Law The Search For The 113th Supreme Court Justice, v2: President Trump Nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch

Thread Index:




Donald J. Trump Finalizes List of Potential Supreme Court Justice Picks
September 23, 2016

NEW YORK, NY - Today Donald J. Trump released a second list of individuals he would consider as potential replacements for Justice Scalia at the United States Supreme Court. This group builds upon the highly praised list of choices he named in May 2016. These individuals were selected, first and foremost, based on constitutional principles, with input from respected conservative leaders.

Mr. Trump stated, “We have a very clear choice in this election. The freedoms we cherish and the constitutional values and principles our country was founded on are in jeopardy. The responsibility is greater than ever to protect and uphold these freedoms and I will appoint justices, who like Justice Scalia, will protect our liberty with the highest regard for the Constitution. This list is definitive and I will choose only from it in picking future Justices of the United States Supreme Court. I would like to thank the Federalist Society, The Heritage Foundation and the many other individuals who helped in composing this list of twenty-one highly respected people who are the kind of scholars that we need to preserve the very core of our country, and make it greater than ever before.”

Keith Blackwell is a justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia. He was appointed to the position in 2012. He had previously served on the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Before serving on the bench, Justice Blackwell was a Deputy Special Attorney General of the State of Georgia, an Assistant District Attorney in Cobb County, and a commercial litigator in private practice. Justice Blackwell is a graduate of the University of Georgia School of Law.

Charles Canady is a justice of the Supreme Court of Florida. He has served in that role since 2008, and he served as the court's chief justice from 2010 to 2012. Prior to his appointment, Justice Canady served as a judge of the Florida Second District Court of Appeal and as a member of the United States House of Representatives for four terms. Justice Canady is a graduate of Yale Law School.

Neil Gorsuch is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He was appointed to the position in 2006. Judge Gorsuch previously served in the Justice Department as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Judge Gorsuch was a Marshall Scholar and received his law degree from Harvard. He clerked for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy.

Mike Lee is the Junior U.S. Senator from Utah and currently serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He has previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Utah and as a Supreme Court Clerk for Justice Alito.

Edward Mansfield is a justice of the Iowa Supreme Court. He was appointed to the court in 2011 and retained by voters in 2012. Justice Mansfield previously served as a judge of the Iowa Court of Appeals. He also teaches law at Drake University as an adjunct professor. Justice Mansfield is a graduate of Yale Law School.

Federico Moreno is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States. He previously served as a state and county court judge in Florida. Judge Moreno is a graduate of the University of Miami School of Law.

Margaret A. Ryan has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces since 2006. Judge Ryan served in the Marine Corps through deployments in the Philippines and the Gulf War. She then attended Notre Dame Law School through a military scholarship and served as a JAG officer for four years. Judge Ryan clerked for Judge J. Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit and Justice Clarence Thomas.

Amul Thapar is a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, serving since his appointment in 2007, when he became the first South Asian Article III judge. He has taught law students at the University of Cincinnati and Georgetown. Judge Thapar has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C. and the Southern District of Ohio. Immediately prior to his judicial appointment, Judge Thapar was the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Judge Thapar received his law degree from the University of California, Berkeley.

Timothy Tymkovich is the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Judge Tymkovich was appointed to the bench in 2003. He previously served as Colorado Solicitor General. Judge Tymkovich is a graduate of the University of Colorado College of Law.

Robert Young is the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Michigan. He was appointed to the court in 1999, and became part of a majority of justices who embraced originalism and led what one scholar described as a "textualism revolution." Justice Young previously served as a judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals. Chief Justice Young is a graduate of Harvard Law School.


The full list of the twenty-one individuals Mr. Trump will consider is below:

1. Keith Blackwell
2. Charles Canady
3. Steven Colloton
4. Allison Eid
5. Neil Gorsuch
6. Raymond Gruender
7. Thomas Hardiman
8. Raymond Kethledge
9. Joan Larsen
10. Mike Lee
11. Thomas Lee
12. Edward Mansfield
13. Federico Moreno
14. William Pryor
15. Margaret A. Ryan
16. Amul Thapar
17. Timothy Tymkovich
18. David Stras
19. Diane Sykes
20. Don Willett
21. Robert Young

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...list-of-potential-supreme-court-justice-picks

Democrats can't do shit because they're outnumbered in the House and Senate.
 
