Having been dealt a number of legal defeats at the hands of Obama-appointed judges in the early days of his administration, Trump is preparing to fill roughly 120 vacancies on lower federal courts around the country. The first of those new appointments will come later today in the first slate of 10 nominees, which will be followed by "monthly waves of nominations" according to a White House official quoted by the New York Times.
One is Justice Joan L. Larsen, a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and law professor at the University of Michigan, who now serves on the Michigan Supreme Court. She will be nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati.
The other is Justice David R. Stras, a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas and law professor at the University of Minnesota, who now serves on the Minnesota Supreme Court. He will be nominated to the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis.
The announcement on Monday will include three other nominees for federal appeals courts: Amy Coney Barrett, a law professor at Notre Dame and former law clerk to Justice Scalia, to the Seventh Circuit in Chicago; John K. Bush, a lawyer in Louisville, Ky., to the Sixth Circuit; and Kevin C. Newsom, a lawyer in Birmingham, Ala., who served as the state’s solicitor general and as a law clerk to Justice David H. Souter, to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta.
Many of the new appointments are expected to be pulled from the list of 21 "potential Supreme Court Justice picks" that Trump released back in September....so far, 3 of the 21 picks have been nominated for new positions.
1. Keith Blackwell
2. Charles Canady
3. Steven Colloton
4. Allison Eid
5. Neil Gorsuch
6. Raymond Gruender
7. Thomas Hardiman
8. Raymond Kethledge
9. Joan Larsen
10. Mike Lee
11. Thomas Lee
12. Edward Mansfield
13. Federico Moreno
14. William Pryor
15. Margaret A. Ryan
16. Amul Thapar
17. Timothy Tymkovich
18. David Stras
19. Diane Sykes
20. Don Willett
21. Robert Young
Of course, Democrats have called on the Senate to obstruct all new appointments from the Trump administration to the greatest extent possible.
But liberal groups expressed alarm at the prospect of a federal bench filled with Mr. Trump’s appointees. “The Trump administration has made clear its intention to benefit from Republican obstructionism and to pack the federal courts with ultraconservatives given a stamp of approval by the Federalist Society,” said Nan Aron, the president of the Alliance for Justice, referring to the conservative legal group. “We’ll be scrutinizing the records of these nominees very carefully.”
Ms. Aron said Democrats should be wary of Mr. Trump’s nominees. “Given the critical importance of the circuit courts,” she said, “it is incumbent upon the Senate to treat its duty to provide advice and consent very seriously.”
That said, with Republicans controlling a majority in the Senate and the "nuclear option" barrier already breached, we suspect there is very little they can do other than appear on CNN every 15 minutes to complain about Republicans doing all the same things that Obama did for 8 years.
In a historic vote, Senate Republicans on Thursday crushed "a Democratic blockade" - in Reuters" words - of Trump"s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, in a fierce partisan brawl, approving a rule change dubbed the "nuclear option" to allow for conservative judge Neil Gorsuch"s confirmation by Friday.
The Senate voted 52-48 along party lines to repeal a rule allowing filibusters against Supreme Court nominees,invoking the so-called nuclear option, and clearing the way for Gorsuch confirmation who now needs a simple majority for nomination. Shortly thereafter, the Sante voted 55-45 to end debate on Gorsuch’s nomination, setting up a final vote expected Friday. Thanks to the new rule enacted earlier Thursday, a simple majority was needed.
"This will be the first and last partisan filibuster of the Supreme Court," Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor, accusing Democrats of trying to inflict political damage on Trump and to keep more conservatives from joining the high court.
"In 20 or 30 or 40 years, we will sadly point to today as a turning point in the history of the Senate and the Supreme Court, a day when we irrevocably moved further away from the principles our founders intended for these institutions: principles of bipartisanship, moderation and consensus," Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor.
