially nominated.

I wonder what else Trump has mapped out till the election?

Be great if he made HCQ over the counter...

wholelottasplainin' said...

Freder Frederson said...
Ted Cruz? Wasn't his father involved in the Kennedy assassination? Can't remember where I heard that.

********************

trump would simply retort using Kamala Harris's dodge:

"It was a campaign! It was a campaign! It was a CAMPAIGN!"

Guildofcannonballs said...

Joe would have to wait to see who made the best offer before he would be able to choose, unless the people who cheated the worst (best for Joe) to get him elected in the first place are owed a bigger share than the people who didn't help him cheat big in the election but will make sure he pays what he owed pre-election for other favors.

Joe knows what happened to Harry Reid, but the president is a whole new ballgame as Commander in Chief.

Remember Blago with a Senate appointment? Can you imagine how much a S.C. nomination would be worth? Way more than *^*^**^* gold.

Narayanan said...

Rory said...
Biden can't put out a list because he isn't making the list, and the people who will make the list aren't looking for any unnecessary complications while they drag his carcass toward the finish line.
-----------===========
there has been lot of discussion about pardon power and whether Trump can pardon himself on 01/21/2021?! before noon.

Q: can Biden nominate himself to the SC being tops in his class and all - sort of Anti-25A - domino effect + RubeGoldberg constitution

Night said...

Biden will be advised to name the most prominent BLM leader to the court.

bagoh20 said...

The reason Trump can and Biden can't is that Trump makes promises his base wants, and which he can keep. Biden can't please his base anymore than you can stop spoiled toddlers with words, and he can't nominate the people he could actually get confirmed, so he would be setting himself up for failure, and that's the job of the DNC, his family, and his circle of cruel enablers.

n.n said...

Trump operates with the precepts of Protestant work reliigon, and under the diversity-agnostic delusions of white privilege embraced by productive societies, including: Americans, Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc.

bagoh20 said...

"As for playing who can act the stupidest, Biden will likely pass on this wonderful opportunity since he will receive few votes from the wild-ass Trumpists."

So you're suggesting that likely Supreme court appointments aren't really important to who you vote for. We all know you don't believe that. And not only is this not a stupid move, it's genius, and the Biden campaign will be forced to avoid the subject like Biden avoids sunshine.

In general, Trump can talk about specifics and policy, and Biden can't. Biden has to keep it loose, non-specific, and fluid like the fog that is Democrat principles.

n.n said...

Biden can't please his base anymore than you can stop spoiled toddlers with words

Decaffeinated Joe is handicapped by the unenviable task to reconcile the religious convictions of his base, where some, select, her Choice matters.

Narayanan said...

JAORE said...
Biden boxed himself in to the K. Harris selection by announcing he'd pick a woman. He also hinted he'd like a POC. Then he was herded into that corner and Harris was the "best" option.

He's also said he'd appoint a black woman to the SC. Since a President can't count on how many appointments he'll get, Biden is basically locked into a black woman.
-------=======
Stacy Abrams or Ashley Shackelford should both be thrilled

Narayanan said...

things I learned recent past >>>>
Speaker of the House of Representative need not be member of the House
Nominees to Supreme Court need not have trained as lawyers.
Candidates for President need not present birth certificates / valid ID

Q: do nominees for SC have to be US citizens? - can China buy Congress + Presidency + SC (Russia is not rich enough or hold US treasuries)

rcocean said...

"Why? I agree with him. (I think all three of the remaining Progressive amendments should be repealed)"

Imagine if we had even LESS accountability than we do now! I find it incredible that a man running for the Senate would write in the WSJ "Hey, you know what would be great? Imagine if I didn't have to face you assholes every six years, and we could take away your right to vote". His other moronic suggestion was term limits (2 terms), and making the Senators live in the same dormitory.

I don't know what's more amazing, the childishness or the elitism. Sasse is another one of those clowns who thinks the roadblock to solving all our problems is the American People. Free from their political pressure, all those great Senators, great men all, like Sasse, could get together and provide us with Solutions the need. Whether we wanted them or not.

rcocean said...

we already have 5 politicians on the supreme court. The 4 liberals are driven almost entirely by their left-wing political beliefs and make no bones about it. They vote as a bloc on almost every issue, and almost never cast a vote on the conservative side of the issue. if they do, its because they've already lost 5-4, and there's no harm to being the 6th or 7th vote. And then there's Roberts, who flip-flops back and forth. If he has any consistent judicial philosophy on anything, I'd like to know what it is.

