Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:20:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2020 10:50:35 GMT -5
Not exactly recent news, but it is of interest to those who follow federal judge appointments. After decades of rubber stamping liberal policy in the west, things are now changing. To the howls of protest from Kamala Harris and Diane Feinstein of course. Quote; When President Trump ticks off his accomplishments since taking office, he frequently mentions his aggressive makeover of a key sector of the federal judiciary — the circuit courts of appeal, where he has appointed 51 judges to lifetime jobs in three years.
In few places has the effect been felt more powerfully than in the sprawling 9th Circuit, which covers California and eight other states. Because of Trump’s success in filling vacancies, the San Francisco-based circuit, long dominated by Democratic appointees, has suddenly shifted to the right, with an even more pronounced tilt expected in the years ahead.
Trump has now named 10 judges to the 9th Circuit — more than one-third of its active judges — compared with seven appointed by President Obama over eight years.
“Trump has effectively flipped the circuit,” said 9th Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., an appointee of President George W. Bush. www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-22/trump-conservative-judges-9th-circuit
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 31, 2020 11:57:05 GMT -5
Not exactly recent news, but it is of interest to those who follow federal judge appointments. After decades of rubber stamping liberal policy in the west, things are now changing. To the howls of protest from Kamala Harris and Diane Feinstein of course. Quote; When President Trump ticks off his accomplishments since taking office, he frequently mentions his aggressive makeover of a key sector of the federal judiciary — the circuit courts of appeal, where he has appointed 51 judges to lifetime jobs in three years.
In few places has the effect been felt more powerfully than in the sprawling 9th Circuit, which covers California and eight other states. Because of Trump’s success in filling vacancies, the San Francisco-based circuit, long dominated by Democratic appointees, has suddenly shifted to the right, with an even more pronounced tilt expected in the years ahead.
Trump has now named 10 judges to the 9th Circuit — more than one-third of its active judges — compared with seven appointed by President Obama over eight years.
“Trump has effectively flipped the circuit,” said 9th Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., an appointee of President George W. Bush. www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-22/trump-conservative-judges-9th-circuitThis is why I think the appointment of SCOTUS judges is limited in effectiveness. Given the amount of conservative lifetime appointments that have happened at all levels of the judiciary, the number of cases that won't even get to the Supremes is pretty substantial.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 31, 2020 18:18:58 GMT -5
this completely sucks.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,350
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on Sept 1, 2020 18:42:18 GMT -5
Not only for his stance on the 2nd Amendment, my main reason for voting for Trump in 2016, was his position on judge appointments.
I voted for him to keep Hillary away from the Supreme Court .......... and in the same circumstances would do it again Yes but I believe that is the excuse you are hiding behind as you seem to be a very proud trump supporter. That is your right of course but at least have the guts to acknowledge that fact.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:20:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2020 10:54:07 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:20:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2020 10:58:11 GMT -5
Not exactly recent news, but it is of interest to those who follow federal judge appointments. After decades of rubber stamping liberal policy in the west, things are now changing. To the howls of protest from Kamala Harris and Diane Feinstein of course. Quote; When President Trump ticks off his accomplishments since taking office, he frequently mentions his aggressive makeover of a key sector of the federal judiciary — the circuit courts of appeal, where he has appointed 51 judges to lifetime jobs in three years.
In few places has the effect been felt more powerfully than in the sprawling 9th Circuit, which covers California and eight other states. Because of Trump’s success in filling vacancies, the San Francisco-based circuit, long dominated by Democratic appointees, has suddenly shifted to the right, with an even more pronounced tilt expected in the years ahead.
Trump has now named 10 judges to the 9th Circuit — more than one-third of its active judges — compared with seven appointed by President Obama over eight years.
“Trump has effectively flipped the circuit,” said 9th Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., an appointee of President George W. Bush. www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-22/trump-conservative-judges-9th-circuitThis is why I think the appointment of SCOTUS judges is limited in effectiveness. Given the amount of conservative lifetime appointments that have happened at all levels of the judiciary, the number of cases that won't even get to the Supremes is pretty substantial. Nobody is crying about that more than the NRA these days. I believe they had over ten cases they tried to get before the US Supreme Court this year without success.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:20:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2020 11:06:25 GMT -5
Not only for his stance on the 2nd Amendment, my main reason for voting for Trump in 2016, was his position on judge appointments.
