World Trump’s shortlist of potential Supreme Court nominees, explained

05:36  19 september  2020
05:36  19 september  2020 Source:   vox.com

Trump loves sanctioning foreign countries — but he’s terrible at it

  Trump loves sanctioning foreign countries — but he’s terrible at it How the president’s failures sanctioning Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela can inform future presidents, or even Trump during a second term.Change the Iranian regime’s behavior? Sanctions. Dismantle North Korea’s nuclear arsenal? Sanctions. Depose Venezuela’s dictator? You guessed it: Sanctions.

President Donald Trump has vowed to appoint a woman to replace late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg after circulating a roster of more than 20 potential nominees in recent weeks that includes prominent and lesser-known conservatives who would undoubtedly tilt the court further

Trump has released a public list of his potential Supreme Court nominees , the most recent version of which came out in November 2017. All seven candidates are drawn from that list . The four candidates under most serious consideration are all appeals- courts judges who were placed on the

Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump are posing for a picture: President Donald Trump puts his hand on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s shoulder during Kavanaugh’s ceremonial swearing in at the White House on October 8, 2018. © Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images President Donald Trump puts his hand on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s shoulder during Kavanaugh’s ceremonial swearing in at the White House on October 8, 2018.

On Sept. 9 — just last week — President Trump unveiled his shortlist of candidates to tap for the Supreme Court should a vacancy open up under his presidency.

With Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing Friday night, he now has that opportunity.

The next Trump Supreme Court pick may well come from a list of 20 names he revealed last week plus a longer list he had already released.

Justice Ginsburg died believing that Trump is an “aberration.” Her death ensures that he won’t be.

  Justice Ginsburg died believing that Trump is an “aberration.” Her death ensures that he won’t be. Ginsburg’s death places her entire legacy in dangerAnd yet her death means that the age of Trump will almost certainly be our new normal. With Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, the power to shape our Constitution was split between four liberals, four archconservatives, and Chief Justice John Roberts — a conservative whose respect for institutions and for procedural regularity sometimes tempered his fellow conservatives’ tendencies.

WASHINGTON—President Trump released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees that he said he would choose from in a second term if a vacancy The list includes 20 names that weren’t on Mr. Trump ’ s previous shortlists , including several of his own appointees to the appellate courts who

Absent from the list : Trump ' s sister Maryanne Trump Barry, a senior circuit judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump had suggested in February that "The following list of potential Supreme Court justices is representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value and, as President, I plan

The Trump White House and his allies in the Senate have spent years preparing for the next Supreme Court vacancy.

Indeed, the judicial selection process may be the one professional and highly competent operation in this administration. Trump has filled the bench with fairly young, impressively credentialed ideologues who will reliably cast very conservative votes if appointed to the Supreme Court, and his Supreme Court shortlist reflects that work. Half of the names that Trump just announced are people he previously appointed to a lower court, and several more are individuals he’s appointed to non-judicial roles.

And it doesn’t actually matter all that much which specific name Trump chooses from his list — or whether he ultimately decides to go off-list. Though Trump has kept his promise to only name Supreme Court justices from a pre-released list, he frequently adds new names to it. Neither of Trump’s Supreme Court appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, was on the original list Trump first released in 2016, but were added in subsequent iterations.

BREAKING NEWS: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg DEAD

  BREAKING NEWS: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg DEAD Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died after a battle with metastatic pancreas cancer, the Supreme Court has announced. The judge, only the second woman to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, passed away Friday evening surrounded by her family at her home in Washington D.C. following complications with her illness. Ginsburg, who served for 27 years on the highest court of the land, had battled several bouts of cancer after first being diagnosed in 2009.She announced in July she was undergoing chemotherapy treatment for lesions on her liver.

Reports say arch-conservatives Neil Gorsuch, Thomas Hardiman and Bill Pryor are at the top of the list to fill the vacant seat.

Trump falsely claims Ginsburg's final wish is a hoax. CNN reporter: I have never seen anything like this. Ellen DeGeneres starts 18th season with an apology. These are 2 of Trump ' s potential SCOTUS nominees . Schools try 'MacGyver' tactics to get students online. Tropical Storm Beta nearing Texas

What all the names on the list have in common — both old and new — is that they were vetted by Trump’s team (and often by the conservative Federalist Society) to ensure that they are reliable conservatives.

That said, there is one important divide among the names on Trump’s list.

