• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Trump SCOTUS Confirmation Hearing Thread (Put meltdown here)

Pretty hypocritical of Republicans to whine about the USSC confirmation process, don't you think?
 
Two names that have been most frequently mentioned are Bill Pryor and Diane Sykes. Pryor succeeded Sessions as Alabama AG and his federal judicial nomination was filibustered, so W installed him via recess appointment. Sykes' ex husband is a WI conservative talk radio host who was hard core never Trump. Paul Clement has long been the favored GOP establishment choice, but given the Sessions' angle, would anticipate Pryor.
 
Obama should put Garland or someone else on the USSC in a recess appointment to give the nation a year to see how Trump acts.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
What kind of meltdown will there be over Pryor?
Click to expand...

Bigly. Apparently the filibuster was over Pryor's anti-LGBT views in 2004, so may get filibustered again. Dems can't block Sessions without at least 3 'Pub votes, but will have at least one shot at filibustering a Trump judicial nominee before GOP nukes the filibuster for SC nominees.
 
RJKarl said:
Obama should put Garland or someone else on the USSC in a recess appointment to give the nation a year to see how Trump acts.
Click to expand...

No, he shouldn't. All you gain from this is a year of Merrick Garland while you lose a ton of political capital that you may need later on
 
Trump's not an ideologue (I don't think). Pryor and Sykes are way too controversial and would be filibustered, and I don't think Trump wants that early in his presidency. Clement would probably be pretty easily confirmable, but he's not on Trump's list, which he reiterated that he'll stick to.

If I was a betting man, I'd say Kethledge and Gorsuch would be pretty confirmable and maybe the most likely Trump picks. Could also see him going for a state court judge like Joan Larsen or Don Willett (Don Willett is a very active Tweeter, which would certainly be an interesting dynamic. At least from Twitter he seems like a mensch, but he's written a few nuts opinions).
 
MysteryMen said:
Trump's not an ideologue (I don't think). Pryor and Sykes are way too controversial and would be filibustered, and I don't think Trump wants that early in his presidency. Clement would probably be pretty easily confirmable, but he's not on Trump's list, which he reiterated that he'll stick to.

If I was a betting man, I'd say Kethledge and Gorsuch would be pretty confirmable and maybe the most likely Trump picks. Could also see him going for a state court judge like Joan Larsen or Don Willett (Don Willett is a very active Tweeter, which would certainly be an interesting dynamic. At least from Twitter he seems like a mensch, but he's written a few nuts opinions).
Click to expand...

Trump's GOP wants a surefire Scalia, Alito, or Thomas preferably without pesky elite academic pedigree baggage. Don't want to risk another Kennedy, Souter, or even Roberts.

While Clement or Brett Kavanaugh would be confirmed easily, they're still somewhat suspect because of their backgrounds. Trump doesn't want or need to dick around with a filibuster, which seems much more likely with Pryor over Gorsuch, Kethledge, Larson, or Willets.
 
MysteryMen said:
No, he shouldn't. All you gain from this is a year of Merrick Garland while you lose a ton of political capital that you may need later on
Click to expand...

There will be no political capital, but at least he will protect the country for one year.
 
Junebug said:
I personally would be just fine with a Roberts clone. Yes, he bent himself into contortions not to strike down the ACA, but I'll cut the chief some slack in wanting to defer to the President's signature legislation in a grey area. At the end of the day, that POS legislation can -- and will, at least in part -- be repealed.
Click to expand...

Thought it was ridiculous for Obama, HRC, and Feinstein to refuse to confirm Roberts. There was nothing wrong about his qualifications, experience, or background. They just didn't like his politics-BFD. Nobody would have objected to Harriet Miers if she were clearly a brilliant legal mind, but going to SMU instead of an Ivy is hardly a qualification if she wasn't hyper bright and competent. Damian Lillard and Scottie Pippen were deserving high NBA bdraft picks and All Stars despite not playing in the ACC.