McConnell initiated the rules change by raising a point of order asserting that simple-majority votes should advance Supreme Court nominees to final confirmation votes. Democrats tried to delay it by offering motions to postpone a vote and to adjourn the chamber, but both fell short as Republicans stayed unified.
Earlier Thursday, McConnell said the rules change would restore the Senate’s tradition of considering a Supreme Court nominee based on credentials instead of ideology. He called the Democratic filibuster of Goruch “a radical move” and something “completely unprecedented in the history of our Senate.” “This threatened filibuster cannot be allowed to succeed or to continue for the sake of the Senate, for the sake of the court and for the sake our country,” he said.
Earlier in the day, Democrats successfully blocked Gorsuch’s nomination from getting 60 votes earlier Thursday morning, prompting Republicans to go “nuclear” and change the rules to allow Gorsuch and future Supreme Court nominees to clear the Senate with only a simple majority. Democrats tried to delay the rules change vote by offering motions to postpone a vote and to adjourn the chamber, but both fell short as Republicans stayed unified.
Democrat senators Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Joe Donnelly (Ind.) voted with Republicans to allow President Trumps’s pick to move forward.
Republicans defended the party-line vote on the nuclear option, saying Democrats were to blame for blocking Gorsuch, who they believe is eminently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) argued that Democrats should “come to their senses.”
“The truth of the matter is that throughout this process, the minority led by their leader has been desperately searching for a justification for their preplanned filibuster,” he said ahead of Thursday’s votes.
McConnell added that the current stalemate was part of a decades-long Democratic effort to “politicize the courts and the confirmation process.” “The opposition to this particular nominee is more about the man that nominated him and the party he represents than the nominee himself,” he said.
Republicans hinted for weeks that President Trump’s nominee would be confirmed one way or another. McConnell confirmed during a leadership press conference that he had the votes to go “nuclear” if needed.
According to The Hill, Republicans appeared resigned to the tactics, arguing if Democrats won’t support Gorsuch — who received the American Bar Association’s highest rating — they won’t allow any GOP nominee to join the Supreme Court.
* * *
The Republican-backed rule change on Thursday maintains the ability to filibuster legislation. In the past, the nuclear option has been averted when moderates in the two parties compromised to avoid a showdown, but the ferocious partisanship in Washington now made that impossible.
Experts said eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments could make it more likely that presidents, with little incentive to choose centrist justices who could attract support from the other party, will pick ideologically extreme nominees in the future.
Ending the filibuster also would make it easier for future Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed when the president and Senate leadership belong to the same party.
With the failure of Republican healthcare legislation in Congress and with federal courts blocking the president"s ban on people from several Muslim-majority nations from entering the United States, securing Gorsuch"s confirmation took on even greater importance for Trump, who took office in January.
* * *
Senate confirmation of Gorsuch, 49, would restore the nine-seat court"s 5-4 conservative majority, enable Trump to leave an indelible mark on America"s highest judicial body and fulfill a top campaign promise by the Republican president. Gorsuch could be expected to serve for decades.
The court"s ideological leaning could help determine the outcome of cases involving the death penalty, abortion, gun control, environmental regulations, transgender rights, voting rights, immigration, religious liberty, presidential powers and more.
The nine-seat Supreme Court has had a vacancy since conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016.
* * *
Update 2: Republican"s start roll call to implement "nuclear option":
Update 1: As expected, Democrats have just voted to temporarily block Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination, setting up a “nuclear option” vote for later in the day. Around 11:30AM EST, Senators voted 55-45 on ending debate over President Trump’s pick leaving Republicans 5 votes shy of the 60 vote threshold required.
As we noted earlier, Republicans are planning a vote later today to remove the 60-vote threshold for cloture on Supreme Court nominees, lowering it to a simple majority.
And with that vote, the official Democrat policy objectives for the next two years have been publicly recorded:
* * *
Back in 2013, before Republicans seized control of the Senate during the 2014 mid-term elections, Democrats became the first party to pursue the "nuclear option" in order to appoint Obama judges over the objection of Republicans. Both Obama and then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid praised the use of the "nuclear option" at the time:
Obama: "The gears of government have to work. And the step that a majority of senators took today, I think, will help make those gears work just a little bit better."