Lindsey Graham was insane for considering allowing the Dems have a vote a few months ago.

I know he is a total cuck, but he does apparently believe that gun rights should be unrestricted. Anyone the Dems remotely consider will flick the court 5-4 in undermining gun rgihts.
 
Here's What to Know About President Trump's 3 Supreme Court Finalists
Tessa Berenson
7:04 PM Pacific​


With just one week until President Trump announces his pick for the Supreme Court, three names have emerged as the top contenders.

Neil Gorsuch, Thomas Hardiman and William Pryor are all “under very serious consideration and [in] the final throes of the process,” says a source involved in the decision.

Trump is considering this choice as he’s made many others throughout his campaign and nascent presidency: without a clear chain of command, listening to the advice of many people around him in a hub-and-spokes type organization.

“The reality is it’s a bit of a free for all, everybody has an opinion,” the source says.

As Trump nears making his pick, here’s what you need to know about each of the three leading contenders.

Neil Gorsuch

neil-gorsuch-supreme-court.jpg

Judge Neil Gorsuch, 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Overview: Gorsuch, 49, is currently a judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. He went to Columbia University and received his law degree from Harvard, also earning a Doctorate of Legal Philosophy from Oxford University. He clerked for current Justice Anthony Kennedy. Gorsuch is one of the few Ivy League-educated lawyers on Trump’s list of potential nominees, although he does fit with Trump’s preference of looking to the middle of the country for his picks. “I think that’s deliberate on [Trump’s] part,” says Boyden Gray, founding partner of Boyden Gray & Associates who worked in the Reagan and both Bush administrations. “The pattern looks pretty clear. … The Court has become sort of narrow in its background.” (Every current Supreme Court justice went to an Ivy League law school, and almost all of them served on federal appeals courts on the East or West Coast.)

Some legal scholars have said Gorsuch is the most natural replacement for late Justice Antonin Scalia, both stylistically and in his textualist interpretation of the Constitution. “The great compliment that Gorsuch’s legal writing is in a class with Scalia’s is deserved: Gorsuch’s opinions are exceptionally clear and routinely entertaining; he is an unusual pleasure to read, and it is always plain exactly what he thinks and why,” SCOTUS Blog writes.

Key Cases: Gorsuch has been known in recent years to uphold religious liberty in legal battles with the Obamacare. In both Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius and Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, Gorsuch sided with the claimants seeking religious exemptions for paying for contraception as required under the Affordable Care Act. In Hobby Lobby, Gorsuch wrote that the government should not force people with “sincerely held religious beliefs” into “conduct their religion teaches them to be gravely wrong.” His positions in both of these cases were largely upheld when they reached the Supreme Court.

Confirmation history: Congressional Democrats have indicated that any of Trump's nominees is in for a brutal fight, but putting up a fuss with Gorsuch may be harder. Gorsuch was easily confirmed by a voice vote in 2006 when President George W. Bush nominated him for the 10th Circuit.


Thomas Hardiman
thomas-hardiman-supreme-court.jpg

Judge Thomas Hardiman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Overview: Hardiman, 51, sits on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Pittsburgh. He went to the University of Notre Dame and received his law degree from Georgetown University. He was the first member of his family to attend college and drove a taxicab to help pay his way through law school. He worked in private practice in D.C. and then Pittsburgh until he took the bench in 2003. Potentially working in his favor, Hardiman also has a connection to the new Trump administration: the president’s sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, sits on the same circuit court as he does. Politico reports that she is advocating for Hardiman behind the scenes.

