DeaconSig
Well-known member
Chances that the bobs burn a cross in somebody's yard in the next year are at least 20%, right?
No, you really don't get it. For one thing, the judiciary is already stacked with Obama appointees. There aren't a huge number of vacancies, and Obama's appointees aren't going anywhere for a long time. For another thing, jurists, even conservative ones, swear to uphold the constitution and, to a person, take that oath seriously. If anything, they have an inflated sense of their own Article III power to stop Article II abuses, which isn't entirely a bad thing in a system of checks and balances. No one in who could get confirmed is going to roll over because Trump appointed him, particularly if, as Trump claims, he's going to appoint judges who adhere to the original meaning of the constitution.
There may be decisions that arise out of this that you disagree with, but they won't be because a judge is cowed by Trump.
You are aware of the completely preposterous nature of this post in terms of what it presumes about human beings, right? A judge in Washington State also just issued a TRO on this thing. He's a Reagan appointee. His job was to interpret law and he did so.
I have conservative friends from law school and my law practice who are now judges. I clerked for a federal court of appeals judge who was one of the most conservative judges on the bench. I have close friends from law school who clerked for Scalia, Thomas, O'Conner, Rehnquist, and Kennedy. My dad was a federal judge.
You are free to disagree with me (show your work), but I am not naive.
"Since taking control of the Senate in early 2015, Republicans have confirmed only 17 federal judges, a historically low number. The Senate confirmed just 11 judges in 2015, the fewest since 1960. There have been only two appellate court judges approved since Republicans took control, with seven appeals court nominations left pending. If the Senate doesn't confirm any appellate judges this year, it will have confirmed the fewest since the 1897-98 session, when there were just 25 circuit court judges nationwide, compared with 179 now."
The damage was done by 2014:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/...nch.html/RK=0/RS=rrnnJyB_SkT8e4UT0akzPp3lAas-
Ph, your original argument was that Trump would appoint jurists who he could control and they would affirm his EOs. I have addressed that argument. You are now moving the goalposts to argue that conservative jurists will uphold this EO. That may or may not be true--I haven't studied the issue enough to form an opinion on its legality--but that is a different argument altogether.
I presume human beings who act to preserve their own power will continue to do so.
Junebug, just because you think something is unconstitutional, doesn't mean a judge will. You're an originalist. Do you real think the founding fathers wanted Muslims in this country? It's not a hard argument for your side to make.
Trump campaigned on this. He won an election with it. He and the Republicans believe they have a mandate for this. They aren't going give up this ban easily.
No, you really don't get it. For one thing, the judiciary is already stacked with Obama appointees. There aren't a huge number of vacancies, and Obama's appointees aren't going anywhere for a long time. For another thing, jurists, even conservative ones, swear to uphold the constitution and, to a person, take that oath seriously. If anything, they have an inflated sense of their own Article III power to stop Article II abuses, which isn't entirely a bad thing in a system of checks and balances. No one in who could get confirmed is going to roll over because Trump appointed him, particularly if, as Trump claims, he's going to appoint judges who adhere to the original meaning of the constitution.
There may be decisions that arise out of this that you disagree with, but they won't be because a judge is cowed by Trump.
So naive
It'd be nice if we could take in everyone who wants to come here, but I think enough damage has been done to the standard of living of native born citizens. Trump will not go far enough in my opinion. Only those who possess skills that are truly in demand should be allowed to immigrate. Probably some other exceptions but it needs to be cut way back.
As usual there are shades of gray, but I tend to agree with Junebug here (can't believe I said that). Federal judges have lifetime tenure for a reason (a number of them, actually) and once appointed, they really aren't beholden to the party/administration who put them there (see, e.g., David Souter).
"Since taking control of the Senate in early 2015, Republicans have confirmed only 17 federal judges, a historically low number. The Senate confirmed just 11 judges in 2015, the fewest since 1960. There have been only two appellate court judges approved since Republicans took control, with seven appeals court nominations left pending. If the Senate doesn't confirm any appellate judges this year, it will have confirmed the fewest since the 1897-98 session, when there were just 25 circuit court judges nationwide, compared with 179 now."
He misrepresented my argument that Trump would nominate and Republicans would approve judges who they believe will uphold their policies such as the Muslim ban.
I also agree they won't actively control the judges.
Obama in his 8 years in office appointed 325 judges. Bush II in his 8 years in office appointed 325 judges. Bill Clinton in his 8 years appointed 373. Bush I in 4 years 192. Reagan in 8 years 376. Appointed means the President got them appointed.
What does the district/trial court level look like (not being argumentative - I really have no idea)?
What's your point? Appointments don't equal approvals/confirmations.