POLITICS Trump’s SCOTUS Pick

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by Tenacious D, Jul 9, 2018.

  1. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Based purely on widespread reports, the final candidates seem to be:

    Thomas Hardiman (age 52)
    Finished second to Gorsuch last go-round, and is a circuit colleague of Trump’s own sister, and who is also a federal judge.

    Raymond Kethledge (age 51)
    Kethledge’s ten years as a federal appeals court judge give him a long record of conservative opinions that may make Trump and Republican senators feel secure about the kind of Supreme Court justice he’d be.

    Brett Kavanaugh (age 53)
    The Koch Brothers love him, and he served 5 years in W’s White House, but some social conservatives fear Kavanaugh isn’t committed to issues that matter to them, like abortion.

    Amy Barrett (age 46)
    Clerked for Antonin Scalia, mother of 7 (including two adopted from Haiti and another with special needs), and who has only been a judge for 7 months.

    Dark horse (IMO): Senator Mike Lee (age 47)
    I’m somewhat surprised that he hasn’t been rumored as being a much stronger candidate than the others, tbh. He’s got the rare benefit of both being personally well-known by his colleagues in the Senate, but has no judicial record by which his opponents might seek to hang him out to dry.

    If this list of finalists is to be believed, it seems certain that Trump’s preeminent goal is to replace Kennedy with a dedicated originalist (ala Scalia), whomever that might be.

    I like Barrett, but her very short time on the bench is worrisome, mainly because it gives such a small window by which to be certain of her views on a range of important issues. Some may fear, right or wrong, that she risks becoming Sandra Day O’Conner 2.0. I’d prefer that more be known about her before she’s nominated, and given her youth, I’d prefer and it’s entirely possible that Trump keeps her in reserve to replace a female Justice, when such a spot comes open.

    Personally, I don’t like Kavanaugh at all, but he certainly meets the most important criteria of who I predicted Trump would eventually nominate - a business friendly conservative / moderate, and who would be easily and quickly confirmed in the Senate.

    Frankly, both Hardiman and Kethledge seem fine, but much like a dime a dozen picks, and who would each be closest to replacing Kennedy’s style of mushy moderatism.

    I like Mike Lee, but Trump may not think it wise to open up a Senate seat in nominating him. While Utah is about as safe for the GOP as you’ll get, and there’s effectively zero chance that the Democrats could pick up that seat.....that’s also what many said to Trump about Alabama, too. Lee has expressed an interest in the appointment, and both Cruz and Rand Paul are pushing hard for him.

    To be sure, the Senate will quickly and easily confirm any of these five (5), whomever it may ultimately prove to be.
     
  2. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Founder of the Mike Honcho Fan Club

    Appointing someone that is 46 and only been a judge for 7 months seems negligent to me.

    My wish is for a strong moderate.
     
    Joseph Brant likes this.
  3. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    The safe money is on Kavanaugh, IMO, and who wouldn’t likely make my Top 3, albeit just eyeballing it.
     
  4. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    Kagan was 50 and had 0.
     
    TangoUniform and bostonvol like this.
  5. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I’m not at all sure if Cruz’s public endorsement of Lee is good or bad.

    I’m similarly unsure as to whether his missive is merely a Hail Mary because he’s failed to privately convince Trump....or because he’s actually the guy, and Cruz is just laying out the first round of talking points to support the nomination. Using this sort of over-the-top and ham-handed approach is not only quintessential Ted Cruz, but really fits either scenario.

    He isn’t wrong, here:
    Manipulative puffery:
    Finally, some meat (fear-based as it is):
    As Cruz points to here, the ultimate truth to this whole process always boils down to political expediency, and which shouldn’t be discounted, as it almost always wins the day. Almost.
    Link: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...ike-lee-is-best-choice-for-supreme-court.html
     
  6. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Fair.
     
  7. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    If it is Barrett (and I'm thinking when all is said and done it will be), I can't wait for the media to quickly forget how "unqualified" Kagan was.
     
    TangoUniform likes this.
  8. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Founder of the Mike Honcho Fan Club

    I will say this, and it is a backhanded compliment to Trump, he has made me more aware of what is going on in Washington.
     
