Potential SCOTUS Nomimee

[Wildabeest]

This is scary. Another 4 years under current POTUS makes this a real possibility.

Sen. Mike Lee, brother Thomas Lee still on Trump’s potential Supreme Court nominee list

President Donald Trump adds 20 names to list of possible high court nominees.

www.ksl.com

 

[beginnerhunter]

This is scary. Another 4 years under current POTUS makes this a real possibility.

Sen. Mike Lee, brother Thomas Lee still on Trump’s potential Supreme Court nominee list

President Donald Trump adds 20 names to list of possible high court nominees.

www.ksl.com

I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Here is a list of things that would have to happen for it to matter:

1) Trump wins reelection
2) Another justice retires/dies
3) Trump chooses Lee over all the other better options
4) anti-public land or pro-public land legislation is passed
5) said legislation is challenged
6) challenge makes it to supreme court
7) 5 judges uphold bad law

I just think there are more pressing concerns that would shape my decision on who to vote for President. In the slim chance he wins somehow and has to replace a judge, we should all vigorously oppose Lee.

 

[RobertD]

Yep, I would have to imagine that that's a big threat for public lands. In the maelstrom of Covid/Riots/whatever else is topical I'd almost forgotten about the issue of a new SC Justice. Now I'm panicky.

 

[Wildabeest]

It’s actually 2 chances - both Mike and his clone brother are on the list. They would both adamantly push to get public lands cases to SCOTUS. And #2 above is a 99% certainty given the condition of RBG. And if Trump were to win, there’s a decent chance that Thomas would retire so that he can be replace by a conservative president vs. risking having his slot becoming vacant during a future liberal POTUS. So 4 chances in with 20-30 candidates. I don’t like those odds. We’d definitely need to mount an all-out offensive on the nomination.

 

[Wildabeest]

I’d also add that new legislation would not need to be introduced, passed and challenged for this to have an impact. A case could easily come up through the courts based on existing laws and challenging the constitutionality of those. A lot of the debate on this issue, especially in UT, is that it isn’t constitutional for the federal government to own these lands. It’s been challenged in the courts many times and shot down, but that doesn’t mean a remodeled court with one of those two pushing their lifelong agenda wouldn’t decide differently.

 

[44hunter45]

I came out of the back country yesterday to learn that RBG had died and that this may all be in play. My Idaho Senators would both give a fast pass to either of the Lee brothers. That scares the hell out of me.

EDIT: Googling this morning and no outlets are showing either of the Lee brothers on the short list. That gives me some hope.

 

[Wildabeest]

Trump said yesterday that it will be a woman.

 

[noharleyyet]

"After graduating from law school, Barrett served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She then spent a year as a clerk to Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States."

Potential nominee profile: Amy Coney Barrett - SCOTUSblog

Editor's note: An updated version of this profile was published on Sept. 21, 2020. In November 2017, President Donald Trump released a revised list of potential Supreme Court nominees. The November 2017 list was an expanded version of two earlier lists, announced during the 2016 presidential

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Europe]

"After graduating from law school, Barrett served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She then spent a year as a clerk to Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States."

Potential nominee profile: Amy Coney Barrett - SCOTUSblog

Editor's note: An updated version of this profile was published on Sept. 21, 2020. In November 2017, President Donald Trump released a revised list of potential Supreme Court nominees. The November 2017 list was an expanded version of two earlier lists, announced during the 2016 presidential

www.scotusblog.com

I think it will be either Amy or Barbara . Barbara is of Cuban descent which might help Trump win Florida, plus she was easily confirmed to the 11th. He likes them both and has nominated them both to appeals courts in the past. I believe they are both Roman Catholics so the abortion issue will be front and center during confirmation hearings. From memory Amy has already stated her opinion "Roe vs Wade' when she was confirmed for the appeals court. I would be surprised if he ( Trump) doesn't make the announcement this week.

 

[mtmiller]

Trump said yesterday that it will be a woman.

Ivanka?

 

[Jape]

I think it will be either Amy or Barbara . Barbara is of Cuban descent which might help Trump win Florida, plus she was easily confirmed to the 11th. He likes them both and has nominated them both to appeals courts in the past. I believe they are both Roman Catholics so the abortion issue will be front and center during confirmation hearings. From memory Amy has already stated her opinion "Roe vs Wade' when she was confirmed for the appeals court. I would be surprised if he ( Trump) doesn't make the announcement this week.

