Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump Negotiates with Harris and Feinstein on Judge Picks
Since when do Senators get to choose Donald Trump’s nominees for the positions of federal judges? Since now.
In an article on Powerline which references an editorial piece in the Wall Street Journal , Trump has withdrawn three names from his original list of 50 judicial nominees. Imagine the outrage of Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein: all of the judges are considered to be conservative. The irony is that these potential judges and their records would otherwise be admired by people from the Left and Right. Patrick Bumatay is an assistant U.S. Attorney who specializes in drug enforcement; he is also a 40-year old gay Filipino American. Daniel Collins has a private law practice, was an associate deputy attorney general and worked on issues like child exploitation. And Kenneth Lee, also in private practice, was an associate counsel to George W. Bush and has a pro bono practice for the poor and incarcerated.
These are the men that Harris and Feinstein have rejected.
But both Senators offered an alternative for selecting nominees for the three open positions:
The Democrats want to pick one name from the White House list, one from their own and a third consensus nominee.
Both articles suggest reasons that President Trump might have agreed to this request. None of the reasons make any sense to me. They appear to be based on a hope and a prayer that the Democrats will be more cooperative toward future judges.
Consulting Senators in the past was done as a courtesy—you know, when Senators were willing to be more cooperative.
This decision bodes a bad future for our judiciary. Do you see something I might be missing that makes this a good strategy?
Published in Politics
He has more votes in the Senate than he did before the midterm election, so not sure I understand why he’s willing to cave so quickly. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
The WSJ article guessed that he might be looking ahead at Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat, hoping they won’t give a nominee as hard a time as Kavanaugh. Right.
So Harris & Feinstein are to be rewarded after their smearing of Kavanaugh? Republican senators need to put the kibosh on this.
< devil’s advocate mode = on >
The Constitution says that the Senate shall advise and consent. It does not stipulate at which point in the process they shall do so.
< devil’s advocate mode = off>
There is a tradition where the senators from the state of residence are consulted as to whether they find a nominee to the bench to be acceptable. They issue what is known as a “blue slip.”
This doesn’t automatically reject a nomination, but some senators eager to defend their own prerogative could decide to vote against the nomination based on that.
Not the Republicans, of course. All of our Senators are rock-ribbed stalwarts.
McConnell threatened in 2016 and 2017 to stop that. Crickets.
I want proof of life from RBG. She hasn’t been seen in weeks.
It changed a bit this year.
So, Trump is doing what he’s supposed to do in consulting Feinstein and Harris.
From Instapundit:
Okay. Consulting is one thing. Caving is quite another. I suspect we agree.
I don’t know anything, but I’ve become so incensed with some certain Republicans that I’ve considered that he should at least threaten them that he might not be so willing to nominate another stellar conservative next time to keep them in line with his other policies and political agenda. Hardball. If he’s such a “Democrat” or if he’s so unprincipled and non-conservative that would make perfect sense. Loyalty is a two way street.
But that also assumes they care about conservative judges, which I’m not sure is actually the case.
Oh well, interesting times!
I’ve decided to be angry with all of them. That makes my reaction pretty straightforward!
If Trump defers in any way to Feinstein and Harris after the Kavanaugh show trial, it can only be in the hopes of trading making the 9th Circuit only incrementally more conservative for locking in a conservative oriented Supreme Court. Not that F & H won’t renege on whatever might be agreed to, but the reality is that Trump has little chance of making much difference in the 9th Circuit while putting another conservative on the Supreme Court would be “yuuuuuuge”. It is important to not let the Roberts (Kennedy) swing vote have much sway.
@rodin, I agree about the importance of the selection for the next SCOTUS justice, but the Ninth Circuit has given Trump a lot of grief on some significant issues. But you’re probably correct. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see F&H renege; they’ll have some excuse that they had to make an exception due to some egregious behavior by the nominee. They simply can’t be trusted–nor should they be.
It’s not a cave until the nominee actually has the job. Up until then, it’s still a consultation.
Technically, even after the Senate votes to confirm a nominee the president still doesn’t have to give the person the job.
Technically that may be true, but why even go through such a meaningless exercise. H&F will know he was stringing them along. And just because they do similar things doesn’t make it okay for Trump!
Lately, I’ve wondered whether he’s succumbed to that disease most President’s do: wanting a second term.
Exactly. This is entirely the fault of Mitch McConnell, and the Republican senators who made and keep him Majority Leader. President Trump must not break his word and must call out McConnell, and Lindsey Graham as Judiciary Chair, for the real obstruction and betrayal. They always pose against the 9th and now are perpetuating that which they lie to us, claiming to oppose.
Bring back Amy Coney Barrett. Let the Dems rend their garments, scream, and wail. I’ll be busy celebrating, in fact I’ll be busier celebrating than an AK-47 at a Saudi wedding reception
The Republicans won’t always have the majority. They do take that into consideration.
Actually, I don’t think you even need the nod to arguing the other side for form’s sake. I wish PDT had sought the counsel of Senators more often in other matters as well.
But WT? dude – why does he have to start with these Senators?
All I have to say is, “Thanks for nothing, you Trump-hating never-Trumpers. If you’ve ticked him off enough to make him take these looney-left clowns seriously, then may all your court cases be tried before a Feinstein-Harris judge.
Naaawwwww . . . Trump doesn’t like losing, so this must be part of a plan. We’ll see with the next few nominees . . .
Thank you Susan for bringing this to our attention.
Trump should not give in on this issue.
The Ninth Circuit is overwhelming liberal, and needs to shift from being hard left to a more moderate stance.
Arizona is stuck in the Ninth Circuit. We want out and to not be ruled by our betters in California.
The Ninth Circuit has 29 seats authorized. There are only 23 Judges right now with 6 vacancies. Of the 23 judges, 13 are from California, and only 10 are from the remaining 8 states (AZ, NV, MT, ID, OR, WA, AK, and HI.)
Of the 23 judges, only 7 were appointed by Republicans (5 were appointed by W, and 2 by Trump), while 16 were appointed by Democrats (9 were appointed by Clinton and 7 by Obama). Here is the information from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit
.
I
have threatened towill ululate and rip off a clip from the WASR-10 when Ms. Barrett is confirmed.I don’t think so. Grassley did away with Blue Slips. I don’t know that Cocaine Mitch or Lindsey Graham brought it back. The great thing about this is that it shines a light on this issue.
Trump can feed the base, and Severe Trump Skeptics like me by nominating those judges. Now.
Oh come on. As a NeverTrumper/Severe Trump Skeptic, I am all for Trump ignoring Blue Slips and nominating whoever he wishes. Please don’t blame me for Trump’s behavior.
This is an excellent Post. It needs to be elevated to the Main Feed. Please “like” it today.
Actually no. They know the Democrats have and will change the self-made, self-serving rules to actually produce promised results. That is how the judicial nominee filibuster was ended by Senate Majority Leader Reid. Schumer will reduce hours of debate and end blue slips when necessary to help President Harris fulfill Democrats long term promises. We all know this.
President Trump needs to throw the red challenge flag on this, which would set more goodness in motion as we would see the Republican Senate deliver on all the promises it is within their power to fulfill.
Actually, Senator Grassley did not do away with blue slips. He just articulated a set of conditions under which they would not be strictly honored. Meanwhile the 30 hour debate rule and the short legislative work week continue unassailed, effectively ham-stringing the president and preserving the DNC resistance in every executive branch office not filled by a Republican political appointee.
This!