Trump federal judge nominee...,future of courts?

[jeffk]

The senate confirmed John Bush to 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Again, if you are very conservative you would love the guy.

This guy equates abortion and slavery. Is against same sex marriage. Questions climate change. In 2006 wrote a paper where he was critical of a 1992 running which “immunized consensual sodomy from criminal prosecution under the state constitution." He is against women being allowed to be admitted into the Virginia Military Institute.

 

[rokzilla]

I am younger and have been at this several times as long to. While I appreciate the guys politics in would be a nightmare being in front of him for the first couple years. You would need to spell out literally everything for the guy. I prefer to have a conversation when I am in trial court rather than aggressive advocacy. You can't do that if the judge is not familiar with the law.

I have a hard time believing you when you failed to spell too correctly.

 

[jeffk]

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2017/03/statement_of_abapre1.html

Statement of ABA President Linda A. Klein re: ABA’s role in screening judicial nominations

The American Bar Association has been notified that the White House does not intend to follow the long-standing practice of inviting the independent ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary to review the professional qualifications of prospective nominees to the lower federal courts on a pre-nomination basis.

President Eisenhower first invited the ABA into the process in 1953. Since then, with the exception of the George W. Bush administration, the ABA has been asked by every administration to conduct pre-nomination evaluations of the professional qualification of prospective nominees.

--------------------------------------------
Note the ABA gave its highest rating to Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

 

[oldshadow]

It could be worse it could be Hillary packing the courts with liberal judges to make law from the bench.

 

[Quipling]

Not sure why you get to decide what it means to be "qualified" to be a federal judge. There are no specific qualifications laid out in the Constitution or in federal law. That said, there probably were better choices and I wouldn't be surprised if the appointment was done for the reason you described.

SCOTUS and the appellate courts are much more important, and by that measure Trump is doing a marvelous job. That's why this thread is misleading.

There's a lot of space between larson and bush.

 

[waiguoren]

Sure, if you are very conservative you may like the appointments. I am not. I am in the middle on most issues.

I reject your implication that this is a conservative/liberal issue.

As I have pointed out repeatedly to the hyper-tribalistic @Jack V Savage, conservative/liberal is often the wrong dichotomy to apply to jurisprudence. Originalism v. expansionism is usually more relevant, as is the case here. President Trump, with the guidance of White House Counsel Donald McGahn, has been appointing bona fide originalists like Justice Gorsuch to the key posts.

Clarence Thomas is an originalist.

A "conservative" judge might allow state-mandated prayer recitation in schools on the grounds that our country has a long tradition of Christian values. But an originalist would reject such a recitation on the grounds that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.

A "conservative" judge might uphold an authorization to use military force (AUMF) on the grounds that national defense is important to our nation. An originalist would say that AUMFs are clearly unconstitutional as the Constitution nowhere allows such authorizations.

A "conservative" judge would uphold federal anti-drug laws on the grounds that drugs harm our society and drug use is at odds with our traditions. But an originalist would say that the federal government has no authority to regulate possession of drugs. Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent in Gonzales v. Raich is a key example. Would you really call Thomas a "conservative" after reading it?

There are two kinds of judges: those who follow the letter of the law and those who do not. Every decision that expands the meaning of words previously defined puts us one step closer to becoming a banana republic.

 

[waiguoren]

Stephanos Bibas, whom Trump nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In 2009, Bibas, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, presented a paper on crime and punishment in which he wrote: “For the broad middle of the spectrum, the default punishment should be non-disfiguring corporal punishment, such as electric shocks.”

He has backtracked on this statement now. But fuck if I said something like that 8 years ago I don't think I should be considered for the job.

Bibas is brilliant and---as far as I can tell---a very good man. He's the Supreme Court's 15th-most cited law professor and he's only 48 years old.

It's telling you would judge the guy based on one unorthodox view of his which would have no bearing on his new job. That's what happens when you form your views through the lazy perusal of shock headlines.

I've been listening to a talk he gave about textualism and the Bill of Rights. It's fascinating:

 

[waiguoren]

Maybe have the Bar Assc. give you a good rating, or have tried a case, or even be a judge in the first place?

I'm guessing you were violently opposed to President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. After all, she had never served as a judge before joining SCOTUS.

 

[waiguoren]

The senate confirmed John Bush to 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Again, if you are very conservative you would love the guy.

This guy equates abortion and slavery. Is against same sex marriage. Questions climate change. In 2006 wrote a paper where he was critical of a 1992 running which “immunized consensual sodomy from criminal prosecution under the state constitution." He is against women being allowed to be admitted into the Virginia Military Institute.

I see. Your standard for qualification of a judge for a federal position is that you must agree with his personal views.

These guys and gals are originalists. They stay faithful to original documents in their original contexts. That's the job of a judge.