Key Cases:Hardiman is known for protecting gun rights and taking an originalist approach to Second Amendment cases. In Drake v. Filko, which challenged a New Jersey law saying someone seeking a permit must show a “justifiable need” for a gun, Hardiman dissented against the ruling for the state. “Those who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment were undoubtedly aware that the right they were establishing carried a risk of misuse, and States have considerable latitude to regulate the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk,” Hardiman wrote in his dissent. “But States may not seek to reduce the danger by curtailing the right itself.” Much of his dissent was based on the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which is a landmark case on gun rights and arguably Justice Scalia’s most famous majority opinion. Hardiman has also often sided with the state in death penalty cases, and he has never written in an abortion case.

Confirmation history: Like Gorsuch, Hardiman was appointed by Bush and easily confirmed. He was confirmed to the Third Circuit in 2006 by a unanimous vote.


William Pryor
william-pryor-supreme-court.jpg

Judge William Pryor, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Overview: Pryor, 54, serves on the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, Georgia. He went to Northeast Louisiana University for college and received his law degree from Tulane University. He became attorney general of Alabama in 1997, where he was best known for removing the state’s chief justice when he refused to follow a federal court order to remove a statue of the Ten Commandments from the state Supreme Court. Pryor is one of just two judges that Donald Trump mentioned by name during his campaign. “We could have … a Bill Pryor, we have some fantastic people,” Trump said at a debate in February 2016 just after Justice Scalia’s death.

Key Cases: Pryor has a long history of decisions in criminal and capital cases. SCOTUS Blog reports that Pryor has written 28 reported decisions on death penalty cases, and all were decided in favor of the state. Pryor usually sides with the state in both criminal and capital cases, but in at least five of the death penalty cases, he voted in favor of the defendant. On immigration, he’s voted multiple times for immigrants seeking asylum for fear of religious persecution, and he’s voted both for and against immigrants seeking asylum for fear of persecution based on sexual orientation. In Glenn v. Brumby, he joined the majority opinion that Georgia administrators violated the equal protection clause when they fired an employee for being transgender.

Confirmation prospects: If Pryor’s confirmation history is any clue, he could have the bitterest confirmation fight of anyone on Trump’s list. In 2003, Senate Democrats stalled Pryor’s nomination to the 11th Circuit over two particularly controversial incidents. While serving as Alabama’s attorney general, Pryor wrote a brief defending Texas’s anti-sodomy law that was struck down in the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas. And he called Roe v. Wade the “worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.” (Bush later appointed Pryor during a congressional recess in 2004, and the Senate confirmed him 53-45.)

Sources say Pryor’s stock is fading somewhat in White House discussions, partly over concerns of a repeat of 2003. “There may be a little more angst about Pryor’s being a more outspoken controversial prospective nominee,” says a conservative legal leader.


http://time.com/4650544/supreme-court-nominees-donald-trump/
 
not going to pretend i know a whole lot about those guys, i just hope trump gets as close to scalia as possible
 
If supreme court ever has to handle a case that is related to Trump, has the Trump appointed Judge have to disqualify himself?
 
President Trump to announce Supreme Court pick on Tuesday
Richard Wolf and David Jackson , USA TODAY
Jan. 30, 2017


WASHINGTON — Setting up a high-stakes legal and political battle, President Trump said Monday he will announce his Supreme Court choice in a prime-time address Tuesday night, two days earlier than initially scheduled.

Trump did not disclose the identity of his nominee, but told reporters that his pick is "unbelievably highly respected" and people will be "very impressed" by the selection.

Trump's nominee will likely face intense opposition from Democrats in the Senate, where Republicans who hold a slim, 52-seat majority blocked former president Barack Obama's choice of federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland last year.

Trump made his scheduling announcement as he and aides continue to defend a new travel ban from seven Muslim countries, the subject of protests, lawsuits, and calls even by some Republican lawmakers to change the policy. The president had said last week he would name his Supreme Court nominee on Thursday.

In replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the new president is selecting from a list of 21 people, nearly all of them federal or state judges, put together months ago by conservative interest groups. By last week, three favorites had emerged: federal appeals court judges Neil Gorsuch of Colorado, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania and the original favorite, William Pryor of Alabama.

Democrats, led by Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, have vowed revenge for what many consider a stolen Supreme Court seat. Unless Trump can win over eight of them, Republicans will have to change the Senate's rules, eliminating the 60-vote threshold needed to bring the nomination to the floor. Trump endorsed such a move last week.

