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.
Judging Trump’s Judges
I still don’t believe Trump is a conservative on domestic policy or responsible enough to lead our nation’s foreign policy. But he is starting to unify the party with the right moves, if his list of potential appointments to the Supreme Court are any sign.
Everyone on the list is an outstanding legal conservative. They are also all younger, smart, and committed. They would excel in any comparison with whom Hillary Clinton would appoint to the Supreme Court. Several of the possibilities, such as Tom Lee of Utah, Allison Eid of Colorado, and David Stras of Minnesota, are former law clerks of Justice Clarence Thomas, while others, such as Steve Colloton of Iowa and Joan Larsen of Michigan, clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. They are joined by other well-known judicial conservatives, such as Diane Sykes, Don Willet, Ray Kethledge, and Bill Pryor.
These names are a Federalist Society all-star list of conservative jurisprudence. In the interests of full disclosure, I count several of them as colleagues and friends. It is a good sign that, on one of a President’s most important decisions, Trump clearly turned to the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation for advice. Despite his anti-Bush rhetoric, Trump also owes a debt to the Bush administration. Many of the Trump possibilities were appointed by Bush or held positions in his administration. While the Bush administration’s foreign and domestic policies remain a source of debate for Republicans today, Conservatives must agree that most of Bush’s judicial appointments were stellar.
The other promising sign is that Trump’s advisers have looked beyond the lower federal courts to include potential nominees from the state supreme courts. State supreme court justices will have special sensitivity to the balance between federal power and state sovereignty. Many have run for office and already know what it is like to be attacked by the Left. They may prove more immune to the New York-Washington liberal media/academic elite that has swayed Justice Anthony Kennedy and other Republican appointees before him.
It also doesn’t hurt that many of the possibilities are from battleground states in the coming November elections. Trump’s team clearly shows respect for the voters in Colorado, Minnesota, Utah, Michigan, and Texas, where he has named state Supreme Court justices who have run for election.
I am thrilled by this list. But that said, I cannot trust Trump to keep his word. He has already flip-flopped on so many issues, before, during, and after the campaign. How do we know he would not start wheeling and dealing on judicial appointments if he were to win the Oval Office?
Published in General
And we should trust that he’ll stick by these nominees for more than 30 seconds because…
I might be persuaded if Trump signs a contract backed by a sizable bond (that he, himself has to self-insure) obligating him to stick to this list. His word alone? Nope.
It is a great list but as you said, it has little surety with the hourly and weekly vacillations of Mr Trump.
I don’t know if you have heard or seen this before (its a little known fact) but, he fights…… Ergo you can trust him.
Tom,
Step one is that we know his people have enough savvy to generate such an extensive list of reliably conservative candidates. Any one of these 11 could bring the court back from the edge of the cliff that it is now hanging over.
As of this morning, I had no reason to believe that Trump would go this far. I’ll take it one step at a time.
Regards,
Jim
No reason to think that he will stick by the nominees. Looking for a silver lining this at least is an attempt at being serious. Some one around Trump put some thought into this and he listened.
Yes, yes, Trump has his faults–including flipping and flopping. But we have two candidates from whom to choose, and only one would even consider putting forward a list like this. For that matter, Mitt Romney himself never presented a list as thorough and impressive as this.
There’s nothing Trump can do about his past, but he sure is making a lot of smart moves in the here and now.
I don’t know, it could be like those twitter interns that did things before, like in Iowa. He might have had no power over it or he might have thought it up all by his lonesome. How convenient.
We always wanted a pony and there’s gotta be a pony in there somewhere?
Peter,
I’m going to close my eyes and think of nothing else but your good thought. When I’m ready to open them again I hope (and pray) I’ll have something more than a headache.
Regards,
Jim
Trump first mentioned Pryor and Sykes on the night when everyone learned of the death of Scalia. He’s stuck by them so far.
His past! We’re talking about five minutes ago! It’s not like thirty years ago he used to break his word but he has an established track record since then of keeping it.
I’m unable to improve on Douthat’s take on this:
Bless you Mr. Robinson. You are an inspiring example of hope over experience.
Listening to the young Mr. Domenech on The Federalist Radio hour, he likes to relay the lesson of the new Trump development in D.C. It seems he brazenly promises whatever he needs to obtain permission* to do what ever the heck he wants. Usually what he wants only makes itself know after permission is given. What’s the saying? Fool me twice…
*Apparently he obtained permits promising he had financial backing that he did not and to use an architect he did not. Those permits were used to obtain the backing after the fact for another source.
Please don’t get mad, but this post strikes me as kinda funny:
“Trump’s SCOTUS choices look good. I agree with them. Some of them are even friends of mine. He seems to have sought, and received sage counsel!
….But,of course, I don’t trust him for one minute!”
If your belief us that he’ll do the opposite of what he’s telling us, then I guess you’d feel better if he said he’d nominate Bill Ayres?
By their fruits ye shall know them, as the Good Book says. When you watch an apple tree grow and bloom, it’s kind of an excess of skepticism to worry that it’s going to bear oranges.