Harry Reid: "It"s time to change. It"s time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete."
And while Democrats celebrated, Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor to warn his colleagues on the other side of the aisle that they just might come to regret their decision "sooner than you think."
"If you want to play games, set another precedent that you"ll no doubt come to regret. To my friends on the other side of the aisle, you"ll regret this and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think."
Today, it"s looking increasingly likely that "sooner" has come. As NBC reports, barring some unexpected, last-minute deal, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will almost certainly trigger the so-called "nuclear option" later today to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
Senators spent all day yesterday debating the matter, but the outcome — a permanent change in rules that will affect both the Senate and the nation"s highest court — has been as good as settled since at least week when Democrats confirmed they had the votes required to block Gorsuch"s nomination.
Here"s how it will work:
The Senate is slated to hold a procedural vote, called a cloture around mid-day Thursday. Sixty votes are needed to end debate and move forward to a final vote that requires a simple majority of 51 to confirm Gorsuch.
But Democrats have enough votes to prevent, or filibuster that first step. When the cloture vote fails, McConnell is likely to begin the process of changing the rules to eliminate filibusters on Supreme Court nominations, with a vote on that expected later Thursday afternoon. Then the final up-or-down vote to confirm Gorsuch is expected to take place on Friday.
Meanwhile, the rule change will come after Senate Democrat Jeff Merkley wasted 15.5 hours "filibustering" on the Senate floor overnight. Ironically, as even Chuck Todd notes in the video below, Merkley fully supported the Democrats" use of the "nuclear option" in 2013.
As The Hill notes, a group of Republicans and Democrats led by Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Christopher Coons (D-Del.) negotiated intensely over the weekend in hopes of avoiding a blowup over the rules, but they fell short.
“The negotiations with which I was heavily involved have failed to come up with a compromise, which saddens me. There’s so little trust between the two parties that it was very difficult to put together an agreement that would avert changing the rules,” Collins told reporters.
“I worked very hard over the weekend, as did several Democrats and several Republicans, but we were not able to reach an agreement,” Collins added, estimating that about 10 lawmakers were involved.
The group held calls as early as 6:30 a.m. and as late as midnight in hopes of avoiding a rule change adopted along party lines.
Coons said the talks fell apart because of pressure from Senate leaders, who weren’t interested in a deal, and from the conservative and liberal bases of the party, who view the Supreme Court’s composition as a top priority.
“The fact that both leaders were opposing negotiations also, frankly, made it difficult,” Coons said. “Both caucus leadership and outside groups were a source of steady and aggressive pressure against some consensus negotiation, in both parties.”
Of course, while Republicans will undoubtedly declare victory tomorrow upon Gorsuch"s nomination, it"s only a matter of time before the tables are turned once again and their decision comes back to haunt them.
While Democrats debate whether or not to filibuster the Neil Gorsuch nomination for Supreme Court, moments ago they delayed for one week an initial committee vote on Gorsuch. As The Hill first reported, Senator Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the committee, said Democrats had requested that the committee"s vote on Gorsuch be punted to next week.
"I understand that the minority would like to hold [him] over," Grassley said during the Judiciary Committee"s meeting on Monday. Under committee rules any one member can request that a nomination be held the first time it appears on the agenda.
Today"s move is not a surprise: Democrats were widely expected to delay the committee"s vote until next week. The delay means the committee vote will likely take place on April 3, giving Republicans days to meet their goal of winning Gorsuch"s confirmation by the full Senate by the end of that week. The Senate will then go into a recess.
Democrats are demanding a 60-vote threshold for Gorsuch"s approval, but it is unclear whether the party has enough votes to support a filibuster against Trump"s nominee.
