Jump to content

The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You have repeatedly shown you don't know what testimony, evidence, Due Process, and many more legal terms mean.   I graduated law school, where I was on Law Journal, and now practice as a tr

It's partisan political brinksmanship and pop culture theater. No argument there.   It's also a flashpoint for a moment in time. There's much going on here that is ancillary to Brett Kavanau

Perjury is a crime.

Posted Images

35 minutes ago, QMany said:

 

I've litigated almost all of my career. I've taken hundreds of depositions, read and used the Rules of Civil Procedure daily,  argued hundreds of motions, and had multiple jury trials in different venues. And I would still not consider myself qualified to take the Bench.

 

It is absolutely terrifying that this corrupt Administration is nominating such grossly unqualified people to lifetime positions.

Ask yourself, why?

 

Because everyone is too PC and demands apologies, and Benghazi, and emails, and we need to say Merry Christmas, and it's okay to be white. 

Link to post

  • 2 months later...

This is pretty awful news if you're a liberal.

 

If this happens, they'll be replacing the lone swing voter on SCOTUS with another Gorsuch handpicked by the Heritage Foundation.

 

This was one of my biggest fears about even four years under Trump. The SCOTUS becoming strongly conservative could set back liberal goals the majority of my life. I'm in my mid 20s.

 

 

Link to post

I believe the same senator said Senator Mike Lee of Utah would or should be under consideration.  Don't be surprised if Ted Cruz's name gets thrown into the mix also.  I'd prefer a longer term jurist who understands the role and who has ruled in difficult cases before.  However, if we were to follow some of Trump's appointees, he may very well nominate someone as a political pay back or a friend or a relative. 

 

Trump has been somewhat unpredictable lately (even more than he normally is) - don't be surprised if a moderate person is placed in the seat - although highly unlikely with Mike Pence speaking into his ear.  Wt Trump, the last person in the room will be the most persuasive. 

 

 

Link to post

If Trump appoints a moderate I'll eat a MAGA hat and put it on Youtube.

 

There's just no way. There's nothing but far-right whackjobs in his ear. Mattis or Mnuchin would be the only ones who would even try & they're not going to be in the ring on this issue. It's going to be him conferring with Pence, Kelly, McConnell, Paul Ryan & other Republicans in Congress.

 

Liberals are going to get screwed on this one.

Link to post

It's not a certainty. It's one senator saying it.

 

He needs to stay on until the gerrymandering case is finished. Who knows if he'll vote correctly on that anyway but Trump is pro-gerrymandering. So the next person he picks might be too. Even though it's anti democratic to be so.

 

The only positive I can see in having another "conservative" justice is maybe conservative voters will finally learn the GOP politicians they're voting for don't give a f*** about abortion and never did.

Edited by Moiraine
Link to post
21 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

It's not a certainty. It's one senator saying it.

 

He needs to stay on until the gerrymandering case is finished. Who knows if he'll vote correctly on that anyway but Trump is pro-gerrymandering. So the next person he picks might be too. Even though it's anti democratic to be so.

 

The only positive I can see in having another "conservative" justice is maybe conservative voters will finally learn the GOP politicians they're voting for don't give a f*** about abortion and never did.

 

That's certainly the biggest stick & carrot the GOP uses to motivate them re: SCOTUS, isn't it? Without it I doubt conservatives would really care all that much about SCOTUS when they enter the voting booth. It seems to be the conservative Holy Grail as far as SCOTUS goes. It's interesting that a guy who's almost certain to be out of a job in November in Heller thinks that he is going to be useful for him in his campaign.

 

I first heard rumors of Kennedy stepping down last year and didn't want to believe it. It does make sense, though. He is 81. Regardless, he'll definitely stay on through the end of Gill v. Whitford. Let's both hope he does vote the right way on that. Gerrymandering is too crooked and shouldn't be used by either party.
 

A decision on that is expected in June. That would comport nicely with Kennedy's final major case, wouldn't it?

Link to post
On 12/15/2017 at 9:11 AM, QMany said:

 

I've litigated almost all of my career. I've taken hundreds of depositions, read and used the Rules of Civil Procedure daily,  argued hundreds of motions, and had multiple jury trials in different venues. And I would still not consider myself qualified to take the Bench.

 

It is absolutely terrifying that this corrupt Administration is nominating such grossly unqualified people to lifetime positions.

Ask yourself, why?

 

No excuse for the one or two clearly unqualified nominees like that guy. But most of Trump’s nominees are eminently qualified. They’ll also follow the law, which is a nice change of pace from the parade of social revolutionaries Obama was appointing.

Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...