Agreed. I think Amy is the better choice but doesn’t quite have the “strategic” advantage of Barbara. I don’t think one of the Lee’s will be first choice if he is re-elected and Thomas steps down. Although, I have met both brothers and will take Tom over Mike easily (minus the public lands issues).

 

[Gr8bawana]

Funny how the republicans are in such a hurry to replace justice Ginsburg immediately when they blocked Obama from filling a justice seat for a year. Because they said it couldn't possibly be done during an election year.
Nothing hypocritical about that, right?

 

[Ben Sellers]

This issue shows how hypocritical both sides are. They are each spouting off the other's talking points from the Merrick Garland case. None of this has anything at all to do with what's right or wrong. Its all about what gains "us" more power. The one thing I don't want to see come out of this is a retaliatory pack the court effort. I've heard that thrown around a couple of times and feel that would devalue the judicial branch and weaken our checks and balances system. What one side does now, the other will do in a few years as a never ending tit for tat.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Our checks and balance system has already been thrown out along with our constitution by Bill Barr and trump.

 

[Nameless Range]

This issue shows how hypocritical both sides are. They are each spouting off the other's talking points from the Merrick Garland case. None of this has anything at all to do with what's right or wrong. Its all about what gains "us" more power. The one thing I don't want to see come out of this is a retaliatory pack the court effort. I've heard that thrown around a couple of times and feel that would devalue the judicial branch and weaken our checks and balances system. What one side does now, the other will do in a few years as a never ending tit for tat.

Absolutely.

What everyone should be encouraging Trump to do is to nominate a moderate candidate for the job. With the potential on the horizon for situations unconstitutional in their nature, and a court of 8 being capable of deadlock, which could be a disaster for the nation, we need 9 members of the SCOTUS as soon as possible.

Those who absolutely hated this move only 4 years ago now support it because it favors their aims, and let's not pretend it is any reason otherwise. Partisan races to the bottom will end as most races to the bottom do. I would like more politicians be grownups and say that is was improper then, and it is improper now.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Just craziness. Pure hypocrisy on the part of the GOP. Not surprised at all, but I still find the appeals to the "Biden rule" to be insincere.

Ironically, to a conservative anti-Trumper like me, the SC is really the only clear cut good thing to directly come from the Trump presidency (I say "directly" because many legislative or policy items I like, like GAOA, are the result of too many factors to directly attribute to Trump). IMO, the pre-RBG death court mix was pretty good. I mean, Gorsuch gave us Bostock so he's not some sort of right wing reactionary. And I think it takes an Alex Jones level conspiracy theorist to think Gorsuch would be a Trump "loyalist" if it came down to a murky election result.

If Trump nominated Barrett or Lagoa successfully to the SC, I'd pretty much be done with him and hope he loses definitively. That being said, I worry about the civil unrest that may ensue were something like that to happen (although I already feel like the left is extorting the country with threats of violence should Trump win the EC again). In my perfect world, this would happen:
1) Trump somehow gets Barrett or Lagoa on the SC close to the election.
... no riots? A boy can dream.
2) Trump clearly loses reelection.
3) GOP somehow keeps the Senate, and the Dems keep the House.
4) Politicians from both parties abandon zombie reaganism and corporatism and embrace working class policies.

Not that anyone cares, but I'll try to not post any more political stuff rest of the year. Got a lot of hunts lined up so should be fun.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@VikingsGuy can phrase this more eloquently, but I think what a lot of folks miss is that justices have a certain interpretation of the law that they tend to adhere to which doesn't necessarily follow party line issues.

Folks are arguing that Barrett would be a good conservative pick because she said "justices should not be strictly bound by Supreme Court precedents."

The premise therefore is that she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, but what about Heller?

Let's talk environmental cases: Mass v. EPA, Chevron, Overton Park, Sierra Club v. Morton.... you start throwing out precedents you might win some but you will definitely also lose some.

I will be watching the process with interest, I hope in the interest of everyone the replacement of RBG is person of integrity and puts the law and the country over politics.

 

[VikingsGuy]

@VikingsGuy can phrase this more eloquently, but I think what a lot of folks miss is that justices have a certain interpretation of the law that they tend to adhere to which doesn't necessarily follow party line issues.

Folks are arguing that Barrett would be a good conservative pick because she said "justices should not be strictly bound by Supreme Court precedents."

The premise therefore is that she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, but what about Heller?