The goal for Trump, his aides and those groups has been to find someone in their 40s or early 50s with solidly conservative credentials who can serve on the Supreme Court for a quarter century or more. That makes the selection — and the Senate confirmation process — of more far-reaching importance than any of Trump's nominees for his Cabinet or foreign postings.

636210470872244072-AP-Supreme-Court.jpg

Trump also had said he wanted a judge in the Scalia mold — one who follows the Constitution as written by the nation's founders and federal laws as written by Congress, without imposing personal ideological or policy preferences.

While he can expect little cooperation from Democrats, Trump reached out to both sides last week, meeting with Senate leaders as well as the chairman and top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will conduct background checks and public hearings, most likely in March.

The White House is hoping to have the seat filled in time for the court's April sitting, the last of the 2016 term, when several controversial cases could be considered involving such issues as religious liberty and transgender rights.

Some Democrats fear Trump wants to pack the high court with conservatives willing to roll back precedents on issues such as abortion, civil rights, environmental protection and government regulations.

Scalia's death last Feb. 13 and President Obama's effort to replace him with a moderate-to-liberal judge made the Supreme Court a prominent issue in the presidential election between Trump and Hillary Clinton. Conservatives — who risked losing control of the court for the first time in nearly 50 years — felt more strongly: Polls showed that among the one in five voters who said the court was their prime motivator, Trump was preferred by 57%.

Replacing Scalia will not shift the court ideologically from where it was a year ago, but it will put conservatives one seat short of a commanding majority. With the seat filled, the longest-serving justice, Anthony Kennedy, once again will be the man in the middle — siding with conservatives in most cases but occasionally with liberals on issues such as abortion, affirmative action and gay rights.

But Democrats understand demographics. Kennedy, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988, is 80 years old and considering retirement. President Bill Clinton's two justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, are 83 and 78, respectively.

One or more retirements would give Trump an opportunity to shift the court to the right, possibly for generations to come. Such shifts happen rarely, as when the moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was replaced by the more conservative Samuel Alito in 2006, or when Justice Thurgood Marshall was replaced by Clarence Thomas a quarter century ago.

"The Supreme Court is what it's all about," Trump said in October's last presidential debate. He vowed to name justices who "will not do damage to the Second Amendment" and allow decisions on abortion rights "to go back to the states."

Scalia's replacement won't change the direction of the court initially. While it will remain in conservative hands — emboldening Chief Justice John Roberts and leaving Kennedy as the ultimate decider — the addition of a ninth justice will not cause a sudden move to strike down Supreme Court precedents such as those preserving abortion rights and the use of racial preferences. On campaign finance rules, gun rights and religious liberty, the court already leans to the right.

What could change in the short term is the court's occasional willingness to step into disputes conservatives feel are better left to the states. That could spell doom for some of Obama's forays into areas such as health care, immigration and environmental protection.

From the initial menu of 21 potential nominees — all judges except for Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah — Trump whittled his list down to three in recent days:

Neil Gorsuch, Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. At 49 the youngest of the group, Gorsuch is the most natural replacement among them for Scalia. He is a strict adherent of originalism, Scalia's belief that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the intent of the Founders. He also has much of Scalia's flair as a writer.

Gorsuch has the type of academic credentials common to high court justices: Columbia, Harvard Law, even Oxford. He clerked for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy, then practiced law in Washington and did a stint at the Justice Department.

Thomas Hardiman, Pennsylvania, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. A dark horse among the finalists, Hardiman, 51, isn’t unfamiliar to Trump. He sits on the same U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit as the president’s sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, who recommended him.

Hardiman’s career as a judge is marked by law and order. He has maintained a solidly conservative record on issues involving guns, searches, police officers and prison guards — more so than Scalia, who often sided with criminal defendants against overzealous prosecutors. In that sense, Hardiman is much like Justice Samuel Alito, who came from the same appeals court.

