Trump and reshaping the judiciary


Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
51,884
Senate judiciary committee has voted to advance another 44 judicial nominees. Most are for district courts (including Wendy Vitter, who would not say whether Brown vs Board of Education 1954 was rightly decided)., but a few are for Circuit Courts of Appeal including Erik Miller for the 9th Circuit and Paul Matey for the 3rd Circuit. This is over the objections of Democratic senators in California and New Jersey. Until recently, the senate would not consider a nomination of a federal judge from a state if the state's senators objected, but since Senator Grassley was Judiciary Committee Chairman, this is being waived for Circuit Courts of Appeals but still respected for district judges. Not entirely clear how Senator Graham the new chairman, will tackle this convention (known as the blue slip rule), but it looks like it will be similar.

Also a senator has introduced a proposal to cut the length of time to debate judicial nominees in the Senate from 30 hours to 2.
 

O'Sullivan Bere

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
14,492
The Dems are being hoist on their own petard. It will make it harder for them to play the #MeToo card against Trump in 2020 regard his accusers.
Not necessarily at all. If the claims are shown to be sufficiently credible and he's pressured to resign, that will stand well by the Dems.

What legitimate public interest is there in having anyone in office where there's a sufficient showing of being engaged in sexual misconduct? If you think it's helped the GOP by giving a free pass and endorsement to Trump's behaviours including groping or, worse, a child predator like Roy Moore, you're severely mistaken IMO. The reputation damage will be lasting for that.

Beyond that, it's an issue of sheer personal and societal decency. Any functional and reputable society has to have a minimum standard for fitness and character to serve in office that crosses partisan politics. Society will work out the more nuanced issues over time in the political framework, but the foundation values must exist at all times.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
51,884
Not necessarily at all. If the claims are shown to be sufficiently credible and he's pressured to resign, that will stand well by the Dems.

What legitimate public interest is there in having anyone in office where there's a sufficient showing of being engaged in sexual misconduct? If you think it's helped the GOP by giving a free pass and endorsement to Trump's behaviours including groping or, worse, a child predator like Roy Moore, you're severely mistaken IMO. The reputation damage will be lasting for that.

Beyond that, it's an issue of sheer personal and societal decency. Any functional and reputable society has to have a minimum standard for fitness and character to serve in office that crosses partisan politics. Society will work out the more nuanced issues over time in the political framework, but the foundation values must exist at all times.
#MeToo could be the Left's version of John Major's "Back to Basics" campaign, which was followed by a series of Tory sex scandals in the 1990s.
 

O'Sullivan Bere

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
14,492
#MeToo could be the Left's version of John Major's "Back to Basics" campaign, which was followed by a series of Tory sex scandals in the 1990s.
The GOP got into the same problem during Dubya's second term based on his re-election campaign and overall party theme as the party of 'family values' and masking longstanding insidious prejudice in Bible thumping, e.g.,


The DUP is much the same way, including the all-too-predictable incidents such as the bigoted and vicious Bible thumping Iris Robinson and her exposure regarding financial fraud with a 'boy-toy' paramour:
Iris Robinson scandal - Wikipedia

Pious baloney is one thing...committing serious sex offence crimes against another human being should self-evidently be another. Are you suggesting that there's no difference or there shouldn't be?
 

roryconnor

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
3,163
Making Politics Impossible

Not necessarily at all. If the claims are shown to be sufficiently credible and he's pressured to resign, that will stand well by the Dems.

What legitimate public interest is there in having anyone in office where there's a sufficient showing of being engaged in sexual misconduct? If you think it's helped the GOP by giving a free pass and endorsement to Trump's behaviours including groping or, worse, a child predator like Roy Moore, you're severely mistaken IMO. The reputation damage will be lasting for that.

Beyond that, it's an issue of sheer personal and societal decency. Any functional and reputable society has to have a minimum standard for fitness and character to serve in office that crosses partisan politics. Society will work out the more nuanced issues over time in the political framework, but the foundation values must exist at all times.
where there's a sufficient showing of being engaged in sexual misconduct?? These are the two allegations - made 15 years and 19 years after the alleged assaults - AND made at a time when the Lieutenant Governor might well become Governor of Virginia.

.....Watson's statement claims she was raped by Fairfax in 2000 in a "premeditated and aggressive" attack while they were both students at Duke University. The two were friends, but had never been romantically involved, according to the statement.....