Cruz would be an HONEST Judge politician.

Roughcoat said...

None of this matters. Even if Biden went silent from now through election day at least 48 percent of the voting public would vote for him. He could murder Christ on a street corner and still get their vote. It's not about Biden. It's about what Biden and the Democrats represent. There is no arguing with them. They want what they want. If the Democrats decided at the last moment to replace Biden with a demon from hell the demon would get 48 percent of the vote.

readering said...

Biden has indicated that he wants to appoint the first African-American woman to the Court. Two names that have come up are California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger (Brown appointee) and DC District Court Judge Ketanji Jackson (Obama appointee). Both are former US Supreme Court Clerks with Harvard/Yale pedigrees. I had a case before Jackson and she was super smart. Kruger has a sterling reputation in California on a very collegial court.

J Melcher said...

readering said...
"Biden has indicated that he wants to appoint the first African-American woman to
the Court. Two names that have come up are California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger (Brown appointee) and DC District Court Judge Ketanji Jackson (Obama appointee)."

Does knowing their names and positions provide any insight into the way they would decide likely cases? They worship stare decisis or are agnostic? They consider international law and developments, or only US law? They interpret according the the language and usage common at the time of a law's passage, or as understood at present?

If a "Black Woman" can be predicted, well and good. But I suspect the predicted outcomes are not what earns such a judge preference in Biden's mind for the position being considered.

Original Mike said...

If Biden produced a list, someone might ask him a question.

James Pawlak said...

Why bother? Biden will inflict gross lies about this as he does on every other subject.

Nichevo said...

Did everybody Miss Anita Hill taking the chocolate, in Mason Verger's phrase, and offering her support to Joe Biden? Clearly that is a quid pro quo. I guess the ideal setup would be for Clarence Thomas to retire and for a President Biden to replace him with Hill. Feh.

J. Farmer said...

@rcocean:

And then there's Roberts, who flip-flops back and forth. If he has any consistent judicial philosophy on anything, I'd like to know what it is.

Roberts specifically rejected such an approach at is confirmation hearing.

Cruz would be an HONEST Judge politician.

I think that’s probably a pipe dream: the notion of a dispassionate judge who renders verdicts according to an all-encompassing judicial philosophy. Even if a judge begins that way, there’s no guarantee he will stay that way during his tenure on the court. O’Sullivan’s law will likely kick in. I imagine judges at that level are pretty realistic and results-oriented, and often cover their pragmatism behind a lot of legal jargon.

Nichevo said...


If Biden lists a bunch of radicals, that can be used against him. If Biden chooses a bunch of moderates, it does two things: 1. It takes the fight out of the activists. 2. If Biden wins the election, it holds him to appointing a moderate.



No, he can split the difference. If Trump named twenty-odd candidates, Biden can just list 10 radicals and 10 moderates.

Nichevo said...


anti-de Sitter space said...
“Prove me wrong, Joe.”

So Althouse won’t tell us the reason that only DJT can name potential SCOTUS folks.

Such a mystery. But, let me guess that it’s got something to do w/ the libs suck and DJT doesn’t suck.

Prove me wrong, Atlhouse.



She already proved you wrong, your comment has posted and you say she censors your comments. As usual, you're full of shit.

DanTheMan said...

It's trap - divide and conquer.
The Dems are a coalition interest groups, much more so than the R's.

Any list is sure to set one group against another.

Team Biden is too smart to step into the trap. But Joe might go off script and come up with some names on the fly, if pushed.
Given his recent performances, he could "stutter" and name a non-existent person, or somebody who died a few years ago.

His best play is probably something like "I think either of the Obama's would be great, don't you?"

But nobody is ever going to ask him that, or any other hard question.

tommyesq said...

Four years ago, I was all for Ted Cruz but he has jumped the shark and now does not make my list of viable conservatives. BTW, neither of these gentlemen have served on the courts.

What did Cruz do over the past four years by which he "jumped the shark," other than not win the Republican nomination in 2016?

Unknown said...

I hope he goes for a Senator!

After he made the list, Tom Cotton tweeted, "It's time for Roe v. Wade to go."

Man, that would be an awesome confirmation fight.