Cross posted with member feed discussion:
Trump has insisted this is only a list for Scalia replacements – any other SCOTUS appointment he might get will be used as a bargaining chip with the Dems to get legislation he wants.
Then the point of this article was… what exactly? I suppose somebody had to comment on his list. Maybe you don’t like Trump and maybe you won’t vote for Trump, but we might be stuck with him. A little optimism wouldn’t hurt, for this beaten and battered R party.
I think this is a smart move, and the names seem to be right according to Mr. Yoo. Better than we will get with Clinton.
Right now Republican Senators are openly trashing the Republican nominee for the Presidency, what makes you think Reagan Coalition will get anything in the future?
Not at all. It’s perfectly fair to point out that we’re in agreement with a candidate’s promise, but that we don’t believe that promise. It’s true that there’s an analogous position of being in disagreement with a promise and disbelieving it, but disbelieving something is true doesn’t imply certainty of its negation. If that were the case, it would be easy to interpret Trump – just take what he says and assume the opposite.
This is basically where I am. Theoretically, Trump could earn my vote. But to do that he has to first earn my trust, and practically I have no idea how he’d do that prior to the election.
Forgive me, but all the long ball, tea leaf reading has not panned out yet for the GOP. By this logic, since Clinton (Bill) was handing off a sagging economy, we should have let Gore win, THEN taken the POTUS 4 years later.
Or, in 2008, there was no way any GOP candidate was going to win, and if he did, it would only be for one term anyway, since no party since FDR gets back to back two terms, so lose the one in 2008, then 2012 will be our year. I heard this argument made in 2008 when we lost by the way. Not sure that worked out.
So again, I am not sold on the idea that a win today is a loss tomorrow, and a loss today is a win tomorrow. So far, as a conservative it works like this:
Lose today, loss tomorrow
Win today, you really lost today, even though you won, and you will lose tomorrow.
It does not matter who I vote for, when I vote for them, my side always loses. It does not matter who wins elections, the left always advances it agenda. Oh, it slows down, but it only goes one way.
Where do conservatives, anywhere, have a clear, lasting win, that is in no danger of being rolled back, along the lines of Social Security?
Anyone? Buller?
What did he do to lose your trust?
You shouldn’t be as — as you say — none of us have a crystal ball. But, in answer to Peter’s question, that’s my response.
That and, again, I have no expectation that Trump will fight for these nominees. Most of America (sadly) is not clamoring for originalist judges. If we lose the Senate, is Trump really going to push against popular opinion?
I don’t know for certain, but I know which way I’d bet.
John Podhorzt blamed conservative voters for trusting what Congress said to get elected on a GLOP podcast. Basically, his argument was that they all lie, and so there was no reason anyone should feel any sense of betrayal.
Well.
If that is the case, and the #NeverTrumpers feel the anger directed at a Congress that over promised what it could (Repeal or Defund Obamacare) is unreasonable because those promises are just crap anyway, how then, can the same people single out Trump for lying?
If they all do it, then so what if Trump is saying whatever it takes to get votes? So did Rubio. So did Cruz. So did Jeb! So did Walker. So did Perry.
IF they all do it, then it is not logical to attack Trump for doing it.
Undeniably, this list is good news.
It is also undeniable that you can obtain sweet corn by plucking it from sewer trout – it’s just that you’d rather not have to do that.
Until and unless the rest of this situation improves, I’m not taking any of the free corn that’s being passed around.
In bold, above is the real problem. And all the bashing of Trump is not going to fix it.
Americans are for a big government that will give them things. They want judges who will support that. They are like addicts who know their lives are out of control, but who don’t want to give up their drug of choice. They want treatment to regain control, but still enjoy using. It does not work. And it will not work in America.
So all we have are short term victories. Trump is marginally better than Clinton. There is a bit more of a chance to get judges than with Clinton.
The argument that Trump = Warren for 8 years just does not hold water for me.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY FRIEND PETER ROBINSON???
Actually, Peter, “JK” as the kids say. (Ask your kids what it means.)
Since we’re about 2 days from a podcast, I need to know: does the represent a softening on your part to DT? Or something?
I propose a special podcast. I think we need to discuss this, you and I.
Because, look, if the two of us — friends for years and years — can at least discuss this honorably and rationally and civilly, despite our widening distance on the issue, maybe there’s hope for the Republican Party and the conservative movement in general?
One decent justice would be a great deal more than we would ever get from President Hillary Clinton, though, wouldn’t it?
What makes you suppose anyone would want to listen, I surely have no idea. But you’re on.
I agree that’s a bad argument.
As I’ve said before, I think there’s a double-digit probability that Trump will be marginally better than Clinton, but I also think there’s a (roughly) equal chance of him being catastrophically awful by ruining the economy, sullying the conservative movement beyond recognition, and getting us into a shooting war with Putin or the Chinese.
To be clear, I think the most-likely scenario is that he will be roughly as-awful as Clinton, though in different ways.