Jump to content

Trump filling the lower courts has begun


cls74

Recommended Posts

Could have been Hillary........

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/08/trump-names-10-nominees-to-federal-courts-on-heels-gorsuch-win.html

 

 

Trump names 10 nominees to federal courts on heels of Gorsuch win

 

President Trump began his bid Monday to reshape the makeup of the lower federal courts, with the White House announcing 10 judicial nominees it described as Trump's "third wave of Federal judicial appointments."

 

Coming out of its first 100 days, the administration aims to build on the successful confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the nominees were all chosen for their deep knowledge of the law and their commitment to upholding constitutional principles.

 

Two of the nominees originally were on the list of 21 candidates that the Trump transition team considered for the Supreme Court vacancy left by Antonin Scalias death, and ultimately filled by Gorsuch. They are Justice Joan Larsen of the Michigan Supreme Court, nominated to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati; and Justice David Stras of the Minnesota Supreme Court, nominated to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.

 

The other nominees are Amy Coney Barrett, a Notre Dame law professor nominated to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago; John Bush, a Louisville lawyer nominated to the 6th Circuit; Kevin C. Newsom, a former Alabama Solicitor General nominated to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta; Judge David C. Nye, nominated to the U.S. District Court for Idaho; Scott L. Palk, a former federal prosecutor nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma; Damien Schiff, nominated to federal claims court; Dabney L. Friedrich, nominated to U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; and Judge Terry Moorer, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

 

Democrats already were speaking out against the nominations.

 

With this first slate of lower court nominees, it seems that the President is intent on continuing to outsource the judicial selection process to hard right, special interest groups rather than consulting with Senators on a bipartisan basis, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

 

Compared against his modern-day predecessors, Trump is behind the curve in announcing nominees to lower-profile positions below the Cabinet level.

 

But one area where these nominations can have a huge impact is the federal courts. While Supreme Court vacancies capture national attention, a president can leave a lasting legacy by getting like-minded justices confirmed to U.S. district, circuit and other courts across the country.

 

Former President Barack Obama made over 300 such appointments, as did George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. At the start of his term, Trump already is looking at nearly 130 judicial vacancies on the lower federal courts.

 

Following Mondays announcement, the White House reportedly plans to roll out additional nominees at regular intervals.

White House Counsel Don McGahn previewed the forthcoming nominations in a speech last Friday, saying Trump was putting his finishing touches on his list and predicting people would be amazed by the caliber of his nominees.

 

Such nominees give Trump a chance to alter the balance on the courts, as several of his policies already are facing legal challenges. He had previously clashed with the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit, after it blocked his initial travel ban.

 

He later accused his opponents of judge shopping, and told The Washington Examiner last month they immediately run to the 9th Circuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was reading about that this morning.Thank GOD that Hillary isn't president.If this is the ONE benefit of having Trump as president it will be worth it.

+1

Really the only reason I voted for him. The House and Senate have dismal approval ratings for cause and I consider them lost to partisanship​. The Office of POTUS has moved steadily towards imperial, and the courts are all we have left to guide us back and hold us to Constitutional​ principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Was reading about that this morning.Thank GOD that Hillary isn't president.If this is the ONE benefit of having Trump as president it will be worth it.

+1

Really the only reason I voted for him. The House and Senate have dismal approval ratings for cause and I consider them lost to partisanship​. The Office of POTUS has moved steadily towards imperial, and the courts are all we have left to guide us back and hold us to Constitutional​ principle.

i am afraid you are right
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Democrats already were speaking out against the nominations.

 

With this first slate of lower court nominees, it seems that the President is intent on continuing to outsource the judicial selection process to hard right, special interest groups rather than consulting with Senators on a bipartisan basis, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

This tells me Trump is picking the right people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Was reading about that this morning.Thank GOD that Hillary isn't president.If this is the ONE benefit of having Trump as president it will be worth it.

+1

Really the only reason I voted for him. The House and Senate have dismal approval ratings for cause and I consider them lost to partisanship​. The Office of POTUS has moved steadily towards imperial, and the courts are all we have left to guide us back and hold us to Constitutional​ principle.

