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

oldshadow said:
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.
Click to expand...

You claimed that Trump appointing underqualified individuals was good because Clinton would had done worse.

But Clinton would still need to go through a republican senate and would still need to get ABA approval, like Bush, Obama, Clinton, Reagan etc etc.

If anyone is breaking the "checks and balances" is Trump and McConnell who are breaking all these protections in place for people to start appointing hyper-partisan hacks.

Which i guess is a good thing if all you care is about your side winning, but i mean the pendulum swings both ways and im sure you guys wil get angry when the left becomes majority.
 
waiguoren said:
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?
Click to expand...
Are we pretending the swamp is being drained by the same old, same old he promised wouldn't happen, just like every other lying politician?

... yes, 2020 here we come?
 
waiguoren said:
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?
Click to expand...

Name an underqualified judge appointed by Obama, Clinton or Bush Jr.
 
Rod1 said:
You claimed that Trump appointing underqualified individuals was good because Clinton would had done worse.

But Clinton would still need to go through a republican senate and would still need to get ABA approval, like Bush, Obama, Clinton, Reagan etc etc.

If anyone is breaking the "checks and balances" is Trump and McConnell who are breaking all these protections in place for people to start appointing hyper-partisan hacks.

Which i guess is a good thing if all you care is about your side winning, but i mean the pendulum swings both ways and im sure you guys wil get angry when the left becomes majority.
Click to expand...

She would have appointed the most liberal she could. If the democrats controlled Congress (which was the goal) then they would have gone through. She would have done whatever needed to get what she wanted, she has a record of doing just that.

You don't need ABA approval to appoint a judge and it leans slightly left. It tends to rate more conservative judges lower.

The chechs and balance is there but it leans one at or the other depending on how the people vote.
 
Overpressure said:
Are we pretending the swamp is being drained by the same old, same old he promised wouldn't happen, just like every other lying politician?
Click to expand...
....no? When did I write that? I just made a thread about how Trump fucked up and let (probable) swamp creature Michael Flynn into his cabinet for a brief while.


Overpressure said:
... yes, 2020 here we come?
Click to expand...

What does this mean? I do think Trump will win in 2020, if that's what you're talking about.
 
Rod1 said:
Name an underqualified judge appointed by Obama, Clinton or Bush Jr.
Click to expand...
I wasn't referring only to judicial appointments; I was responding to someone who was calling Trump out for appointing unqualified people in general.

But sure:

Obama appointed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Kagan had never served as a judge before.
 
oldshadow said:
She would have appointed the most liberal she could. If the democrats controlled Congress (which was the goal) then they would have gone through. She would have done whatever needed to get what she wanted, she has a record of doing just that.

You don't need ABA approval to appoint a judge and it leans slightly left. It tends to rate more conservative judges lower.

The chechs and balance is there but it leans one at or the other depending on how the people vote.
Click to expand...

No, they wouldnt, even when Obama and Bill had a democrat congress, they still sought republican approval for their judges.

Also ABA gave Gorsuch the highest rating when it came to the SCOTUS, but i guess anyone who doesnt aligns with the hyperpartisans like McConnell is a secret liberal. You guys are starting to sound like Stalinists.

Checks and balances are gone, the nuclear option was used and ABA has been told to go the fuck away, the next Democrat president (which with Hillary's failure will most likely be far-left) with a Democrat congress will appoint whoever they want.
 
waiguoren said:
What did you think of Kagan's appointment?
Click to expand...
She had twenty years of experience in litigation and academia by the time she was appointed to SCOTUS to develop her legal analysis and knowledge, and was familiar with a broad cross-section of legal issues. Her actual in-court experience was very limited, but the further removed from the trial level, the less that matters. I agree with Scalia that prior experience as a judge isn't vital for Scotus nominees, especially where a majority of the court already have that experience. I wish she had more direct experience with criminal law, though her (brief) stint in the doj helped cure that.

This is mostly hindsight. I don't remember my thoughts when she was first nominated.

Currently, I like her more than most other justices currently on the court. But her opinions have not been very relevant to my professional life.
 
