Good news coming on the judicial front
President Trump is expected to announce his selection of at least five conservative nominees to federal appeals courts as early as Monday, building on his successful nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
Sources close to the process said Mr. Trump will nominate Michigan Supreme Court Justice Joan Larsen and Louisville, Kentucky attorney John K. Bush to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals; Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras to the 8th Circuit; University of Notre Dame law professor Amy Coney Barrett to the 7th Circuit, and Alabama lawyer Kevin Newsom to the 11th Circuit.
Justices Larsen and Stras were on the president’s list of conservative judges whom he said during the campaign he would consider for the Supreme Court.
The president also will appoint four judges to district court seats.
This is the reason a lot of conservatives voted for Trump. And this will have far-reaching effects, just as President Obama’s many federal appointments did.
The nominations should sail through the Senate, thanks to the Republicans’ continuation of the nuclear option the Democrats put in place when they controlled that legislative body.
Yes. I didn’t support him and don’t really trust him but he appears to be keeping his word on appointing conservative judges and that’s a good thing – he deserves credit for that.
Good. I’m tired of judges making fake law.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/fake-law/article/2007934#!
The Senate Democrats really miscalculated on that nuclear option, didn’t they?
Good.
Let the organisms of the left enjoy the dish they prepared.
Next step – get the US attorneys nominated.
However, I wonder if the delay is related to Trump’s orders to review every department. Perhaps Sessions is reviewing all of the career attorneys in the DOJ to find the good, neutral ones to promote up. Then, he doesn’t have to replace them.
And, the circuits need to be reviewed to make sure that the workload is evenly spread. There should be a good, logical explanation for reorganizing the circuits.
See map http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._federal_courts_circuit_map_1.pdf
and info on structure – http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure
Rack ’em and pack ’em!
What if a future democrat President & democrat Senate use the nuclear option to increase the # of SC justices? Could they conceivably do so?
FDR’s failure occurred in committee, not on a floor vote.
Sure. As you know, they will do anything they can get away with. And they will try to get away with implementing anything they happen to want. You belong to them and your life is theirs in the name of “justice” and “equity”; without hindrance, limit, or let. End of story
Notions of in-principle limited governance, or of the rule of law, were tossed aside by these soulless people several generations ago.
As they see it: They exist to reveal and express wants. We exist as material to affirm, validate, and satisfy those “wants”. Any other questions? LOL
Exactly why I voted for Trump. Anything else of a positive nature is a bonus. We just have to hope he doesn’t do anything crazy; and I see no indication that he will.
His style is not my style; but, then again I am not a billionaire who won the Presidency of the United States against all odds.
From
http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies
there are currently 890 authorized federal judgeships and 129 vacancies.
Donald Trump can fill almost 15% of the federal judicial slots with conservatives, and that does not include what he can do as future vacancies arise.
Having a federal judiciary filled with the likes of today’s nominees would be fantastic.
Maybe a nuke wasn’t the only way to be sure…
My recollection of my history studies is that the then-sitting SCOTUS justices, in the face of FDR’s court-packing threat, started bending towards FDR’s will in order to avoid their respective individual judicial influence would not be diluted.
Edited version of my previous comment:
My recollection of my history studies is that the then-sitting SCOTUS justices, in the face of FDR’s court-packing threat, started bending towards FDR’s will in order to avoid their respective individual judicial influence becoming diluted.
Credit should be given to djt for some excellent cabinet picks and Gorsuch, and now he is beginning to fill the lower courts with actual conservatives. He needs to send Jared and Ivanka back to NYC. Well a guy can wish.
We should also give credit to McConnell for beating the dems at their own game.
Ira Says:
May 8th, 2017 at 6:10 pm
My recollection of my history studies is that the then-sitting SCOTUS justices, in the face of FDR’s court-packing threat, started bending towards FDR’s will in order to avoid their respective individual judicial influence would not be diluted.
* *
I never did get the logic of that move by the SC.
“If FDR adds justices, my influence AGAINST his unConstitutional activities will be diluted (made less effective). Therefore, I will yield and give him everything he wants, so that my influence becomes totally ineffective.
Here is how our totally unbiased Press views this happy day:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/05/on-the-judiciary-the-associated-press-parrots-the-dnc.php
“If you ask the average person to name the principal sources of fake news, he is likely to mention the New York Times or the Washington Post. I think the Associated Press is even worse, or at least, more pervasive. A case in point is tonight’s story on President Trump’s judicial appointments: “Trump begins effort to pack courts with conservatives.”
Let’s stop right there. All presidents nominate judges with compatible philosophies. Did the Associated Press ever write that President Obama was “packing” the federal judiciary with liberals? I don’t think so. I tried this Google search—“associated press obama pack courts with liberals”—and got nothing.”
RTWT
Most of what the US newspapers get, they get from AP and Reuters. It is a “pool”, and a conspiracy like JournoList.
Your recollection is correct, according to my recollection of what I was taught in school.
They seemed to fold like a cheap tent once the pressure was on.
Though, it might be that in retrospect, we underestimate the extent of FDR’s demonstrated willingness to seek to personally destroy opponents using the machinery of the government.
It was a surprise to me to learn recently of his use of the IRS to attack political opponents, and of the vitriol used in some of his speeches.
Though I had read through the legal history of the time, I never encountered a study of FDR’s broader means and ends strategies. It was always presented in a rather abstract fashion.
He could have taught, and probably did, Lyndon Johnson a few things about extra-legal arm twisting and coercion.
https://fee.org/articles/new-deal-or-raw-deal-how-fdrs-economic-legacy-has-damaged-america/
Ira, DNW, Geoffrey Britain, etc.:
You probably were taught that in school, but it’s probably not exactly true, although it somewhat true. For one thing, it was only one justice. Here’s a fuller explanation:
Thanks for that context, neo.