Jump to content


The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread


Recommended Posts

Good discussion here. I've got a few more thoughts.

 

Here's the deal: we're gonna be at loggerheads about this. A few of us view what has happened to the judiciary as fine and constitutionally appropriate. Others of us view it as ill-gotten gains done with dirty tricks and two-faced lying explicitly in the hopes the new courts rule from the bench - in a way the GOP likes.

 

I don't know how two sides agree on fundamentally different views of how and why this happened.

 

But there's an elephant in the room. I'd wager a guess that this board (and P&R itself) are fairly homogeneous: mostly white men. The anatomy of a Nebraska football fan, eh? And I would wager most of us are now or were at some point some type of Christian.

 

I think it would be prudent to recognize the biases that come along with those things and set those aside. As is always the case, the court system and the precedents they set will have real world effects. Obviously some rulings affect us more than others. But some of these major cultural touchstones we're discussing are going to affect a lot of people distinct from us more than they affect us. We're not under particularly heightened threat in many of these areas. But others are and they have to live with all the anxiety that entails.

 

I don't believe just because something isn't going to affect me personally I can disregard it; rather I think it's indicative of one's capacity for empathy to understand and advocate for the concerns of others even when one doesn't have to.

  • Plus1 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment

26 minutes ago, commando said:

what i notice is that in 4 years trump appointed 194 judges (with a few more possible as a lame duck).   and obama appointed 312 in 8 years.   trump has gotten to appoint more then his fair share due to mcconnels abdicating his duty and blocking the senate from doing theirs.   i would like to see how many other presidents appointed total rather thn current share of judges to see if those numbers are normal.

 

You're kidding right? Using your logic, Bush 2 only appointed 166 in 8 years, so Obama got double his "fair share" and almost four times what poor Bill Clinton appointed. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

It is not confusing at all. I excuse nothing. I call out McConnell and Trump. I link that Obama appointed roughly 40% of the current, sitting judges, and ask why it wasn't a problem until the recent 24% of judges lean right. 

 

 

So... you know why it's a problem?    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Link to comment

5 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

You're kidding right? Using your logic, Bush 2 only appointed 166 in 8 years, so Obama got double his "fair share" and almost four times what poor Bill Clinton appointed. 

 

A president should be able to nominate and have considered the total number of justice openings that occur during their presidency. If the other party obstructs them, that's not OK.

 

This is not a tough concept.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

You're kidding right? Using your logic, Bush 2 only appointed 166 in 8 years, so Obama got double his "fair share" and almost four times what poor Bill Clinton appointed. 

that is how many of the current judges he replaced.  not how many total judges.   some of his appointments have been replaced i am sure.   some may have died.  some promoted.  some retired.   you understand how the passage of time thins out those appointments...right?

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, commando said:

that is how many of the current judges he replaced.  not how many total judges.   some of his appointments have been replaced i am sure.   some may have died.  some promoted.  some retired.   you understand how the passage of time thins out those appointments...right?

 

Pretty sure you are incorrect 

image.png.a8ca44d1cddd4b2dba9c36bfd78849ce.png

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, commando said:

that is how many of the current judges he replaced.  not how many total judges.   some of his appointments have been replaced i am sure.   some may have died.  some promoted.  some retired.   you understand how the passage of time thins out those appointments...right?

 

This isn't rocket science:

 

Total Judicial Appointments:

Roosevelt - 193

Truman - 133

Eisenhower - 184

Kennedy - 126

Nixon - 235

Ford - 65

Carter - 262

Reagan - 383

Bush I - 193

Clinton - 378

Bush II - 327

Obama - 329

trump - 219

 

Trump is on pace to appoint more judges than any president in 100 years (and really, ever). 

 

Why? In part because McConnell refused to play ball with Obama's nominations.

 

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

This isn't rocket science:

 

Total Judicial Appointments:

Roosevelt - 193

Truman - 133

Eisenhower - 184

Kennedy - 126

Nixon - 235

Ford - 65

Carter - 262

Reagan - 383

Bush I - 193

Clinton - 378

Bush II - 327

Obama - 329

trump - 219

 

Trump is on pace to appoint more judges than any president in 100 years (and really, ever). 

 

Why? In part because McConnell refused to play ball with Obama's nominations.

 

 

 

 

How is 194 a larger number than 312? (or 219 larger than 329 using your numbers)

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

This isn't rocket science:

 

Total Judicial Appointments:

Roosevelt - 193

Truman - 133

Eisenhower - 184

Kennedy - 126

Nixon - 235

Ford - 65

Carter - 262

Reagan - 383

Bush I - 193

Clinton - 378

Bush II - 327

Obama - 329

trump - 219

 

Trump is on pace to appoint more judges than any president in 100 years (and really, ever). 

 

Why? In part because McConnell refused to play ball with Obama's nominations.

 

 

 

looks like the most per year in office maybe?   not most total.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...