Last edited:
Rod1 said:
No, they wouldnt, even when Obama and Bill had a democrat congress, they still sought republican approval for their judges.

Also ABA gave Gorsuch the highest rating when it came to the SCOTUS, but i guess anyone who doesnt aligns with the hyperpartisans like McConnell is a secret liberal. You guys are starting to sound like Stalinists.

Checks and balances are gone, the nuclear option was used and ABA has been told to go the fuck away, the next Democrat president (which with Hillary's failure will most likely be far-left) with a Democrat congress will appoint whoever they want.
Click to expand...

I fully expect the democrats to go far left and if the can get in to try and take the country that way. Hillary was that way on many issues and so was Obama so I expect no move to the center and in fact more left.

So we will fight it out again.
 
waiguoren said:
Yes, the ABA found her qualified. Why do you take that to be the relevant standard here?
Click to expand...

"Well qualified" the highest standard.

Whether you think the standard is gold or not, you simply cant call Kagan to be unqualified.

At least not when compared to a guy with only 3 years of experience in law and who has never tried a single case and whose only merits are that he is hyperpartisan and that he is young.
 
oldshadow said:
I fully expect the democrats to go far left and if the can get in to try and take the country that way. Hillary was that way on many issues and so was Obama so I expect no move to the center and in fact more left.

So we will fight it out again.
Click to expand...

Democrats have always tried to work with Republicans, it was Republicans who have outright refused to work with Democrats.

Now they are trying to pack the courts with people whose only qualifications are loyalty and age.

Which is ok i guess, the vast majority of Americans would be happier under a strong partisan government than a democracy with all its ups and downs.
 
Rod1 said:
Democrats have always tried to work with Republicans, it was Republicans who have outright refused to work with Democrats.

Now they are trying to pack the courts with people whose only qualifications are loyalty and age.

Which is ok i guess, the vast majority of Americans would be happier under a strong partisan government than a democracy with all its ups and downs.
Click to expand...

The democrats only worked with the republicans if they could get their way.

The majority would like to see things center right and even a little left on some issues.
 
Rod1 said:
Whether you think the standard is gold or not, you simply cant call Kagan to be unqualified.

At least not when compared to a guy with only 3 years of experience in law and who has never tried a single case and whose only merits are that he is hyperpartisan and that he is young.
Click to expand...
You're comparing a SCOTUS nominee to a district court nominee?

Many experts believe SCOTUS justices should have served as judges in order to qualify. By that standard, Obama appointed an unqualified person to SCOTUS.
 
oldshadow said:
The democrats only worked with the republicans if they could get their way.

The majority would like to see things center right and even a little left on some issues.
Click to expand...

57a.jpg


You cant possibly be serious about it.
 
waiguoren said:
You're comparing a SCOTUS nominee to a district court nominee?
Click to expand...

Are you comparing Kagan to this guy?

waiguoren said:
Many experts believe SCOTUS justices should have served as judges in order to qualify. By that standard, Obama appointed an unqualified person to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Some experts do, but clearly the majority dont.

Kagan had a long career in law before being nominated and confirmed by over 60 votes.

This individual hasnt been on a freaking trial at all.
 
This guy!! -

WASHINGTON — One of President Trump’s most controversial judicial nominees did not disclose on publicly available congressional documents that he is married to a senior lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office.

The nominee, Brett J. Talley, is awaiting a Senate confirmation vote that could come as early as Monday to become a federal district judge in Alabama. He is married to Ann Donaldson, the chief of staff to the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.

Mr. Talley was asked on his publicly released Senate questionnaire to identify family members and others who are “likely to present potential conflicts of interest.” He did not mention his wife.

District judges often provide the first ruling when laws are called into question, decisions that can put them at odds with the White House and its lawyers. Last month, for example, judges in Hawaii and Maryland temporarily blocked Mr. Trump’s travel ban.

Mr. Talley also did not mention his wife when he described his frequent contact with White House lawyers during the nomination process.
​
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/...nomination.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur
 
Quipling said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd agree, but like I said he's not going to the SC. I doubt he's the first with such little experience given a seat considering how many SC judges had never been judges
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,658
Messages
55,432,496
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top