Tyson, a politics professor at Scripps College in California, alleged that Fairfax had forced her to engage in oral sex with him in 2004, after they first engaged in "consensual kissing" in his hotel room in Boston. Fairfax has said the encounter was consensual — a claim Tyson rejects — and that her accusation "simply is not true.".....

The accusations against Fairfax are far from the only scandal roiling Virginia's Democratic leadership. The state's governor, Ralph Northam, was hit with calls for his resignation from Republicans and Democrats alike after it was revealed that Northam's 1984 medical school yearbook page included a racist photo of a person in blackface next to another person wearing a KKK hood.....


ANY election - or political or judicial appointment - could be scuppered by women making decades old allegations against one of the candidates. Normally it would be impossible to PROVE that the accuser was lying so maybe we should just accept every allegation as true and thus make politics impossible?? (This guy is a black Democrat so obviously anyone can be targeted!)
 

O'Sullivan Bere

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
14,492
where there's a sufficient showing of being engaged in sexual misconduct??
. . .
ANY election - or political or judicial appointment - could be scuppered by women making decades old allegations against one of the candidates. Normally it would be impossible to PROVE that the accuser was lying so maybe we should just accept every allegation as true and thus make politics impossible?? (This guy is a black Democrat so obviously anyone can be targeted!)
We aren't talking about a criminal trial here with penal ramifications...we are talking about fitness for this job.

Employers have to make such decisions regularly and more expeditiously than a criminal trial in the private sphere and have different criteria and wider concerns.

I agree that a good faith opportunity to be heard should be afforded to accusers and the accused if sought, much like US companies often have an internal grievance procedure for those that seek such a forum.
 
Last edited:

NativeWildCat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
1,452
[video=youtube;3qo-FiOCBYo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qo-FiOCBYo[/video]
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
51,884
Trumps nominee to fill Kavanaugh's former seat on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals could be in trouble. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) says he's heard Naomi Rao told another senator she was pro choice. A second GOP senator is also thought to have expressed concerns.

Meanwhile the full Senate is expected to vote to confirm Erik Miller to the liberal leaning 9th Circuit Court of Appeals next week. It would be the first time in 100 yrs that a judge has been confirmed against the wishes of both senators from a state.

Update: Miller just confirmed to 9th Circuit.
 
Last edited:

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
51,884
Okay Trump has just finished filling the vacancies on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Allison Jones Rushing, a member of the anti gay "Alliance Defending Freedom" has just been confirmed. This court has been involved in holding up Trumps travel ban. When Trump came to power, it had a 10-5 liberal majority. Now its only 9-7 among active judges.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - Wikipedia
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,071
Okay Trump has just finished filling the vacancies on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Allison Jones Rushing, a member of the anti gay "Alliance Defending Freedom" has just been confirmed. This court has been involved in holding up Trumps travel ban. When Trump came to power, it had a 10-5 liberal majority. Now its only 9-7 among active judges.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - Wikipedia
So judges decide on party lines now, not on the basis of the law, or of precedent? The judiciary is not intended to be another House of Congress, deciding what laws can be enforced.

Trump's appointment of right-wing judges is just going to bring the Justice system in massive disrepute when it becomes obvious the judiciary is way to the right of the population and what they expect from the law. A future President & Congress is going to have to clean up another of Trump's smelly messes.
 

Betson

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
16,698
So judges decide on party lines now, not on the basis of the law, or of precedent? The judiciary is not intended to be another House of Congress, deciding what laws can be enforced.

Trump's appointment of right-wing judges is just going to bring the Justice system in massive disrepute when it becomes obvious the judiciary is way to the right of the population and what they expect from the law. A future President & Congress is going to have to clean up another of Trump's smelly messes.
How many conservative judges get appointed under a democrat president?

You are spouting nonsense if you don't think both parties do this.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,071
How many conservative judges get appointed under a democrat president?

You are spouting nonsense if you don't think both parties do this.
Many of these judges are well to the right of being "conservative".

Conservatives used to accuse Democrats of appointing "activist" judges who act like a Super-Congress directing the legal process. But that is exactly what Trump is doing.

Conservatives used to accuse Democrats of expanding the power of the Executive more than is warranted by the Constitution - yet Trump's clear intention is that the judiciary will back him when he wants to declare a "National Emergency" as a means of acting without Constitutional or Congressional oversight.

Generations of US judges have laid down that the judiciary is not a legislature, under the separation of powers, yet the President seems to want it to become just that, by approving his every whim.
 

Paddyc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
9,227
How many conservative judges get appointed under a democrat president?

You are spouting nonsense if you don't think both parties do this.
More than you think.