 

 

Another +1 as I voted for Trump solely on this basis. I am willing to accept whatever may come as a result of the election but the selection of the Supreme Court justices will determine the future for my children and possibly grandchildren. The rest is secondary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The MSM ignores these picks because they don't fit into the MSM narrative of Trump being the most bigoted human being to ever walk the face of the Earth. Many are highly qualified WOMEN nominated for circuit judgeships. Trump's first circuit judge nomination (Judge Thapar) is the first Indian-American district judge and will be the first Indian-American circuit judge.

 

Oh wait, the women are white and the Indian-American is male. We can't have that, we need diversity on the courts even if it sacrifices competence since these judges are "only" deciding cases that will (very likely) permanently alter the lives of everyone living within the Court's jurisdiction, whether the citizens realize it or not. No big deal, right? Take Sotomayor as an example of "diversity over qualifications" as she had never delivered a noteworthy opinion while sitting on CA2. She brought a ton of personal bias to the Court. I cannot stand this whole "we must force diversity on every institution" based on the fallacy that everyone is identical. When will these idiots wake up and realize that a white person can be more qualified for the job than a black person, or vice versa. They don't care about qualifications. They care about what's between the person's legs and the color of the person's skin. MLK Jr. is rolling in his grave.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Really the only reason I voted for him.

 

 

Same here.

 

Hilary would have put an insane Berkeley hippie activist judge on the Supreme Court.

 

I feel so much better that we have a sane rational logical legal mind in Gorsuch. It will soon be time to replace Bader-Ginsberg, and watch how the liberal entitlement babes will screech and wail, demanding that a "progressive" female judge be picked as Ginsberg's replacement to "honor her memory".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democrats already were speaking out against the nominations.

 

With this first slate of lower court nominees, it seems that the President is intent on continuing to outsource the judicial selection process to hard right, special interest groups rather than consulting with Senators on a bipartisan basis, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

 

As if Sen. Chuck Schumer isn't "intent on continuing to outsource the judicial selection process" to special interest groups of the hard left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Democrats already were speaking out against the nominations.

 

With this first slate of lower court nominees, it seems that the President is intent on continuing to outsource the judicial selection process to hard right, special interest groups rather than consulting with Senators on a bipartisan basis, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

 

As if Sen. Chuck Schumer isn't "intent on continuing to outsource the judicial selection process" to special interest groups of the hard left George Soros.

 

 

FIFY :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Democrats already were speaking out against the nominations.

 

With this first slate of lower court nominees, it seems that the President is intent on continuing to outsource the judicial selection process to hard right, special interest groups rather than consulting with Senators on a bipartisan basis, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

 

As if Sen. Chuck Schumer isn't "intent on continuing to outsource the judicial selection process" to special interest groups of the hard left George Soros.

 

 

FIFY :)

 

 

That probably is closer to the truth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judge Thapar (an Indian-American, the first one to become a federal district judge) was confirmed to CA6 on party lines. So much for the whole "diversity" spiel on the part of the liberals. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

And I bet one of our resident libs here will be along to tell you how wrong you are. In 3, 2, 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And I bet one of our resident libs here will be along to tell you how wrong you are. In 3, 2, 1.
Tick, tock.... How about his FEMALE (that's for you, liberals) nominee for an open seat on CA7, former Scalia clerk and current Professor of Law at Notre Dame, Amy Coney Barrett, or the FEMALE nominee, Justice Joan Larsen of the Michigan Supreme Court, for a seat on CA6. Hmm yeah he's such a misogynist. /sarcasmSent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they never get called out for racist or sexist remarks.

 

The National Organization for Woman will praise secular feminists who advocate for easier and tax-payer funded abortions, but a Christian woman who wants to marry a man, and have 5 or 6 kids? They call her a cow and the liberal media never says a peep about it. NOW is not an organization for women, its a group of leftist women pushing a leftist agenda.

 

A conservative African American is called an Uncle Tom, but there is no outrage, no indignation.

