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
Come to think of it, I can even propose a title for this podcast: “Making the Best of a Bad Situation.”
I had to look up “sewer trout”. And I’m so sorry I did.
This virulent hatred, this excoriating fury…I can understand feeling it toward someone who has already proven his or her ill will toward our country, like Omega and HillBilly, but even there, I’m not sure it would be worth evoking coprophagia.
I guess the voters who cast a record number of votes for Trump just aren’t as angry, as verbally abusive, as the so-rational #nevertrump-ers.
I have two words for you: David Souter.
I give much credit to Trump for this list of potential justices.
It’s not enough, but it is a very good start.
For the record: Trump has received a record number of votes in the primary. He has also received a record number of votes against him as well. A solid majority of the votes cast were for “Not Trump.”
That cleared up, I have tried to make my position as clear as possible: I am #NeverTrump because of the myriad reasons that Tom ably laid out and probably more.
I am equally #NeverHerself because the Clintons are essentially locusts – like the aliens in Independence Day – sent to strip bare the fields of the nation to line their own pockets.
Here in Louisiana, my vote is unlikely to matter. Trump will win by 10+% – and if he doesn’t, he’s sunk nationally anyhow.
Just to reassure you: the reference is not to coprophilia. It’s merely pointing out that when you have to sift through such detritus to find good news… it’s still pretty bad.
I have a better title, “Giving your life savings as well as handing over your children’s future to a con man when you know he is a con man and everyone you know is telling you that you are being conned.”
I wonder about this math. Voting “not Trump” is a very specific type of vote. In the early campaign a person voting for Carly was not really voting “Not Trump” or “Not Cruz” or “Not Rubio”. If I voted for Carly it did not mean that I could never support Cruz or Rubio. It was a positive vote for my preferred candidate not a negative vote against any or all the others.
The point when things could have been truly “Not Trump” was when there were 3-4 people left. People who hated Cruz but were endorsing or voting for him were voting “Not Trump”. Not every vote that went to the 16 other candidates was cast to show that Trump was unacceptable.
I went on some news show to comment on this thesis. Basically, I don’t think the conditions that needed to come about in order for Trump to be beaten ever arose – that being Trump alone against a single non-Trump candidate.
The “Trump Ceiling” was a real thing until “preference cascade” and the aura of being a “winner” kicked in late in the process.
The rest of the GOP has nobody to blame for the state of affairs but themselves. Too many candidates; too many egos. Despite the protestations to the contrary, if there had been an “establishment” it certainly seems as if the “establishment” candidate could have cleared the field of non-Trump candidates and gotten that head-to-head matchup.
Okay, maybe that’s too much of a mouthful, what about, “A Fool and His Principles Are Soon Parted.”?
I don’t mean to be glib, but are you joking? His entire life has been based around saying one thing and doing another. Need I quote chapter and verse? This has been amply covered by more eloquent writers than I.
yep like floating Carson and Palin as being on his VP shortlist. TOP MEN….WOMEN. I’m pulling for Palin to be the choice, that will be lots of crazy in one ticket!
There was a thread shortly after Garland was nominated that asked if anyone had any confidence that McConnell and the Senate would stand fast against the nomination or if they would cave. I need to go back to it but I seem to remember that the overwhelming consensus was that the GOP would cave. That Mc Connell has held so firmly is only a result of him reacting to the backlash he received.
Given that context, it seems awfully rich to be so harsh on Trump for a great list of potential nominees.
Of course, the Trump Tree has yet to bear any fruit. It’s grown from sapling to maturity, and is now in bloom. What fruit will we get? We don’t know. The flowers are starting to look good, but as you said, you judge by the fruit.
That should help Fox News ratings for sure.
Baby steps.
https://twitter.com/noahcrothman/status/733030033246330881
I look forward to discussing this list with Mr. Trump when I meet him at the conclusion of my Trump University course.
If conservatives get behind Trump and help him win, won’t that also help to keep the House and Senate in Republican hands? If Mr. Trump starts to change his mind on important choices, like Supreme Court Justices, a conservative congress can “negotiate” with him to improve his choice.
This is a fine list, with many excellent choices and at least one former student, Allison Eid. The list dominates anything that could come from Hillary Clinton.
There will be no hearing on Garland so long as this list is thought representative.
There will be a collective sigh of relief. And if the Democrats go after this list, it will hurt them, I think.
I guess it was covered before I joined (2 months ago) because I’ve gotten this “I’m not going to go into it again” response every time I Inquire what commentators on this site think Trump has been deceptive about. It always comes down to: he’s vulgar! (What are you people–the Hapsburgs?) He’s impulsive! ( had a crazy impulse to join a field of 17 candidates and stay in even though everyone regarded him as a joke at first…) Never does what he says he will do! Not sure what you’re getting at; with real estate projects, the construction often differs from the preliminary plan becaus of the need to gain local approvals, but still, west Manhattan stands. I don’t see why you feel he’s so mendacious. (However, I respect the obvious force of your conviction.)
So no, I wasn’t joking, I was just questioning the conventional Ricochet wisdom.
Please, have a pleasant and peaceful evening.
Until he gets out his phone and pen and/or starts working the democrat side of the aisle to bolster the weak republicans he’ll be able to peal off the majority.
Just vote Trump. It’s easy.
That’s my motto.
I’m a Trump fan though, always have been.
More evidence that #NeverTrumpers are not persuadable. For pity’s sake, you know Hillary Clinton will appoint leftists. You won’t even take a chance that Trump might do what he says he will. Someone explain how that’s not irrational.
It seems, when it comes to Trump’s deficiencies, you keep forgetting to ask, “compared to what?”
#NeverHillary
Richard,
Thanks. That clarifies a lot. One step at a time.
Regards,
Jim
Well, this week he showed he was deceptive about self-funding his campaign so that he wouldn’t be beholden to donors, which, he claimed, set him apart from his opponents.
He also proved to be deceptive about releasing his tax returns, making the blatantly false claim that he can’t release them because he’s being audited.
He’s made comments and then on several occasions claimed he didn’t make them, even though they are on tape.
Looks like Judge Willet wasn’t consulted before he was added to Trump’s list:
In November we will have only two real choices – Trump or Hillary. Trump has released a list that is filled with “young, smart, outstanding legal conservatives” in John Yoo’s estimation. Trump didn’t try to triangulate to please a few moderates or liberals or leftists. With Hillary we have NO chance of getting anyone even close to these people and she will probably also have a Democrat Senate. I will take a chance against no chance any time. The pursuit of perfection would produce pestilence, in this case. I am coming around to Trump in large measure because of the horrible alternative.
Note:
Comment redacted for profanity. Please read the Code of Conduct and do not attempt to circumvent the automatic swear word filter again.An interesting explanation is here:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/128267369491/the-tells-for-cognitive-dissonance
Look at the “Too Many Explanations” section.
Well, let’s think about it.
Trump acts largely in his own interest, and is very much willing to wheel and deal to get what he wants. So, if he is going to do a deal to get something he wants, it would have to be something he wants from somebody opposed to these judges, e.g. Senate Democrats.
Is there actually a case where Senate Democrats will have something President Trump wants, and the price to cave on it will be a judicial appointment? I mean, I don’t have a crystal ball, but isn’t it considered unlikely that the Republicans will gain the White House and lose the Senate majority? If there’s no Democrat majority, why would he do a deal?
Regardless, the unstated assumption is that Trump will actually want something badly enough to pay a large price for it. Even if you assume Trump doesn’t care about conservatives on the Supreme Court, he certainly recognizes other people do, and will try to extract something big in exchange. What would that be?