Meanwhile, Republicans have suggested they will change the Senate"s rules allowing a filibuster for Supreme Court nominees if Democrats block Gorsuch. The committee held a four-day hearing on Gorsuch"s nomination last week, with Trump"s nominee appearing before the committee for three days.
Democrats also delayed Rod Rosenstein, nominated to be deputy attorney general, by a week.
We discussed the reasons why Judge Neil Gorsuch is quite likely to be installed on the Supreme Court following this week’s hearings in an earlier post: In short, he’s eminently qualified and universally esteemed, Democrats lack the votes to stop him (barring a further escalation of tactics that have already burned them badly, and that can be overcome through retaliatory maneuvers), and opponents have failed to settle on a coherent approach to impede his confirmation. But that doesn’t mean that Senate Democrats and left-wing interest groups — who have worked hand-in-glove in the past — aren’t up to their usual tricks. When they don’t have a substantive case to prosecute, there’s always the scurrilous character assassination card to play. New York Magazineis on it, publishing a piece that quickly began making the rounds on Lefty social media. “Surprise” number one:
Jennifer Sisk, who graduated from the University of Colorado Law School last year, says that during a Legal Ethics and Professionalism class last spring, Gorsuch told his students that companies should ask women about their pregnancy plans during job interviews, and claimed that many women plan to manipulate their employers by taking maternity leave, then quitting to stay home with their children. Sisk sent a two-page letter describing the incident to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. It was posted on Sunday night by the National Employment Lawyers Association and the National Women’s Law Center…He told them that “all our hands should be raised because ‘many’ women use their companies for maternity benefits and then leave the company after the baby is born.” She says he “implied that women intentionally manipulate companies and plan to disadvantage their companies, starting from the first interview.”
This is remarkably thin gruel on its face, especially since the key charge rests on an inference of something Gorsuch allegedly “implied.” But the gruel gets thinner. Surprise number two, courtesy of Glenn Reynolds:
The quoted “former student,” identified by New York Magazine as one “Jennifer Sisk, who graduated from the University of Colorado Law School last year,” is not just any former student, but a former operative for Democrat Mark Udall. (“Sisk went to college in Massachusetts, at Wellesley, then worked as an aide in Mark Udall’s Senate office in Washington.”) New York Magazine leaves that rather important fact out.
But of course. This concerned former student just happens to have worked as a Democratic operative (on behalf of Colorado’s hapless and defeated “Senator Uterus”), which colors her credibility. In fairness, though, just because she’s an explicitly partisan actor doesn’t necessarily mean that her concerns should be dismissed entirely out of hand. Maybe she has a point. Perhaps an independent assessment from another student who was in the classroom for that discussion could be illuminating. Surprise number three, via Ed Morrissey:
But in a letter provided to NBC News on Monday by a person helping with the Gorsuch nomination process, another former student wrote to the committee to refute Sisk’s claims. “Although Judge Gorsuch did discuss some of the topics mentioned in the letter, he did not do so in the manner described,” Will Hauptman wrote in the letter, which was sent on Sunday. Hauptman wrote that Gorsuch often asked his students to consider the challenges they would face as new attorneys, including the tension between building a career and starting a family, especially for women. “The seriousness with which the judge asked us to consider these realities reflected his desire to make us aware of them, not any animus against a career or group,” he wrote.
Here’s an outcome the robed betrayers haven’t factored into their subversive rulings. [Via Matthew Bracken]
On Tuesday, the United States Court Of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in the matter of Kolbe v. Hogan, upheld Maryland’s so-called “assault weapon” ban. The divided decision dashes hopes raised last year when a three judge panel ruled the doctrine of “strict scrutiny” should apply in determining if edicts like the Orwellian-named Maryland Firearm Safety Act violated presumed Bill of Rights protections.