William Pryor, Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. He’s been the conservatives’ justice-in-waiting for years, and at 54, the former Alabama attorney general comes straight out of central casting. Likely in his corner: U.S. attorney general-designate Jeff Sessions, who preceded Pryor as Alabama’s top law enforcement official.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-democrats-nomination-confirmation/97097870/
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the whole migrant deal was just smoke to draw away from his pick in the news.
 
Here's What to Know About President Trump's 3 Supreme Court Finalists
Tessa Berenson
7:04 PM Pacific​


With just one week until President Trump announces his pick for the Supreme Court, three names have emerged as the top contenders.

Neil Gorsuch, Thomas Hardiman and William Pryor are all “under very serious consideration and [in] the final throes of the process,” says a source involved in the decision.

Trump is considering this choice as he’s made many others throughout his campaign and nascent presidency: without a clear chain of command, listening to the advice of many people around him in a hub-and-spokes type organization.

“The reality is it’s a bit of a free for all, everybody has an opinion,” the source says.

As Trump nears making his pick, here’s what you need to know about each of the three leading contenders.

Neil Gorsuch

neil-gorsuch-supreme-court.jpg

Judge Neil Gorsuch, 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Overview: Gorsuch, 49, is currently a judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. He went to Columbia University and received his law degree from Harvard, also earning a Doctorate of Legal Philosophy from Oxford University. He clerked for current Justice Anthony Kennedy. Gorsuch is one of the few Ivy League-educated lawyers on Trump’s list of potential nominees, although he does fit with Trump’s preference of looking to the middle of the country for his picks. “I think that’s deliberate on [Trump’s] part,” says Boyden Gray, founding partner of Boyden Gray & Associates who worked in the Reagan and both Bush administrations. “The pattern looks pretty clear. … The Court has become sort of narrow in its background.” (Every current Supreme Court justice went to an Ivy League law school, and almost all of them served on federal appeals courts on the East or West Coast.)

Some legal scholars have said Gorsuch is the most natural replacement for late Justice Antonin Scalia, both stylistically and in his textualist interpretation of the Constitution. “The great compliment that Gorsuch’s legal writing is in a class with Scalia’s is deserved: Gorsuch’s opinions are exceptionally clear and routinely entertaining; he is an unusual pleasure to read, and it is always plain exactly what he thinks and why,” SCOTUS Blog writes.

Key Cases: Gorsuch has been known in recent years to uphold religious liberty in legal battles with the Obamacare. In both Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius and Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, Gorsuch sided with the claimants seeking religious exemptions for paying for contraception as required under the Affordable Care Act. In Hobby Lobby, Gorsuch wrote that the government should not force people with “sincerely held religious beliefs” into “conduct their religion teaches them to be gravely wrong.” His positions in both of these cases were largely upheld when they reached the Supreme Court.

Confirmation history: Congressional Democrats have indicated that any of Trump's nominees is in for a brutal fight, but putting up a fuss with Gorsuch may be harder. Gorsuch was easily confirmed by a voice vote in 2006 when President George W. Bush nominated him for the 10th Circuit.


Thomas Hardiman
thomas-hardiman-supreme-court.jpg

Judge Thomas Hardiman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Overview: Hardiman, 51, sits on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Pittsburgh. He went to the University of Notre Dame and received his law degree from Georgetown University. He was the first member of his family to attend college and drove a taxicab to help pay his way through law school. He worked in private practice in D.C. and then Pittsburgh until he took the bench in 2003. Potentially working in his favor, Hardiman also has a connection to the new Trump administration: the president’s sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, sits on the same circuit court as he does. Politico reports that she is advocating for Hardiman behind the scenes.

Key Cases:Hardiman is known for protecting gun rights and taking an originalist approach to Second Amendment cases. In Drake v. Filko, which challenged a New Jersey law saying someone seeking a permit must show a “justifiable need” for a gun, Hardiman dissented against the ruling for the state. “Those who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment were undoubtedly aware that the right they were establishing carried a risk of misuse, and States have considerable latitude to regulate the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk,” Hardiman wrote in his dissent. “But States may not seek to reduce the danger by curtailing the right itself.” Much of his dissent was based on the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which is a landmark case on gun rights and arguably Justice Scalia’s most famous majority opinion. Hardiman has also often sided with the state in death penalty cases, and he has never written in an abortion case.