I voted for him to keep Hillary away from the Supreme Court .......... and in the same circumstances would do it again Yes but I believe that is the excuse you are hiding behind as you seem to be a very proud trump supporter. That is your right of course but at least have the guts to acknowledge that fact. 2008 is where the year when the idea started being bandied about. Quote; Ann Althouse goes apoplectic on a recurring meme that Barack Obama should promise Hillary Clinton the first Supreme Court vacancy in exchange for withdrawal from the race and enthusiastic support. She observes that Clinton “has no judicial experience and has never done anything to indicate that she is any sort of a legal scholar or has anything like a judicial temperament.” Quote; Now, I think the idea is silly. There’s no way Obama appoints Clinton to the Supreme Court. For one thing, she’s too old. She’d be at least 61 and presidents want someone who’ll be on the Court 20-30 years. Further, why would he award such a prize to someone who has given him so much grief? He’s certain to be the nominee at this point. Sure, presidents have given the VP nod to bitter rivals. But the vice presidency is a subordinate position, not an independent power base.
But, from the standpoint of a liberal president who wants judges to help shape policy, Clinton is surely qualified. She’s got as much judicial experience as Earl Warren or William Rehnquist had when they were appointed. www.outsidethebeltway.com/hillary_clinton_for_supreme_court/
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 3, 2020 15:08:07 GMT -5
Who the fuck is Ann Althouse, and why do we care about her random idea?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2020 1:22:06 GMT -5
the 9th circuit covers 15 districts. only four are in CA, and two of those are Republican.
will you only be happy when there is no protection for liberals, jma?
I mean that question most sincerely. I am genuinely scared.
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,505
|
Post by tbop77 on Sept 5, 2020 11:02:43 GMT -5
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Sept 5, 2020 11:57:13 GMT -5
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Sept 5, 2020 11:59:59 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 5, 2020 12:35:36 GMT -5
i want to point out something.
conservatives spend a lot of time railing against the ACLU. every time they do, i point out that the ACLU is just as likely to intervene when the rights of conservatives are violated as liberals. for example, when Neo-Nazi's organized a march in Idaho a couple decades ago, the ACLU defended them. there are countless other examples.
the 9th circuit court was, for all practical purposes, the ACLU court. eviscerating it leaves ALL OF US vulnerable.
we NEED a liberal court in the US. if the rulings are BAD, the plaintiff can appeal to the SCOTUS.
without the 9th, there really is not a liberal judicial review at the appeals level. and i think that is tragic.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,147
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 5, 2020 13:25:50 GMT -5
I still don't think he has actually lost a case against the administration yet, has he? He has filed or joined over 50 cases against them so far, and has beaten them many times, including quite a number that are beyond final appeal.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 6, 2020 18:08:46 GMT -5
If her seat becomes vacant tomorrow, it can't be filled until after the election, and if there is a new president, that president should be the one to appoint. Using Harry Reid's nuclear option, it can be filled in no time. Quote; It's now a nuclear option backfire, for sure. In November 2013 Democrats unveiled what’s called the "nuclear option" for approving appointees. It's now a nuclear option backfire, for sure.topstoriesusa.com/harry-reids-nuclear-option-changed-the-rules-but-will-now-backfire-right-in-his-face/the nuclear option was never intended to be used for judicial appts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:20:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 13:57:46 GMT -5
the 9th circuit covers 15 districts. only four are in CA, and two of those are Republican.
will you only be happy when there is no protection for liberals, jma?
I mean that question most sincerely. I am genuinely scared.
I'm aware of the coverage area. I don't see it as no protection for liberals. Even for the Supreme Court it hasn't worked that way, with Trumps picks in there. All one has to do is look at the recent decisions. The NRA for one has achieved nothing of nothing with their cases. I consider the 9th flipped to a neutral stance.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:20:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 14:04:29 GMT -5
the nuclear option was never intended to be used for judicial appts. I will have to disagree with you on that. The Democrats were correct in this elimination of filibuster. Quote; The "nuclear option" of eliminating the filibuster for certain appointments is not a reversal of the intent of the Framers — it is a return to their original intent.Quote; The Framers in 1787 deliberately asserted that a simple majority of the members of each House was a quorum and that there would be only a few votes requiring a two-thirds majority for passage.
Three of those votes were in the House, and they were required to override a presidential veto, expel a member or approve an amendment to the Constitution. The same three votes applied in the Senate, with the addition of two more two-thirds votes that were required to approve treaties or to remove an impeached official from office. www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/bs-ed-filibuster-20131205-story.html#:~:text=The%20%22nuclear%20option%22%20of%20eliminating%20the%20filibuster%20for,it%20is%20a%20return%20to%20their%20original%20intent.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:20:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 14:23:27 GMT -5
They have been since day one. (bolded) The "kissing Trump's butt" as you so adroitly put, is just Democrat political narrative. These days that means talk about anything that even hints at putting Trump in a negative light. Even if it's nonsense.