As noted in an Oath Keepers analysis at the time, that still left open the question of how courts would interpret the “legal” benchmark for weapons designated “in common use at the time.” What’s clear from the en banc ruling is the dominant thought on the Fourth Circuit repudiates reality by denying the function of the militia, to field citizen soldiers bearing “ordinary military equipment” intended to be taken into “common defense” battles.
The court contorted that, denying such weaponry is protected, and further, “even if the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are somehow entitled to Second Amendment protection — the district court properly subjected the FSA to intermediate scrutiny [levels of scrutiny explained -DC] and correctly upheld it as constitutional under that standard of review.”
You can read about the decision all over the place. Pro-gunners are decrying it. Gun-grabbers are in-your-face rejoicing. No amount of punditry or quoting the Founders is going to change things. What’s needed is a Supreme Court ruling, and they could side with Maryland or just let everything stand by doing nothing, that is, by not hearing the case and letting the Fourth’s decision stand.
So what can we do to increase the odds of a favorable outcome?
For now, we need to be holding our Senator’s feet to the fire on who they vote to confirm.
Let’s look at the Kolbe judges, specifically at the ones who evidently believe the Second Amendment has nothing to do with “the security of a free State.” From the decision:
Judge King wrote the opinion for the en banc majority, in which Chief Judge Gregory and Judges Wilkinson, Motz, Keenan, Wynn, Floyd, Thacker, and Harris joined in full; Judge Diaz joined in part as to the Second Amendment claims and joined as to the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process claims; and Judges Niemeyer, Shedd, and Agee joined as to the Fourteenth Amendment claims only. Judge Wilkinson wrote a concurring opinion, in which Judge Wynn joined. Judge Diaz wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment as to the Second Amendment claims. Judge Traxler wrote a dissenting opinion as to the Second Amendment claims, in which Judges Niemeyer, Shedd, and Agee joined. Judge Traxler also wrote an opinion dissenting as to the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim and concurring in the judgment as to the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim.
Now, focusing on the anti-2A contingent, let’s look at who appointed the robed oath-breakers, and who supported their confirmation. Of significance: Republicans participated in it all, and one of the most vocal opponents of an individual rights “interpretation” of the Second Amendment is Ronald Reagan appointee J. Harvie Wilkinson, who took SCOTUS to task for confirming that truth.
That brings us to another nominee currently under consideration for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch. Evidently saying “the Second Amendment … may not be infringed lightly” is enough for all the national gun groups to declare this guy the Second Coming of Scalia. What they won’t answer – because they can’t – is “Why?” There are plenty of competing interests in his personal background that raise flags and due diligence scrutiny, but instead concerns are not just being dismissed – they’re being ignored. We’re expected to just trust the Republicans to do the right thing — like they did for (to) us with William Brennan, Earl Warren, Warren Burger, David Souter…
If and when the Supreme Court hears Kolbe, will it be a crapshoot?
No one expects the Senate Judiciary Committee to try and pin Gorsuch down on specifics of cases he’s likely to hear. That said, there’s no rule against asking about understanding and principle, and it’s not expecting too much for those taking their “advice and consent” role seriously to pose some pointed questions on just what he thinks the Founders meant in the Second Amendment. And requiring unequivocal responses under oath.
What other job lets candidates play coy with how they intend to follow the rules, and then hires them?
With Trump, we’ve been given a rare opportunity to shape the future direction of the high court and subordinate federal courts for years to come. He would not have been elected without strong conservative and gun owner support, and that was given because he promised things were not going to be business as usual.
Now is no time to be applying rubber stamps only to find we’ve been sold (yet another) bill of goods. If the Supreme Court ends up saying we have no right to keep and bear arms of the type needed to defend Liberty, good people are going to end up experiencing things a lot more painful than buyer’s remorse.
—–
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
On the heels of several public comments and tweets from President Trump with regard the bias and politicization of the judiciary in America, U.S. Supreme Court nomineeNeil Gorsuchtold Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal that he found the President"scomments "disheartening" and "demoralizing."