  9. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Maybe the reason republican-nominated judges didn't side with conservatives in the past is because they honestly determined they were incorrect in their constitutional interpretations.

    The term "originalist" might as well be a type of being in The Lord of the Rings, it is so steeped in fantasy.
     
  10. VolDad

    VolDad Super Moderator

    I am hearing Kavanaugh might be the most time consuming since he has so much experience/written opinions to dissect.
     
  11. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I’d hope that any jurist would make honest, apolitically-motivated decisions and interpretations based singularly on what the US Constitution actually says, as intended, in the original text, and in black and white - and to aggressively scrutinize and violently reject all arguments which in any way seek to assert that it can or should be interpreted to say or mean almost anything, simply because we wish it were so, and no matter however sincere and well-intended those efforts might be.

    Hopefully, that’s at least a good working definition of an originalist position, and whose existence and merit are so necessarily self-evident as to not require silly comparison to a fictionalized work of fantasy.

    I feel entirely safe in asserting that your awareness and education on origialism will exponentially increase over the next 25+ years, both in theory and application, and just as it will for all other Americans.

    Because I both like and value your opinion, I won’t insult you by being less than perfectly forthright in fully admitting how long I’ve not only awaited this moment, but absolutely celebrate it’s arrival and the coming reality it’s going to bring.

    If Trump makes the correct choice in this next jurist, I’ll be at least as happy to see them confirmed as I was when he actually won the election, if not moreso.
     
  12. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I’ve read that, too, and have no reason to doubt it. But as he’s the Koch Brother’s guy, I can’t fathom that he wouldn’t be quickly confirmed, despite that.

    But someone is putting that out there, and for some reason that escapes me.
     
  13. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Founder of the Mike Honcho Fan Club

    The problem is that the Constitution is so loosely written, much like the Bible, say, and that you can find what you want in it.

    Especially when it comes to Rights and other things. Because it is so lean and loose, there has to be a lot of interpretation, imho.
     
  14. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Even if I agree (and I’m sure that we would / would not, depending on any number of variables), the Constitution itself provides the readily available means to be changed, particularly for the purposes of broadening, narrowing and clarification of precisely what it does or does not say or entail.

    Expressly and precisely.

    Do women have a Constitutional right to an abortion? That could be added.

    Should the President be allowed such broad discretion in setting tariffs, based on national security? That could be edited or outright removed.

    Should tbe POTUS be elected on a straight popular vote? The Constitution could be amended to reflect that.

    And on and on and on. You get the point.

    It also and equally includes the need for judicial interpretation.

    The crux of the argument, IMO, are the means by which those interpretations are made, and to what limit they can entail or extend, before the Constitution needs to be changed.

    As an example - the equality of gay Americans should be enshrined in the written text of Constitution, as being adopted and ratified by all states, and not merely interpreted as being covered, and which would conceivably allow it to be subjected to political whims and a potentially less than favorable interpretation, later.

    Case in point: All of the many things that some are now most concerned that Trump’s nominee might undo....would instead be largely unconcerned if they had been similarly added to the Constitution. But quick and easy answers always bring the risk of other equally quick and easy actions to remove them, later (see Paris Climate, Iran Deal, Obamacare, etc., etc. ad nauseum).

    This is the deal that has been made, and despite however long it’s been delayed or unlikely some naively assumed this day to be, the sizable tab has now come due.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2018
  15. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    You are the politicalization of the court which you claim to hate.
     
  16. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    No, I’m not. At all.

    Admitting that the Constitution says or does not say exactly what is written is exactly how you protect and defend it from devolving into the temporary and theatrical whims of politics.
     
  17. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    I look forward to a well regulated militia for all gun owners
     
  18. bostonvol

    bostonvol Chieftain

    They’ll try and paint her as a crazy catholic. It’s already started to happen.
     
  19. bostonvol

    bostonvol Chieftain

    I don’t why you think that Kethledge would be a candidate to become a “mushy moderate.” Guy has a sterling record. Ann Coulter tried the whole “he’s soft on illegal immigration” thing, because of an opinion he wrote, but that backfired in spectacular fashion and only made him look better. He’s basically in the same mold as Gorsuch, who was a home run.
     
  20. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    aka, the attention whore needed some attention
     

Share This Page