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,505
|
Post by tbop77 on Sept 8, 2020 17:12:47 GMT -5
They have been since day one. (bolded) The "kissing Trump's butt" as you so adroitly put, is just Democrat political narrative. These days that means talk about anything that even hints at putting Trump in a negative light. Even if it's nonsense. You mean like the Republican nonsense when Trump labeled a judge as an "Obama judge?" Was that just part of the Republican narrative?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 8, 2020 18:05:19 GMT -5
Many were surprised that Trump picked Gorsuch. He (apparently) is a literalist and is expected to think rather independently on the bench. He still is conservative, but not out of loyalty or political pressure, but because that is how he reads it. I can at least respect that, if he makes reasonable decisions and has the chops to back them up.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:20:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 13:18:56 GMT -5
They have been since day one. (bolded) The "kissing Trump's butt" as you so adroitly put, is just Democrat political narrative. These days that means talk about anything that even hints at putting Trump in a negative light. Even if it's nonsense. You mean like the Republican nonsense when Trump labeled a judge as an "Obama judge?" Was that just part of the Republican narrative? Yes exactly like that, it was Republican nonsense, part of their political narrative. I long for the times past, when it wasn't continual campaigning, from election to election.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Sept 9, 2020 13:37:55 GMT -5
And which person was it that filed for the NEXT election the day after they were inaugurated? Oh yeah, trump did that. No other president has ever done it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2020 23:18:15 GMT -5
the nuclear option was never intended to be used for judicial appts. I will have to disagree with you on that. The Democrats were correct in this elimination of filibuster. Quote; The "nuclear option" of eliminating the filibuster for certain appointments is not a reversal of the intent of the Framers — it is a return to their original intent.Quote; The Framers in 1787 deliberately asserted that a simple majority of the members of each House was a quorum and that there would be only a few votes requiring a two-thirds majority for passage.
Three of those votes were in the House, and they were required to override a presidential veto, expel a member or approve an amendment to the Constitution. The same three votes applied in the Senate, with the addition of two more two-thirds votes that were required to approve treaties or to remove an impeached official from office. www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/bs-ed-filibuster-20131205-story.html#:~:text=The%20%22nuclear%20option%22%20of%20eliminating%20the%20filibuster%20for,it%20is%20a%20return%20to%20their%20original%20intent. i guess i could have been more clear. what i meant is that the Democrats specifically excluded judicial appointments from the nuclear option.
hopefully that was more clear.
thanks for the history lesson, but the only history i was responding to was in the last decade, not the last millennium.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 9, 2020 23:20:32 GMT -5
the 9th circuit covers 15 districts. only four are in CA, and two of those are Republican.
will you only be happy when there is no protection for liberals, jma?
I mean that question most sincerely. I am genuinely scared.
I'm aware of the coverage area. I don't see it as no protection for liberals. just wait. you will.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:20:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2020 10:11:31 GMT -5
I'm aware of the coverage area. I don't see it as no protection for liberals. just wait. you will. So far Trumps appointments over the last coup!e of years have not gone down the partisan route. I don't think I would want to predict what might happen.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 10, 2020 12:38:43 GMT -5
So far Trumps appointments over the last coup!e of years have not gone down the partisan route. I don't think I would want to predict what might happen. They haven't? Can you help me understand that better?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:20:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2020 7:16:32 GMT -5
So far Trumps appointments over the last coup!e of years have not gone down the partisan route. I don't think I would want to predict what might happen. They haven't? Can you help me understand that better? There have been no decisions involved with them that would indicate a partisan stance, especially on the Supreme Court. If there was, you can be sure the mainstream media would be all over it, as it would be one more thing to slam Trump with during an election year. I follow the Suoreme Court somewhat, and there has yet to be anything of note.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:20:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2020 7:21:19 GMT -5
I'm a little curious why Joe Biden has not released any names, or a list on who he would choose for the Supreme Court if he wins the next term.
Not exactly shocking news that Ginsberg won't be in much longer.
He has nothing to hide, does he ?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,456
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 11, 2020 8:42:41 GMT -5
I'm a little curious why Joe Biden has not released any names, or a list on who he would choose for the Supreme Court if he wins the next term. Not exactly shocking news that Ginsberg won't be in much longer. He has nothing to hide, does he ? Trump releasing lengthy lists of names is a cute reality television stunt. Biden not playing into it is a good thing.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Sept 11, 2020 10:07:01 GMT -5
I'm a little curious why Joe Biden has not released any names, or a list on who he would choose for the Supreme Court if he wins the next term. Not exactly shocking news that Ginsberg won't be in much longer. He has nothing to hide, does he ? Merrill Garland ring a bell? So stop whining about Biden when you should be castigating Mitch for ripping off the American people.
|
|