[Subjectivist]

President Trump on Tuesday released the names of the 51 nominees he intends to renominate to the federal bench, but there are now 163 vacancies, more than the 125 when he took office in 2017, causing consternation on the right.

“Democrats have reached an extreme low with their obstructionist tactics now involving smears and religious tests,” said Penny Nance, president and CEO of Concerned Women for America. “President Trump and Republicans need to expose this extremism for what it is and move forward immediately to confirm constitutionalist judges and fill the record number of judicial vacancies the nation faces.”

More than 30 judicial nominees had passed committee muster and were awaiting floor votes at the end of the year before Senate Democrats blocked them.

I posted this here because the overwhelming number of SCOTUS nominees serve as lower court judges first.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... urs-conse/

[Plantagenet]

If there's one thing Mitch McConnell and Trump have been very successful at, its nominating and confirming conservative judges to the federal judiciary.

List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

There's no reason why they shouldn't continue to be successful. The Rs actually INCREASED their numbers in the Senate in the 2018 elections.

Cheers!

[Subjectivist]

If there's one thing Mitch McConnell and Trump have been very successful at, its nominating and confirming conservative judges to the federal judiciary.

List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

There's no reason why they shouldn't continue to be successful. The Rs actually INCREASED their numbers in the Senate in the 2018 elections.

Cheers!

Thats a useful link, thanks for posting it.

[Cog]

The appointment of new federal judges continues at a record pace. Lindsay Graham, the new Senate leader of the Judiciary committee is pushing out 44 more. For the most part the left has been pretty silent on the issue, but the impact of the Federalist Society on the Judiciary will be felt for decades. More at link:

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2019/0 ... al-judges/

Thursday afternoon, the Senate Judiciary Committee headed by Lindsey Graham approved a slate of 44 judicial nominees for confirmation. This continues a fundamental reshaping of the federal judiciary by the Trump administration with the assistance of the Federalist Society.

As Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) pointed out in Thursday’s hearing, more than 80 percent of Trump’s judicial nominees so far are members of the conservative Federalist Society. For some context, she noted that less than 4 percent of all American lawyers are members of that group.

[Plantagenet]

As chaotic and disorderly as the Trump administration has been, his appointments to the federal judiciary and their confirmation by the Rs in the Senate have been a model of efficiency.

Hopefully Trump will also get at least one more SCOTUS appointment. The entertainment value alone of watching the Ds go ballistic is almost worth all the political angst that Trump has brought to DC.

Cheers!

[Cog]

There were protests in and out of the hearing room and people beating on the Supreme Court doors during the Kavanaugh hearings. I'd say we are in for 10X the drama on the next one.

Bring popcorn.

[Revi]

I would say that the Federalist Society is the organization that really runs this place.
Here's the link to it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society

Donald Trump administration[edit]
According to Politico Magazine, "Trump is president for a long list of reasons, of course, but near the top of that list is the imprimatur the Federalist Society granted him. He almost certainly couldn't have gotten what he wanted without the Federalists. And they almost certainly couldn't have gotten what they wanted without him."[7]

The Federalist Society has been influential in the Trump administration, hand-selecting Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and recruiting a slate of conservative judges to fill vacancies throughout the federal judiciary.[31][32][9][25] The society helped to assemble the list of 21 people from which Donald Trump said he would choose a nominee to replace Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. Nine of the 21 individuals spoke at the society's annual convention in late November 2016, while nearly all of the others were in attendance.[33][34] Federalist Society members have generally chosen not to criticize President Donald Trump and Politico described the Federalist Society membership as "elite, conservative lawyers who have generally chosen to give Trump a pass on his breaches of long-cherished legal norms and traditions in exchange for the gift of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch."[32] Federalist Society executive vice president Leonard Leo said: "What President Trump has done with judicial selection and appointments is probably at the very center of his legacy, and may well be his greatest accomplishments thus far."[35]

In May 2018, the Federalist Society hosted a phone call entitled "examining the legality of the Mueller Investigation", where one of the featured speakers has argued that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election is unconstitutional.[32]

[Cog]

The most important legacy that Trump will have, even if he does nothing else, is to appoint conservative federal judges from the Federalist Society list. We will reap the benefits of that for decades.

[Plantagenet]

The most important legacy that Trump will have, even if he does nothing else, is to appoint conservative federal judges from the Federalist Society list. We will reap the benefits of that for decades.

Possibly.

But the Ds are nothing if not persistent. They have a plan to pack the courts, allowing them to expand the number of judges sitting at the SCOTUS and at the appeals courts. The D plan is to appoint enough D judges to the the expanded SCOTUS etc. to enable the Ds to swamp the opinions of the other judges. Rather then the current 5-4 or 7-6 rulings from the bench we see today, under the D plan to pack the courts we'd get things like a 19-4 or a 21-6 ruling.

court-packing-ideas-get-attention-from-democrats/2019

Packing the court seems far-fetched but several of the current pack of D presidential candidates are supporting this D idea.

Cheers!

[Tanada]

Anyone jumping on the rumor that court is cancelled because Chief Roberts tested positive to Covid-19?