Obama proposed Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court and he was considered by all parties to be utterly qualified for the role and a moderate. He was no fire-breathing socialist that's for sure.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
51,884
More than you think.

Obama proposed Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court and he was considered by all parties to be utterly qualified for the role and a moderate. He was no fire-breathing socialist that's for sure.
True but he was allegedly an opponent of the Heller judgement, in which SCOTUS had ruled the right to bear arms was an individual right. That concerned Republicans.
 

Paddyc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
9,227
True but he was allegedly an opponent of the Heller judgement, in which SCOTUS had ruled the right to bear arms was an individual right. That concerned Republicans.
Allison Rushing once interned for an anti-LGBT hate group called the Alliance Defending Freedom.
Now she'll be a federal judge — and she'll make law for decades, since she's one of the youngest judges ever confirmed.

Does that not concern you?

Or does sticking it to the libs trump everything?
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
51,884
Allison Rushing once interned for an anti-LGBT hate group called the Alliance Defending Freedom.
Now she'll be a federal judge — and she'll make law for decades, since she's one of the youngest judges ever confirmed.

Does that not concern you?

Or does sticking it to the libs trump everything?
It does concern me.

Update: Chad Readler just confirmed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes Kentucky, Ohio , Michigan and Minnesota. This is the 5th judge Trump has appointed to this court alone, which makes the court 12 conservatives and 5 liberals among the "active" members, It was already a majority conservative court but it is much more so now, and there is one more vacancy to be filled (by Eric Murphy) which is still due to be decided on at some stage.
 
Last edited:

Jack Walsh

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
9,109
It does concern me.

Update: Chad Readler just confirmed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes Kentucky, Ohio , Michigan and Minnesota. This is the 5th judge Trump has appointed to this court alone, which makes the court 12 conservatives and 5 liberals among the "active" members, It was already a majority conservative court but it is much more so now, and there is one more vacancy to be filled (by Eric Murphy) which is still due to be decided on at some stage.
Yes, I'd guess it does, and it should.

But as Paddy C has pointed out, for many of you Trump addicts, homophobia, racism, bigotry, sexism, misogyny, hypocrisy, corruption, criminality, crassness, stupidity and general complete incompetence and chaos of a POTUS are slightly distasteful byproducts to be suffered to ensure Liberal smugness and arrogance is checked.

The first instinct for many Trump supporters on P.ie when Trump does something outrageous, is not to try to defend his decision (tough job in most cases), but to steam on with a post to express glee at how this would make liberals fume.
If Trump issued an EO today to try to criminalise homosexuality, I can think of a good few P.e posters who instead of expressing outrage at it, or even attempt to defend it, would simply log in to say "jaysus, this is brilliant, popcorn time watching the liberal's heads explode"

Sad losers whose sad lives can only be improved by some brief adrenalin hit of seeing other people suffer more than them
 
Last edited:

Paddyc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
9,227
It does concern me.

Update: Chad Readler just confirmed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes Kentucky, Ohio , Michigan and Minnesota. This is the 5th judge Trump has appointed to this court alone, which makes the court 12 conservatives and 5 liberals among the "active" members, It was already a majority conservative court but it is much more so now, and there is one more vacancy to be filled (by Eric Murphy) which is still due to be decided on at some stage.
Glad to hear it, but too little too late.

Does it not concern you that the US is the only major democracy where judicial appointments are controversial? I'm not sure if Poland qualifies as a major democracy anymore.

You have a society like the Federalist Society that firmly believes that the constitution can only be interpreted as an 18th Century document without taking into account the overwhelming changes to the world since then which is nuts enough on its own...

but when Antonin Scalia decided that 'bear arms' should be used in a 20th century context and not an 18th century context so any restriction on weapons ownership goes out the window..... crickets.

Apparently when you let loonies have their massacre toys that's not judicial activism.
...... crickets.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,071
Peculiar the the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War to define the rights of former slaves, establishing US citizenship and the Right to Vote does not get the "original intent" treatment. Apparently, there are all sorts of unseen qualifications (possession of ID, possession of a driver's licence, literacy, taxpaying) to what should be a simple "One person One vote" proposition.

You cannot claim the Trump Administration, especially under the bigoted Sessions, has a sterling record on Civil Rights.



Trump Administration Suddenly Gets Interested in Civil Rights Mother Jones

(Unusually, the DOJ has opened a case in the shooting of a Californian black man by police. Perhaps Barr is marking a shift from the prejudice of Sessions and Trump).
 
Top