Ted Cruz went with Jurisprudential Tone. "Am humbled & deeply honored to be on President Trump's SCOTUS list, released today. I spent this Summer writing a book on the Supreme Court, telling the inside story of how our constitutional liberties hang in the balance." Actually, he might just be trying to drum up book sales.

Josh Hawley is going with Reluctant Patriot Who Only Wants to Serve the People of Missouri. Apparently he told Trump he didn't want to be on the Supreme Court, and Trump put him on the list anyway.

Hard to get! Maybe that works.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Blogger Kevin said...
Ted Cruz killed his chances to be President at the RNC in 2016 when he gave a speech without endorsing Trump.
"Vote your conscience" was as close as he could come, demonstrating he didn't have the class or judgment for the top job.


IMAO, Ted did the right things in 2016.

At teh convention he showed that he is no wimp, and no yes man, refused to cave to pressure, and said "vote your conscience."

Then, in October IIRC, he switched to supporting Trump.

Tom said...

Frankly, I’d love to see Trump appoint Rand Paul to the SCOTUS. There’s no constitutional requirement that the justice must be a lawyer. And, frankly, it’s always worried that our most significant, long lasting decisions as a nation are made by a committee of 9 lawyers.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

I can easily see Trump challenging Biden at the first debate: I've named who I would appoint to the Supreme Court, who would you appoint?

When Biden dodges ("I'll listen to the experts", for example), Trump responds "So people aren't actually voting for you, they're voting for 'the experts'? Who are these 'experts' they'll be saddled with?"

Ken B said...

Farmer
Didn’t Trump give a list last time? Weren’t Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both on that list? And didn’t Trump stick with and fight for them? So isn’t this list more credible than any comparable promise from any president ever?

Unknown said...

Here's my list for Joe Biden...

Akhil Amar
Barack Obama
Merrick Garland
Tulsi Gabbard
Bob Casey
Greg Lukianoff
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Randall Kennedy
Bari Weiss

Amexpat said...

The easy retort is that he can't name any now because any possible nominee would have to go through a rigorous vetting process at the appropriate time.

Also, Trump is putting politicians like Cruz or Cotton in order to curry favor and that he would look for highly qualified experienced sitting judges who have been untainted by politics.

bbkingfish said...

Biden is a boring, conventional. old school politician running a boring, conventional old school campaign.

He'll do what every other presidential candidate in his lifetime has done about discussing USSC candidates before the election...nothing. Why would he?

Guildofcannonballs said...

https://mobile.twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1303899311659511808

No geriatric possessive at least...

@Breaking911
JOE BIDEN: "I carry with me---I don't have it...gave it to my staff. I carry with me, in my pocket, a...do I have that around? Anyone...where's my staff?...I gave it away, anyway...I carry a schedule in my pocket."

bagoh20 said...

"I nominate the... a.... black woman, you know, that one who's black and a woman, and I nominate her to be the first black woman for ..., you know, the thing. C'mon man." She's clean, articulate, and not even a whore."

wholelottasplainin' said...

William said...
There used to be a tradition of appointing elderly men to the Supreme Court. They would serve for a few years and then retire. It was like a capstone to their careers rather than their careers. Now the young or, at any rate, middle aged are appointed and hold the office until death and sometimes a few years beyond death

**************

Do you even BOTHER to check the facts before you post such inanities?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices_by_time_in_office

Original Mike said...

"Given his recent performances, he could "stutter" and name a non-existent person, or somebody who died a few years ago"

My money's on Corn Pop.

Drago said...

Tom: "Frankly, I’d love to see Trump appoint Rand Paul to the SCOTUS."

There is zero chance the republicans in the Senate would vote for him....right up until any democrat gets elected to the Presidency and nominates whoever the hell he or she wants at which point these same republican's would say "elections have consequences" so they "had to respect the choice of the democrat President" and vote in the affirmative.

And it wouldn't matter in the slightest who that democrat nominee was. It could be a rapper and Sasse and the rest would go along with it.

Gahrie said...

Frankly, I’d love to see Trump appoint Rand Paul to the SCOTUS. There’s no constitutional requirement that the justice must be a lawyer. And, frankly, it’s always worried that our most significant, long lasting decisions as a nation are made by a committee of 9 lawyers.

Me too. Today that is compounded by the fact that the Justices are only coming from two specific, "elite" law schools.

I've always felt that at least three of the Justices should be non-lawyers. I used to get crazy reactions in my Con Law classes when I made the argument.