Some, such as former Solicitor General Paul Clement or Fourth Circuit Judge Allison Jones Rushing, are solid conservatives who aren’t known for over-the-top, Trumpy rhetoric. Others, such as Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Tom Cotton (R-AR) are politicians who spent their time in Congress flaunting their conservative bona fides and enraging Democrats. Still others, such as Fifth Circuit Judges James Ho and Kyle Duncan, are sitting judges who take the same trolly approach as Cruz, Hawley, and Cotton, but do so from the bench.

The biggest mystery, in other words, is not what the next potential Trump nominee to the Supreme Court might believe, it’s whether Trump would pick someone with a professional demeanor — or choose a professional troll.

Voters Split Almost 50/50 on Trump Appointing Supreme Court Justice Before Inauguration Day: Poll

  Voters Split Almost 50/50 on Trump Appointing Supreme Court Justice Before Inauguration Day: Poll Slightly more than half of voters (51 percent) said they do not believe Trump should appoint a new Supreme Court justice before the presidential inauguration in January 2021.Ginsburg died Friday from pancreatic cancer. She was 87.

President Donald Trump released a new list of potential Supreme Court justices on Friday, adding five new judges to his previous compilation of 20 jurists. In the September announcement, the campaign said Trump had committed to picking any nominees for future vacancies from that final list .

President Donald Trump said on Monday he would unveil his selection to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by the end of the week after spending the weekend fielding advice and floating potential nominees to a wide orbit of advisers.

Who is on Trump’s list?

The 20-name list Trump released last week augments an existing list of 25 names that he has released gradually.

Most of the names on both lists possess many of the elite credentials one would expect to find in a Supreme Court nominee. Close to half of the individuals on the new list clerked on the Supreme Court shortly after graduating from law school. And, though the lists include a few politicians like the three senators mentioned above and Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, both lists are dominated by sitting judges — including many Trump appointees.

Because so many Trump appointees make the list, many of these judges have not served long enough to develop substantial records on the bench. But several of the names on Trump’s new list will raise deep concerns among Democrats.

Judge James Ho, for example, has spent his not even three years on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit writing opinions that read like something published by Breitbart. His very first judicial opinion was a sweeping attack on campaign finance laws — and it included an entirely gratuitous swipe at the Affordable Care Act. Ho argued that “if you don’t like big money in politics, then you should oppose big government in our lives,” and he cited the Supreme Court’s decision largely upholding Obamacare to drive home his point.

What Trump Should Look for in a Supreme Court Nominee | Opinion

  What Trump Should Look for in a Supreme Court Nominee | Opinion Democrats have guaranteed that politics will dominate the Ginsburg seat, but there is no constitutional reason for the politicization otherwise. The Constitution allows Trump to nominate someone for a vacancy right up until his term expires. It authorizes the Senate to provide or withhold its consent, which can take the form of voting down a nominee, or not voting at all. President Obama exercised his constitutional right and nominated someone in a presidential election year. But the Senate, controlled by the opposing party, constitutionally refused to provide its consent.

Trump released two lists of potential Supreme Court nominees during his previous presidential campaign, one with 11 names in May 2016 and another with 10 names that September. Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump ' s first nominee to the court , was on the second list .

Sykes, whom Trump had previously mentioned as a potential supreme court pick, ruled in favor of the state’s voter ID law and backed federal funding for anti-gay groups that engage in discrimination. Her campaign chairman, John Podesta, criticized Trump ’ s shortlist of nominees for its lack of diversity

Ho has also railed against the “moral tragedy of abortion” in an opinion where he accused a fellow federal judge of retaliating “against people of faith for not only believing in the sanctity of life—but also for wanting to do something about it.”

Ho’s Fifth Circuit colleague Kyle Duncan, meanwhile, spent much of his pre-judicial career litigating against LGBTQ rights and the right to vote. As a judge, he’s best known for an opinion where he spent more than 10 pages explaining why he insists on referring to a transgender woman using masculine pronouns.

Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke is a particularly surprising addition to Trump’s list because VanDyke’s nomination to the federal bench was panned by the American Bar Association due to concerns that VanDyke is too lazy to do the job.

“Mr. VanDyke’s accomplishments are offset by the assessments of interviewees that Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules,” the ABA explained in a scathing letter deeming him unqualified for the federal bench. The ABA’s investigation found that VanDyke “lacks humility, has an ‘entitlement’ temperament, does not have an open mind, and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful.”