Confirmation history: Like Gorsuch, Hardiman was appointed by Bush and easily confirmed. He was confirmed to the Third Circuit in 2006 by a unanimous vote.


William Pryor
william-pryor-supreme-court.jpg

Judge William Pryor, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Overview: Pryor, 54, serves on the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, Georgia. He went to Northeast Louisiana University for college and received his law degree from Tulane University. He became attorney general of Alabama in 1997, where he was best known for removing the state’s chief justice when he refused to follow a federal court order to remove a statue of the Ten Commandments from the state Supreme Court. Pryor is one of just two judges that Donald Trump mentioned by name during his campaign. “We could have … a Bill Pryor, we have some fantastic people,” Trump said at a debate in February 2016 just after Justice Scalia’s death.

Key Cases: Pryor has a long history of decisions in criminal and capital cases. SCOTUS Blog reports that Pryor has written 28 reported decisions on death penalty cases, and all were decided in favor of the state. Pryor usually sides with the state in both criminal and capital cases, but in at least five of the death penalty cases, he voted in favor of the defendant. On immigration, he’s voted multiple times for immigrants seeking asylum for fear of religious persecution, and he’s voted both for and against immigrants seeking asylum for fear of persecution based on sexual orientation. In Glenn v. Brumby, he joined the majority opinion that Georgia administrators violated the equal protection clause when they fired an employee for being transgender.

Confirmation prospects: If Pryor’s confirmation history is any clue, he could have the bitterest confirmation fight of anyone on Trump’s list. In 2003, Senate Democrats stalled Pryor’s nomination to the 11th Circuit over two particularly controversial incidents. While serving as Alabama’s attorney general, Pryor wrote a brief defending Texas’s anti-sodomy law that was struck down in the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas. And he called Roe v. Wade the “worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.” (Bush later appointed Pryor during a congressional recess in 2004, and the Senate confirmed him 53-45.)

Sources say Pryor’s stock is fading somewhat in White House discussions, partly over concerns of a repeat of 2003. “There may be a little more angst about Pryor’s being a more outspoken controversial prospective nominee,” says a conservative legal leader.


http://time.com/4650544/supreme-court-nominees-donald-trump/

@ncordless @panamaican @Zankou

Thoughts on these guys?
 
I'm holding out a sliver of hope that he'll nominate Vince McMahon.
 
The current thread title is legit retarded.

I mean, it reflects really poorly on you guys.

The announcement will be made live? As in not in the past or in the future? Jesus Christ. Is it being televised live? Is that what you mean?
 
Please let it be Hardiman. I think he could get through confirmation with ease, and is much more middle of the road than Gorsuch or Pryor.

Gorsuch and Pryor would be much tougher, and might require a nuclear option to get through confirmation.

Based on the blurbs I prefer this guy just for his 2nd Amendment stance. If he's not a religious nutter then fuckin' great!
 
Please let it be Hardiman. I think he could get through confirmation with ease, and is much more middle of the road than Gorsuch or Pryor.

Gorsuch and Pryor would be much tougher, and might require a nuclear option to get through confirmation.

Who knows, we might be treated to a filibuster performance that rivals Ted Cruz's world-famous "Green Eggs and Ham" :cool:
 
One of my Senators, Merkley, already promised to filibuster.

Senate Dems will filibuster President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, no matter who it is
By Burgess Everett
01/30/17

90

“This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat,” Sen. Jeff Merkley said in an interview.
Senate Democrats are going to try to bring down President Donald Trump's Supreme Court pick no matter who the president chooses to fill the current vacancy.

With Trump prepared to announce his nominee on Tuesday evening, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in an interview on Monday morning that he will filibuster any pick that is not Merrick Garland and that the vast majority of his caucus will oppose Trump’s nomination. That means Trump's nominee will need 60 votes to be confirmed by the Senate.

“This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat,” Merkley said in an interview. “We will use every lever in our power to stop this.”