Trump won so he can nominate whoever he wants, but Sessions, Flynn, and Rudy aren't the best picks based on individual merit. Very few credible non-partisan complaints against Mitt, Corker, Ayotte, Haley, McChystal, Rhee, Clement, and Kavanaugh. Trump and the country would be well served by pragmatic non-ideological governing picks, but he's probably going to repay cronies instead.
 
Corker would be fine at Defense or SOS. Haley would be good in some places. I'm not sure about her bona fides at State. Mitt could be used in some slots. I'm not sure where to use Ayotte, but she could be very good.

People tend to forget Meirs was attacked at least as much from the right as from the left. She had no real experience.
 
RJKarl said:
There will be no political capital, but at least he will protect the country for one year.
Click to expand...

You gotta play the long game RJ. You would't get "one year of protecting the country." He would hear cases for February-April (Max 30ish cases) and then be on the court for arguments the next October/November/December, but the Supreme Court usually doesn't issue more than a handful of opinions before January, and those are mostly the easy 9-0 cases (where Garland wouldn't matter)--if he's off the court in late December/early January his vote doesn't count in the cases that he heard argument in but haven't been decided yet.

So being generous, in exchange for ~40 decisions, half of which would be 9-0 and probably a max of 10 of which in which his vote would be decisive (and keep in mind, even on the close cases, half of them are probably on some obscure topic that would never affect you), you would forever set a precedent that the president can get around Congressional intransigence on a SCOTUS nominee by using a recess appointment. This is a horrible idea
 
Last edited:
Junebug said:
I don't know much about Clement's political leanings, but he is one hell of an appellate advocate. I've seen him argue at the SCOTUS, and he was tremendous.
Click to expand...


Conservatives don't want to appoint him straight to SCOTUS because he has no judicial track record that they can evaluate to make sure that he won't be a Souter. Could see him getting the nod for the D.C. Circuit though and then possibly being elevated later if another vacancy arose
 
Reince, Bannon, and Flynn are appointments that don't require Senate confirmation. Dems nuked the filibuster for cabinet confirmation, but Pompeo, Sessions, or Rudy may still fail to be confirmed because of GOP objections. Would be a stern rebuke for Sessions from his peers since he's been a Senator for 20 years. Mitt or Corker would easily be confirmed for SOS with broad bipartisan support.

Hard to tell if Trump, his kids, or GOP Senators vetoed Carson and Newt. Despite his resume and acclaim as a surgeon, Carson probably got Miered.

Heritage and the Federalists are calling the shots on SC nominees, but Trump may go with a less controversial/more easily confirmable Justice if one or more of his cabinet picks doesn't get confirmed by a GOP Senate.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Reince, Bannon, and Flynn are appointments that don't require Senate confirmation. Dems nuked the filibuster for cabinet confirmation, but Pompeo, Sessions, or Rudy may still fail to be confirmed because of GOP objections. Would be a stern rebuke for Sessions from his peers since he's been a Senator for 20 years. Mitt or Corker would easily be confirmed for SOS with broad bipartisan support.

Hard to tell if Trump, his kids, or GOP Senators vetoed Carson and Newt. Despite his resume and acclaim as a surgeon, Carson probably got Miered.

Heritage and the Federalists are calling the shots on SC nominees, but Trump may go with a less controversial/more easily confirmable Justice if one or more of his cabinet picks doesn't get confirmed by a GOP Senate.
Click to expand...

No they didn't.....
 
MysteryMen said:
You gotta play the long game RJ. You would't get "one year of protecting the country." He would hear cases for February-April (Max 30ish cases) and then be on the court for arguments the next October/November/December, but the Supreme Court usually doesn't issue more than a handful of opinions before January, and those are mostly the easy 9-0 cases (where Garland wouldn't matter)--if he's off the court in late December/early January his vote doesn't count in the cases that he heard argument in but haven't been decided yet.

So being generous, in exchange for ~40 decisions, half of which would be 9-0 and probably a max of 10 of which in which his vote would be decisive (and keep in mind, even on the close cases, half of them are probably on some obscure topic that would never affect you), you would forever set a precedent that the president can get around Congressional intransigence on a SCOTUS nominee by using a recess appointment. This is a horrible idea
Click to expand...

The long game will be putting a radically RW person in for 30+ years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top