The Vault Dweller said...

As far as judges being above it all, I don't think any are. Including all those on the supreme court. I said appearing because I think it is impossible and I think it is more what the populace thinks of the court. And I think a vocal politician is a bit too far. For the other half to swallow. I don't know who the left wing equivalent would be to Ted Cruz but I wouldn't support them for that same reason, but presumably also because of disagreements on judicial philosophy.

DanTheMan said...

>>Here's my list for Joe Biden...

How about:
Corn Pop
The Indian guy at the 7-11
President Obidenmama
Oprah Winfield
Hunter Biden
Doctor Jill Biden
Urethra Franklin
Anita Hill
Jacob Blake
Jacoby Brissett
That cute little red haired girl from Peanuts
Julia the, you know, the woman who did that thing

Bruce Hayden said...

“And speaking of nuts. Senator Sasse just announced he was in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment, and taking away the people's right to vote for Senator. And he's currently running for office! He should lose, based on this statement, but Nebraska voters are so dense, they don't even understand he's insulting them.”

The problem right now is that Senators often don’t represent their states any more. Biden was often referred to as “D-MBNA” instead of “D-DE”. In MT, Sen Baucus was well known to be bought and paid for by the big investment banks. Jon Tester was re-elected two years ago after at least doubling his opponent’s advertising. We have been seeing ads for Sen Daines, but the ones for his opponent, Gov Bullock, have just hit heavy rotation. Schumer promised him enough money to win, to get into the race, and appears to be pulling through with his promise.

This is not unique - Dem Senators from purple, even reddish, states seem to very often buy their elections with money from outside their states. I saw a table that appeared to show outside money in elections. In it, Dem Senate candidates tended to get almost 60% of their contributions out of state, both sides of the isle in the House About 50%, and Republican Senate candidates about 40%. Or something like that.

The Senate would probably look much different if Senators were selected by their local legislature, instead of being elected in state wide elections. For one thing, there would likely be more Republicans in the Senate. And less big outside money, and esp NY and CA money buying Senate seats in states like MT. The large amounts of outside money in these races guarantees that the Senators that are the recipients of this money are likely to owe more allegiance to these out of state entities funding them, than to the citizens of their states who just vote for them.


Josephbleau said...

“If Biden wins the election, it holds him to appointing a moderate.“

Why does anyone think that Biden would keep any campaign promise he made. As Kammy would say, it was a PROMISE!! A PROMISE!! Ha ha ha ha ha.

Michael McNeil said...

Imagine if we had even LESS accountability than we do now! […] I don't know what's more amazing, the childishness or the elitism. […] Free from their political pressure, all those great Senators, great men all, like Sasse, could get together and provide us with Solutions the need. Whether we wanted them or not.

Insightful visitor to the fledgling United States, Alexis de Tocqueville — powerful analyst and proponent of democracy; no (19th century) “right-winger” — held the diametrically opposite view, as did the founding fathers of the American republic.

Here's how Tocqueville (in his famous masterpiece of the 1830's [!] Democracy in America, stemming from an extended personal visit to the United States) put it concerning the character as he saw it of the American Senate during its first century — contrasted strongly with the competing U.S. House of Representatives: [quoting…]

There are some laws, democratic in their nature, which nonetheless succeed in partially correcting democracy's dangerous instincts.

When one enters the House of Representatives at Washington, one is struck by the vulgar demeanor of that great assembly. One can often look in vain for a single famous man. Almost all the members are obscure people whose names form no picture in one's mind. They are mostly village lawyers, tradesmen, or even men of the lowest classes. In a country where education is spread almost universally, it is said that the people's representatives do not always know how to write correctly.

A couple of paces away is the entrance to the Senate, whose narrow precincts contain a large proportion of the famous men of America. There is scarcely a man to be seen there whose name does not recall some recent claim to fame. They are eloquent advocates, distinguished generals, wise magistrates, and noted statesmen. Every word uttered in this assembly would add luster to the greatest parliamentary debates in Europe.

What is the reason for this bizarre contrast? Why are the elite of the nation in one room and not in the other? Why does the former assembly attract such vulgar elements, whereas the latter has a monopoly of talents and enlightenment? Both spring from the people, both are the result of universal suffrage, and as yet no voice has been raised in America declaring that the Senate is hostile to popular interests. Whence, then, comes this vast difference?