It’s a move that will prompt a massive partisan battle over Trump’s nominee and could lead to an unraveling of the Senate rules if Merkley is able to get 41 Democrats to join him in a filibuster. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) also reminded her Twitter followers on Sunday night that Supreme Court nominees can still be blocked by the Senate minority, unlike all other executive and judicial nominees.

Any senator can object to swift approval of a nominee and require a supermajority. Asked directly whether he would do that, Merkley replied: “I will definitely object to a simple majority” vote.

Merkley's party leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, has said he will fight "tooth and nail" any nominee who isn't "mainstream."

White House press secretary Sean Spicer responded to Democrats' plans by blaming them for playing "political games" and sending a "sad message" about how they will treat Trump's nominees — though he did not address the GOP's treatment of Garland, which is viewed by Democrats as a precedent-changing political tactic.

"Before they've even heard who this individual is, you've got some of them saying, absolutely no," Spicer said. "The default used to be, unless qualified, confirmed. And it is now going to, always no. And I think that's a pretty sad message."

It would be only the second time in modern history that the Senate has mounted a filibuster against a nominee. Democrats, including then-Sen. Barack Obama, tried to block the confirmation of Samuel Alito in 2006 but failed. Obama’s Supreme Court nominees each received more than 60 votes, but Republicans did not require a supermajority or the procedural vote that Merkley will demand.

Republicans immediately dinged Merkley as a hypocrite for being a leading advocate of changing the Senate rules four years ago.

"When Democrats were in the majority, Sen. Merkley wanted to end filibusters. But I guess he only meant when Democrats are in the majority and in control of the White House," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The Democratic stance dashes McConnell's hopes to return to the tradition of not filibustering Supreme Court nominees. In an interview with POLITICO on Friday, McConnell said the “practice was that you didn’t do it even though the tool is in the toolbox.”

“There are a lot of tools in there. Until Bush 43, the filibuster tool was always there. But it wasn’t done,” McConnell said. “Two good examples: There was no filibuster against [Robert] Bork and, of course, the most controversial Supreme Court nomination ever was Clarence Thomas. Democrats were in the majority; he was approved 52-48.”

But McConnell blocked Garland from even having a hearing for nearly a year during the end of Obama’s presidency, and Democrats have not forgotten his unprecedented blockade. They’ve been lining up party-line votes against some of Trump’s Cabinet nominees — and now, Democrats like Merkley are laying the groundwork to halt the only nominee that they have ultimate leverage over.

“A very large number of my colleagues will be opposed,” Merkley said.

POLITICO has reported the leading contenders for the nomination are Judge Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Neil Gorsuch of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They were confirmed to appeals courts without a dissenting vote, though Democrats are sure to treat them more harshly after Garland's nomination stalled for months.

McConnell is loath to change the rules of the Senate to allow confirmation of Supreme Court nominees by a simple majority but has not said explicitly what he would do if Democrats block Trump’s nominee. The Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority using the so-called "nuclear option" — last invoked by former Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to ease the confirmation of Obama's judicial and executive nominees.

The Kentucky Republican told POLITICO that it’s up to Democrats where the Senate rules go — but also guaranteed Trump’s nominee will be confirmed, an implicit threat that if at least eight Democrats don’t get on board, there could be a unilateral rules change.

“We’re going to get this nominee confirmed. I hope he or she will be confirmed based upon the completely outstanding credentials that we’re going to see,” McConnell said. The nominee "hopefully will be treated the way such a nominee would have been treated as recently as Bush 43.”

Trump has made clear he wants McConnell to go nuclear if Merkley and other liberal Democrats are successful in blocking his high court pick's nomination.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368
 
Last edited:
There's the Merkster.

Let's see how many Democrats in the Senate will follow Merkley's call to filibuster anyone that Trump nominates.

Up til now, Trump has proven that he isn't actually on any political party's side, and being some one who isn't a Senator with political baggage, it looks like he want to separate his duties from the perpetual partisan bickering in Congress. If the Democrats intentionally pushes him over to the GOP, they might live to regret that decision for the next 4 years.
 
Back
Top