 

Elizabeth Warren falsely claims to be Native American Indian to benefit from minority status, you'd think that would spark outrage, calls for her to drop out of the race, to resign, but no. Its no big deal to the liberal media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such as if a woman goes out and says "I would like my children to know their father" or "I would like to be a stay at home mom" then she is berated for...well, you name it, patriarchy this, white privilege that (even if she isn't white), etc. If a woman comes out and says she would love to be a single mother, does not want the father of her child(ren) in the picture at all because of some misandristic nonsense, praise is heaped on her for being a "courageous woman" and how "men are deadbeats." In reality, the former is the courageous one for putting her child(ren) first and the latter is a malignant narcissist bent on destroying her children before they can even say "mommy" because she's so proud that she's gonna raise a kid (or several) without any help from any man whatsoever errr except Uncle Sugar who reloads her EBT card. She's putting her child(ren) in the position that comes after "last."

 

I came across a piece in the NYT by some bobblehead who wrote that she always dreamed of being a single mom, just like her mom was, because she turned out fine. Except for the fact that she's a flaming liberal who writes jibberish for the NYT that has no purpose whatsoever other than showing the world how selfish she truly is, and how indecisive she is since she ended up having a kid with her ex-girlfriend. Apparently she had to give up on her dream, how sad. We praise women like that, shame women who are traditional since tradition equals baaaadddddd, racist, Islamophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, the opposite of empowering, and all that garbage

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/08/restoring-credibility-trump-s-slate-11-judicial-nominees-could-shake-up-courts.html

 

 

Restoring credibility? Trump’s slate of 11 judicial nominees could shake up courts

 

 

Whether former President Barack Obama transformed the country is an open question – but there’s no question he transformed the federal courts.

 

For example, in the federal appeals courts, one level below the Supreme Court, Obama named about one-third of all judges presently sitting.

 

Now it’s Donald Trump’s turn to transform the courts. With more than 120 openings on the federal bench, the White House has just announced a slate of 11 new judicial nominees.

 

Court observers say the nominees will be a positive addition to the courts.

 

Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, called it a “fantastic list” with nominees who “have shown commitment to principled and even-handed application of the law throughout their careers.”

 

Jonathan Adler, professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Ohio, called the choices “superlative judicial nominees with sterling credentials and impressive intellects.”

 

The list includes Stephanos Bibas for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Allison H. Eid for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and Ralph R. Erickson for the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Bibas is a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Eid, who clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas and was professor of law at the University of Colorado, is at present a justice on the Colorado Supreme Court. Erickson is a district court judge in North Dakota who presided over the state’s first federal death penalty case.

 

“President Trump continues to pick current and former academics for the appellate bench,” Adler said. “This will only magnify the impact his nominees are likely to have on the federal courts.”

 

The other nominees are Michael P. Allen, Amanda L. Meredith and Joseph L. Toth for the Veterans Claims Appeals Court, Dabney L. Friedrich, Timothy J. Kelly and Trevor N. McFadden for the District Court of the District of Columbia, Stephen S. Schwartz for the Court of Federal Claim and Claria Horn Boom for district judge of the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky.

 

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has called for swift action on the nominees.

 

“President Obama understood the singular importance of the lower courts, which is why he was so vigorous in appointing judges with a greater commitment to the liberal political agenda than to our Constitution,” Hatch said in a statement released Wednesday.

 

But he said President Trump can turn things around.

 

“The time has come to right the wrongs of the previous administration,” he said. “These supremely qualified jurists will restore respect and credibility to the judicial branch by saying what the law is—not what it ought to be.”

 

Even though the president’s term has just begun, the judges he puts on the bench could be one of his most important and long-lasting legacies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of open seats on district courts. Too bad the Senate has the Blue Slip Rule. Unless both Senators from the state in which the district court resides sign off on the nominee, the Judiciary Committee will not entertain the nomination.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

“President Obama understood the singular importance of the lower courts, which is why he was so vigorous in appointing judges with a greater commitment to the liberal political agenda than to our Constitution,”

 

 

 

Wow, Hatch really nailed it

 

 

Under the Constitution, the appeals courts are an extension of the Supreme Court. In effect, SCOTUS really has hundreds of judges. Only the top 9 are in DC in that one building, the rest are all over the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The left understands the singular importance of the lower courts, which is why they are so vigorous in manufacturing impeachment rumors and undermining the President at every turn.

 

If the press had been half as diligent in pursuing Fast & Furious as they are in doggedly investigated every perceived wrongdoing by the Trump administration - Obama would have been impeached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...