Let's talk environmental cases: Mass v. EPA, Chevron, Overton Park, Sierra Club v. Morton.... you start throwing out precedents you might win some but you will definitely also lose some.

I will be watching the process with interest, I hope in the interest of everyone the replacement of RBG is person of integrity and puts the law and the country over politics.

@wllm1313 is on point - it is a double-edged sword.

In my view, "precedent honoring" (stare decisis) is like an earlier thread about "right vs privilege" as that related to the Bill of Rights. It is a label (I distinguish that from the actually underlying legal theory that serves a purpose, just not the one wielded by the pundits) that adds little actual value/understanding/rigor to the discussion and is primarily used as a preference-supporting rationalization. If all precedents were honored, "separate but equal" would still be the law of the land, as would forced sterilizations, a very limited view of the 2A, etc. Many many legal positions today that we take for granted involved at some point overturning a prior precedent - this is an unavoidable (and positive) reality. And, let's be clear - those that demand fealty on the issue of Roe precedent, in turn openly advocate for the reversal of Citizen's United and Heller precedents. It is not stare decisis they demand, it is their preferred outcome - it is simply verbal gamesmanship offered by both sides when they find it useful.

I think Amy Barret did hit on the right view of the issue of precedent in an article she wrote a while back - and I paraphrase very loosely - if a justice believes a legal text (constitution or law) to be wrongly interpreted then they should consider correcting such mistake while weighing such correction against upsetting the societal expectation interest of the prior holding, but a justice should never reverse precedent where there is not sincere legal disagreement in the ruling, but rather where the desire for change is based upon a judge-held urge to expedite change that is more properly done by the democratic legislative process.

As for the hypocrite label - both sides equally own, as both sides have equally reversed their earlier positions.

As for both Lees (and Cruz), zero chance they are appointed to the supreme court in the next 5 years regardless of election outcome.

 

[Randi]

@VikingsGuy can phrase this more eloquently, but I think what a lot of folks miss is that justices have a certain interpretation of the law that they tend to adhere to which doesn't necessarily follow party line issues.

I think Roberts is a good example.

I did see where in 2016 RBG stated that there was nothing wrong with a president choosing someone to fill a vacancy on the supreme court when in their (Presidents) last year of office. This was of course when Obama was choosing someone. Now she supposedly ( although nothing was written,t said to her granddaughter-per her granddaughter) that she wishes her vacancy would be filled by the next president.

In researching this issue one can find it has done by past presidents ( filling a vacancy on the SP in their last year in office ) several times actually.

As for hypocrisy, there is plenty to go around. For someone who is studying and believe's in Democracy, it is sad that if one side doesn't get what they want they threaten to burn it all down. Absolutely nothing wrong with protesting, campaigning, supporting, but "if I dont get what "I" want, I am going to burn down your house". thats when folks loss me.

WOW---Vikingguy posted as I was typing and I will go ahead and post, my post----- but--------HIS post is much more intelligently written !

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think Roberts is a good example.

I did see where in 2016 RBG stated that there was nothing wrong with a president choosing someone to fill a vacancy on the supreme court when in their (Presidents) last year of office. This was of course when Obama was choosing someone. Now she supposedly ( although nothing was written,t said to her granddaughter-per her granddaughter) that she wishes her vacancy would be filled by the next president.

In researching this issue one can find it has done by past presidents ( filling a vacancy on the SP in their last year in office ) several times actually.

As for hypocrisy, there is plenty to go around. For someone who is studying and believe's in Democracy, it is sad that if one side doesn't get what they want they threaten to burn it all down. Absolutely nothing wrong with protesting, campaigning, supporting, but "if I dont get what "I" want, I am going to burn down your house". thats when folks loss me.

WOW---Vikingguy posted as I was typing and I will go ahead and post, my post----- but--------HIS post is much more intelligently written !

So much of our democracy depends on long standing norms and customs. When either party disrupts those the system as a whole suffers.

Example succession of power, there is no law that explicitly says what happens if a president refuses to leave office, every president has believed in the institution and democracy and has done so willingly preserved our system.

Crap like delaying appointments is blowing up the system. At this point if Trump is re-elected, but loses the senate I wouldn't be surprised in the least if dems refuse to confirm an appointee for 4 years.

I don't want that, nor do I think it's what's right for our country but I think that's where we are headed. It's time for the leadership of both parties to bow out, they are losing perspective on what's important.