I can see only one fact to explain it: the election which produces the House of Representatives is direct, whereas the Senate is subject to election in two stages. All citizens together appoint the legislature of each state, and then the federal Constitution turns each of these legislatures into electoral bodies that return the members of the Senate.

The senators therefore do represent the result, albeit the indirect result, of universal suffrage, for the legislature which appoints the senators is no aristocratic or privileged body deriving its electoral right from itself; it essentially depends on the totality of citizens; it is generally annually elected by them, and they can always control its choice by giving it new members.

But it is enough that the popular will has passed through this elected assembly for it to have become in some sense refined and to come out clothed in nobler and more beautiful shape. Thus the men elected always represent exactly the ruling majority of the nation, but they represent only the lofty thoughts current there and the generous instincts animating it, not the petty passions which often trouble or the vices that disgrace it.

It is easy to see a time coming when the American republics will be bound to make more frequent use of election in two stages, unless they are to be miserably lost among the shoals of democracy.

[/unQuote]
____
(Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835-40 [12th Edition, 1848], edited by J. P. Mayer, translated by George Lawrence, Anchor Books, Doubleday and Co., Inc., New York, 1969)

Tina Trent said...

J Farmer is right: leftitarian open borders nuts like Mike Lee and Rand Paul need to be kicked to the curb.

Cruz has had to go hat in hand to the moneybags supporting such people to win races, but he has a solid backbone despite it. Being on the court would free him from political and financial obligations.

J. Farmer said...

@Ken B:

So isn’t this list more credible than any comparable promise from any president ever?

I don't doubt the sincerity of the list. That's the problem. It's a bunch of Federalist Society libertarian types. See Ilya Shapiro's gushing over the list at Cato Institute.

Also, one name is particularly objectionable: James Ho. Trump nominated him to the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals a couple of years ago. He's a vocal proponent of the 14th amendment guaranteeing birthright citizenship and has said that only a constitutional amendment can undo it.

Howard said...

This will boost Democrat turnout

Rusty said...

" If the GOP wants to be a relevant national political party, it must jettison its libertarian wing and make room for working-class populists."
Take a guess at who shows up for all his rallys. Trump IS the GOP. To get elected as a republican you have to have his endorsement.
Off subject. Iran has been stockpiling weapons grade uranium with the intent to make a bomb.
Not to rub it in-Oh. fuck. Yes to rub it in- did I call it or what. Scorpions J.. They can't change their nature.

Kevin said...

Trump is a pragmatist and doesn't hold grudges, or at least doesn't let them interfere with his agenda.

He needs more than Trump’s vote to win the primary.

Clyde said...

The judges on Biden's list would probably have to be summoned with a pentagram.

Kevin said...

At teh convention he showed that he is no wimp, and no yes man, refused to cave to pressure, and said "vote your conscience."

At the convention he showed up and told the world it was OK to vote for Hillary Clinton.

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

Trump IS the GOP. To get elected as a republican you have to have his endorsement.

In that case, the GOP should just be completely abandoned. Trump is not a movement leader. He's a personality driven almost entirely by ego. His understanding of the relevant issues is either hopelessly confused and incoherent or nonexistent.

Off subject. Iran has been stockpiling weapons grade uranium with the intent to make a bomb.
Not to rub it in-Oh. fuck. Yes to rub it in- did I call it or what.


Rub it in? Is that a joke? You're complaining that Iran has begun violating some terms of the JCPOA, which the US abandoned over two years ago and has been sanctioning the country ever since. But while stockpile limits have been violated, Iran is not "stockpiling weapons grade uranium." It has increased its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. Nonetheless, it is absurd for the US to complain about Iran violating the terms of an agreement we ourselves abrogated.

So, no, you didn't "call it." Then or now.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Kevin said...
Me: At the convention Cruz showed that he is no wimp, and no yes man, refused to cave to pressure, and said "vote your conscience."
Kevin: At the convention he showed up and told the world it was OK to vote for Hillary Clinton.

No, Kevin, at the Convention he showed up and said it was ok not to vote for President, or to vote 3rd Party.

As a conservative, Trump had not done much to earn my vote, or Ted Cruz's.

I voted for myself in 2016, because by Nov, Trump still had not done anything to earn my vote.

As President Trump has earned my vote, and so he gets it this year.

Drago said...

Kevin: "At the convention he showed up and told the world it was OK to vote for Hillary Clinton."

That is true. However, he has fought hard since recognizing that error.