Elizabeth Warren Says Republicans Have 'Tilted' the U.S. Supreme Court

  Elizabeth Warren Says Republicans Have 'Tilted' the U.S. Supreme Court Senator Elizabeth Warren said Republicans want to "tilt" the U.S. Supreme Court "so that it doesn't reflect the values of the majority of Americans."Many Republicans want the Trump administration to quickly fill the vacant Supreme Court seat left by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death. Meanwhile, some Democrats want to wait until after the November election to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice. President Trump said he would nominate a woman to fill Ginsburg's seat and would "probably" announce the nominee's name on Saturday.

It’s unclear why Trump loyalists would want to see someone appointed to the Supreme Court who may lack the temperament and the work ethic to do the job well.

That said, VanDyke is an outlier on Trump’s list. For the most part, the nearly four dozen names Trump has suggested as possible Supreme Court nominees are diligent and highly talented lawyers. They just also happen to be lawyers who are eager to move the law sharply to the right.

The White House’s judicial selection process is the most professional operation in the Trump administration

The name “Donald Trump” is practically synonymous with goonish incompetence. But Trump’s judicial selection operation is nothing like Donald Trump. It is both efficient and highly effective in identifying reliable conservative ideologues with sterling legal resumes.

In less than four years as president, Trump has appointed 201 lawyers to lifetime appointments on the federal bench, including 53 to powerful seats on the United States Courts of Appeal. By contrast, President Obama appointed only 55 appellate judges during his eight years as president.

One reason for this disparity is that Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, imposed a near-total blockade on appeals court confirmations during Obama’s final two years in the White House. That meant that Trump has effectively been able to fill all the appeals court vacancies that arose during his presidency plus nearly all the vacancies that should have been filled in Obama’s last two years in office.

'Get busy living, or get busy dying', 10 facts about The Shawshank Redemption

  'Get busy living, or get busy dying', 10 facts about The Shawshank Redemption It's been 26 years since 'The Shawshank Redemption' was released.The movie follows Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins), who is sentenced to life in Shawshank State Penitentiary for murdering his wife and her lover.Although it under-performed at the box office, the movie was a massive success on home release and regularly makes best film lists.Here are 10 facts from behind-the-scenes on Frank Darabont's film

Trump’s judges, moreover, are quite young. “The average age of circuit judges appointed by President Trump is less than 50 years old,” the Trump White House bragged in November of 2019, “a full 10 years younger than the average age of President Obama’s circuit nominees.” And a large percentage of them have amassed impressive credentials such as Supreme Court clerkships and other government jobs of great influence.

All of this is a reason for liberals to be more afraid of Trump’s judges — and potential justices — than if Trump were picking undistinguished hacks to fill the bench. Judges of great ability are far more likely to find innovative ways to reshape the law than incompetents and mediocrities.

Moreover, Trump is filling the bench with some of the Federalist Society’s brightest minds at the very moment when the judiciary is gaining power relative to the other branches. As I wrote several months ago in a piece laying out Trump’s impact on the bench:

In an age of legislative dysfunction, whoever controls the courts controls the country. In the past decade or so — or more precisely, since Republicans took over the House in 2011 — Congress has been barely functional. You can count on one hand — and possibly on just a few fingers — the major legislation it has enacted.

Judges, by contrast, have become the most consequential policymakers in the nation. They have gutted America’s campaign finance law and dismantled much of the Voting Rights Act. They have allowed states to deny health coverage to millions of Americans. They’ve held that religion can be wielded as a sword to cut away the rights of others. They’ve drastically watered down the federal ban on sexual harassment. And that barely scratches the surface.

If Trump gets to replace a liberal justice, this practice of judicial policymaking will only accelerate. Environmental regulations are likely to be dismantled en masse. Voting rights will be hollowed out even more. Obamacare could be struck down. And, perhaps most significantly, purely partisan Republican arguments will gain even more purchase in the Supreme Court.

Anyone Trump names to the Supreme Court, if Trump’s allowed to do so, is likely to push the law relentlessly to the right.

Help keep Vox free for all

Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what’s happening in the news, from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is, quite possibly, the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work, and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world. Contribute today from as little as $3.

RBG, the 2020 election, and the rolling crisis of American democracy .
“This type of tension, in other countries, has led to civil war.”Liberal democracy only functions when major parties accept the right of their opponents to govern. The purpose of the system is to take the antagonism that defines politics everywhere and channel it, creating rules and establishing norms that prevent one segment of the population from crushing others’ ability to participate in and shape the system.

usr: 1
This is interesting!