Their personal views on abortion and other political issues are irrelevant, as these views cannot affect the rulings of a true originalist. Contrast with a Kagan, Sotomayor, or Ginsburg---people who twist the meanings of text to reach their preferred conclusions and thereby fail at their jobs.

If the above is not clear to you, just answer me this: how could it be that I, waiguoren, support abortion rights but oppose Roe v. Wade? How could it be that I support the right of gay people to marry but I oppose the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges?

 

[waiguoren]

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2017/03/statement_of_abapre1.html

Statement of ABA President Linda A. Klein re: ABA’s role in screening judicial nominations

The American Bar Association has been notified that the White House does not intend to follow the long-standing practice of inviting the independent ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary to review the professional qualifications of prospective nominees to the lower federal courts on a pre-nomination basis.

President Eisenhower first invited the ABA into the process in 1953. Since then, with the exception of the George W. Bush administration, the ABA has been asked by every administration to conduct pre-nomination evaluations of the professional qualification of prospective nominees.

--------------------------------------------
Note the ABA gave its highest rating to Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

This is called progress. We don't need Big Law to vet our nominees, especially in the information age.

Less than 1/3 of the nation's lawyers have chosen to join the ABA. Do you think membership fees are the main reason?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Trump's judicial appointments are the #1 reason I am rooting for him. Over the long run, there is little that could damage us more than the appointment of large numbers of activist/expansionist judges to the federal judiciary.

Sure, you can focus on the most unqualified nominee that Trump has put forward. But why not zone in on the big boys and girls: the eight appellate judges who have actually been confirmed under Trump. Are you going to quibble with their credentials? All of them have clerked for prominent textualist judges, have graduated from top schools, and have served on courts including the federal district courts and state supreme courts.

It seems you are missing the forest for the trees here, and I suspect tribalism is to blame for it.

Well even this nominee graduated from Harvard and clerked for 2 federal judges.

It's not like he was nominated to the SC.

 

[waiguoren]

Well even this nominee graduated from Harvard and clerked for 2 federal judges.

It's not like he was nominated to the SC.

Exactly. But people in this thread with the partisan virus are going to focus on him to try to score political points.

 

[Rod1]

It could be worse it could be Hillary packing the courts with liberal judges to make law from the bench.

Weird that people keep saying this when its mostly republican appointed judges who are usually called that.

 

[Quipling]

Well even this nominee graduated from Harvard and clerked for 2 federal judges.

It's not like he was nominated to the SC.

That's a resume to start a great legal career, it's not one that justifies becoming a district court judge off the bat. I went to school and work with people who have comparable resumes. The idea that one of them is already suited for the position is laughable. Maybe with another ten years of experience.

 

[oldshadow]

Weird that people keep saying this when its mostly republican appointed judges who are usually called that.

Only if you close your eyes.

Both sides have judges that mean their way on issues before them.

Look at where and who stoped some of Trumps orders and how they were over turned. You can see this with other issues.

Which is also why people will back nd vote for someone they may not like that much. Because they know what will happen if the other side gets in.

With any luck Trump will get to appoint a lot more judges and my one more supreme court replacement.

 

[Rod1]

Only if you close your eyes.

Both sides have judges that mean their way on issues before them.

Look at where and who stoped some of Trumps orders and how they were over turned. You can see this with other issues.

Which is also why people will back nd vote for someone they may not like that much. Because they know what will happen if the other side gets in.

With any luck Trump will get to appoint a lot more judges and my one more supreme court replacement.

You mean Judge Robart who was unanimously confirmed and appointed by Bush? Who specifically do you think is an hyper-partisan judge?

EDIT

Not that i give much of a particular fuck about these kind of issues, but these dangerous games are bound to come and bite people back in the ass.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I tell you, that swamp is draining rapidly with the appointment of political toadies that are in no way qualified as the "best people".

 

[oldshadow]

You mean Judge Robart who was unanimously confirmed and appointed by Bush? Who specifically do you think is an hyper-partisan judge?

They don't have to be be hyper partisan to be partisan and effect case law.

Look at the 9th and even the 6th circuit.

Yes both side do it and now Trump gets to do it. He may appoint so more conservative ones then Bush did or not, we will see.

 

[waiguoren]

That's a resume to start a great legal career, it's not one that justifies becoming a district court judge off the bat. I went to school and work with people who have comparable resumes. The idea that one of them is already suited for the position is laughable. Maybe with another ten years of experience.

What did you think of Kagan's appointment?

 

[waiguoren]

I tell you, that swamp is draining rapidly with the appointment of political toadies that are in no way qualified as the "best people".

Are we going to pretend that most of Trump's judicial appointments haven't been stellar, or that other administrations haven't appointed people who seem underqualified?