[Newfie]

Tanada,

You just made me shorty through my nose!!!!

I did a quick google for “Roberts corona virus” and did not find anything.

HOWEVER, what made me snort was the concept of Trump having 3 or so more Supreme Court picks. Or even Biden.

Can you imagine the caterwauling over that? I’ll need new noise cancelling headsets.

[Pops]

Don't see anything about Roberts
---"The Supreme Court announced Monday that it would postpone its next argument session “in keeping with public health precautions.”

[vtsnowedin]

Don't see anything about Roberts
---"The Supreme Court announced Monday that it would postpone its next argument session “in keeping with public health precautions.”

I would expect nothing less. A lot of seasoned citizens on that bench, best to be on guard.

[Tanada]

For those in political coma, Ruth Ginsberg associate justice of theSupreme Court passed Friday night. President Trump had already announced his short lust of potential nominees and Senator Mitch McConnell has stated that even if Biden wins the election he will push through the selected nominee before January.

[vtsnowedin]

It may not be the slam dunk some Republicans think it is.

But one Republican senator had already broken ranks. Maine’s Susan Collins, who is in a tough reelection battle, said earlier Saturday that she believed replacing Ginsburg should be the decision of the president who is elected Nov. 3. Three more defections from the GOP ranks would be needed to stop Trump’s nominee from joining the court.

https://apnews.com/caadacc468d17741d4c93f906d9f68eb
Also I read elsewhere that the Alaskan senator Murkowski is also against a pre election conformation vote.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Unsurprisingly, as per usual, it will be 100% left / right politics.

And unsurprisingly, BOTH sides have switched their positions on when the replacement should be selected vs. all the angry rhetoric in 2016. BOTH sides "just happen" to want the selection to be when they believe it will help them get the conservative or liberal justice in place to serve their agenda.

And of course, BOTH sides are arguing why their position is right this time. When so much clown-car like stuff like this goes on with NEITHER side having the gumption to stick with core principles over time as a PRINCIPLE, vs. short term political convenience, I'm surprised a lot more voters don't refuse to tow the political line of either party, and just vote each race based on their overall perception of the best candidate. (Disclosure: that's what I've done for a good two decades now. The TOTAL JOKE that was the Bush Vs. Gore brawl, when every SINGLE court case was voted, not on legal principle, but along strictly political lines of which party the judge belonged to, pretty much did it for me respecting the courts or the parties, overall. The last straw.)

The major courts in this country are so FAR from their supposed apolitical role, that it's pathetic. They don't even TRY any more to put a veneer of decency on the role of the courts (re doing the right thing, re legal principles -- just pure politics, overall.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Well, I think we've found an actual example of the "damage" the dems can screech endlessly about, re Trump between the election and the POTUS nomination, presuming he loses.

It will be him attempting to get a conservative SCOTUS justice appointed, which will be a "disaster" according to the left.

At least the issue will be real instead of endless imagined conspiracy theories re him appointing himself king, yadda yadda.

Of course, if two more GOP senators say we should wait (implying they might not vote with the GOP if they push it through) THAT could be really interesting. I would imagine such senators would be betting their political careers on that principle, if they want to remain in the GOP. I wonder if push comes to shove, if ANY politicians are willing to stand on principle if it hurts their careers.

OTOH, with the political winds swinging left recently re the youth vs. older voters, them switching to democrat might be politically very CONVENIENT, and this would be an excellent excuse, re timing. But with 2 GOP senators already opposing a quick SCOTUS appointment vote, I think that sort of battle is very likely shaping up.

[vtsnowedin]

The only real rule they follow is "If you have the power use it". Back when Obama nominated Gorsch he did not have a Democrat majority Senate so did not have the power. The Republicans said a lot of nice sounding things about letting the voters decide but as you can see by their position today that was just eyewash for the voters.
So we may well end up with a strongly conservative supreme court with the Democrats in complete control of the White house and both houses of Congress.
That might act as a brake on Democrat excess ambitions in some areas but probably have little effect on tax rates.

[Subjectivist]

The issue was brought up on MSNBC (I think) that if we get another 2000 style contested election having 5 Republicans and 3 Democrats with one of the R flip floppy could easily result in a 4:4 tie vote throwing the whole thing into the House of Representatives to elect the President and Senate to elect the Vice President. This could conceivably result in President Biden-Vice President Pence with Pence immediately filing to have Biden removed as "Non Compos Mentos" after the inauguration.

Better to fill the seat and have one of the candidates win in a landslide so it never gets contested in court, or if contested the answer is a foregone conclusion. After 4 years of BS accusations about Russian interference the last thing we need is to set up another four years of BS wasting time. There are things like infrastructure and sensible climate change preparations that are vastly more important for Congress to focus on.

[vtsnowedin]

While I agree that a landslide win either way would be better then a drawn out court battle over who has actually won would be a good thing I can't say which side would be better for the countries future. Four more years of Trump would be chaos every day as the left and their media would have a complete mental breakdown but on the other hand the left and Biden's proposals will probably cripple the economy and cost each of us dearly with no real improvement in the climate or even human rights for minorities.
If you think 2020 was a bad year just wait a bit for the next four.