That's not really Cruz' problem though. Cruz simply does not have the ability to pull in all those midwest voters. He just doesn't. Call it what you want. Those voters that poured out of the hills and dales and hollers for Trump won't come out for Cruz, or for any of these other republicans.

I give Farmer alot of crap, deservedly so, but Farmer was completely correct yesterday when he wrote the republican party as a whole has to move away from being Chamber of Commerce republicans (and the CoC has already begun its rapid descent into another lefty dominated "institution" that has sold America out) and become the peace and freedom populist party.

Can the republican party do it? Not as an institution. There will have to be another strong enough personality who emerges to pick up that mantle. There are a few waiting in the wings so we are going to see if they have what it takes to go all the way.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sam L. said...

I'm sure the Dems will make up a list for Joe.

Kevin said...

That is true. However, he has fought hard since recognizing that error.

So has Lindsay Graham. Also not Presidential material.

If Ted had simply backed the winning candidate in respect of the voter's wisdom, he might have been Trump's AG pick.

How much better would the country be now?

Nichevo said...


J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:

Trump IS the GOP. To get elected as a republican you have to have his endorsement.

In that case, the GOP should just be completely abandoned.



J. Farmer: on the one hand, you've said that you're proudly indifferent to the views of those assembled here, that we're free to ignore you, that you'd prefer it, you'd be happier if we didn't reply.

Also J. Farmer: why won't the stupid heads in power listen to me and do what I say?

J. Farmer said...

@Nichevo:

J. Farmer: on the one hand, you've said that you're proudly indifferent to the views of those assembled here, that we're free to ignore you, that you'd prefer it, you'd be happier if we didn't reply.

I don't recall ever saying anything to the effect of the last part of your sentence. As for the first, the "views" I referred to were ones about me rather than about the issue or topic. So, for example, I'd like to say what I think about the GOP, and here you are saying what you think about me.

Also J. Farmer: why won't the stupid heads in power listen to me and do what I say?

Ha. I would never ask such a silly question. We've been pursuing the exact opposite of my preferred policies for at least 30 years. You seem to have me confused with someone in a state of lamentation or exasperation. Rather, I am blissfully resigned.

Friedrich Engels' Barber said...

Josephbleau

"I think that 90 percent of Americans believe half the country are idiots."

The other 10% are undecided.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Drago said...
I give Farmer alot of crap, deservedly so, but Farmer was completely correct yesterday when he wrote the republican party as a whole has to move away from being Chamber of Commerce republicans (and the CoC has already begun its rapid descent into another lefty dominated "institution" that has sold America out) and become the peace and freedom populist party.

Could Cruz have gotten those Democrat Midwest WWC voters to vote for him in 2020? I doubt it. Not in the numbers that Trump did, that's for sure.

OTOH, Assuming Trump wins in 2020, and pushes 4 more years of trade deals that help the US, cutting China back, and supporting working class jobs, the trick in 2024 will be trying to keep those voters, who've now spent 8 years watching teh Democrat hate them, and the GOP help them.

And that's a much easier task than getting them to switch from being D voters, or not voting, in the first place

A lot fo black voters who came out for Obama, didn't come out for other Democrats, and for Hillary in 2016, because Obama didn't actually DO anything for them.

Trump IS doing things for teh WWC, and will continue to do so if re-elected

Rusty said...

Sure thing J. Whatever you say.

roger said...

The name we are missing is Amy Coney Barrett.

J. Farmer said...

@Greg the Class Traitor:

Trump IS doing things for teh WWC, and will continue to do so if re-elected

Unfortunately, it's too little too late. The share of the population that is white and working class is the lowest it has ever been. Their numbers are declining, and suicide and drug overdoses are pushing down their life expectancy.

@Rusty:

Sure thing J. Whatever you say.

Devastating riposte as always, Rusty. I'm still willing to put up a four-figure wager that Iran does not nuclearize in the next four years. Interested?

You remind me of Netanyahu, who has been predicting the imminent nuclearization of Iran since the early 1990's. I know this does not fit your caricatured view of the situation, but the easiest way to deal with the Iran threat is to stop attacking them. Stop trying to overthrow the government. Reestablish diplomatic relations and move towards full normalization. Stop letting clients like Israel and the Gulf Arab monarchies pull us into their regional conflicts. Together, they have more than enough resources to contain Iran. Get US forces out of Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.