On February 4th, President trump criticized a federal judge who blocked his travel ban as a "so-called judge." On Wednesday, the president argued that his power to limit immigration shouldn’t be challenged in courts.
"The courts seem to be so political, and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what’s right, and that has got to do with the security of our country, which is so important," Trump told a conference of police chiefs and sheriffs in Washington.
And now, Bloomberg reports that Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut told reporters about Gorsuch’s comments after meeting privately Wednesday with Trump’s first U.S. high court nominee.
"He certainly expressed to me that he is disheartened by demoralizing, abhorrent comments made by President Trump about the judiciary," Blumenthal said at the Capitol.
"But I will be asking for more specific and forthcoming comments to those kinds of questions before I determine how I will vote.”
Additionally, CNN provided further color on Blumethal"s conversation with Gorsuch.
Blumenthal, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he brought up examples of Trump"s recent rhetoric, including the tweets and the President"s criticism of the federal court Wednesday morning before law enforcement officials.
That"s when Gorsuch expressed disappointment in Trump"s comments, Blumenthal said. "He didn"t disagree with me on that point."
"I said to him if a litigant before your court -- and the President of the United States is in fact a litigant right now in the immigration ban cases -- said what President Trump said, you would hold him in contempt of court," Blumenthal said, adding that Gorsuch did not give a response to that comment.
"I said they were more than disheartening and I said to him that he has an obligation to make his views clear to the American people, so they understand how abhorrent or unacceptable President Trump"s attacks on the judiciary are."
Finally, Ron Bonjean, who is leading communications for Gorsuch during the confirmation process, confirmed Gorsuch called Trump"s tweet about the "so-called judge" "disheartening" and "demoralizing" in his conversation with Blumenthal.
It"s going to be tough for President Trump to swallow that from "the perfect nominee"... especially if/when the 9th Circuit Court rules against his appeal.
Instead of this...
The response among some prominent conservatives such as Laura Ingraham suggests that a major fissure may be developing between Trump and his SCOTUS nominee.
Is this a terrible sign that Gorsuch desires to fit in with the elites—or a sign that he really is that clever? https://t.co/2GXOPvBeGo
On Monday evening, a Federal Appeals Court announced that the legal showdown with the Trump Administration will take place on Tuesday evening around 6pm, when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments on whether to restore President Trump’s executive action on immigration and refugees. Oral arguments will be made by phone, with each side getting 30 minutes of argument time. A recording of the call will be made public after the hearing.
At around the same time, the Justice Department filed a brief with the Court of Appeals in support of President Donald Trump’s travel and refugee ban. The filing said the Trump administration executive order that bans travelers from seven nations is a “lawful exercise” of presidential authority. A federal judge in Washington state put the order on hold Friday.
“The court’s sweeping nationwide injunction is vastly overbroad,” the administration said of a Seattle judge’s ruling Friday that halted PresidentDonald Trump’s plan. After the filing, a three-judge panel of the appeals court scheduled a hearing by phone for Tuesday at 3 p.m. in San Francisco.
As Bloomberg recaps, since the Seattle judge’s ruling, refugees and travelers have been rushing to the U.S. before another legal turn closes the door. The 11 days since Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order have been chaotic as travelers were initially stranded at airports, protests raged worldwide and a litany of lawsuits were filed across the country. "Companies, universities, citizens and refugees have sought relief from the courts in crucial tests of the president’s unilateral ability to decide who threatens the nation."
The question before the federal appeals panel in San Francisco is narrow, springing from a case brought by Washington and Minnesota, which argued that the ban was unconstitutional and that their economies were being harmed. U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle temporarily halted Trump’s ban on Friday. The Justice Department seeks to void that order. The loser is likely to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the Trump administration loses its appeal, the case will go back to the Seattle court, where Robart would weigh whether to reject the ban on a longer-term basis. The administration reiterated that Congress has granted the president “broad discretion to suspend the entry of any class of alien into the country.” It also argued that an alien outside the U.S. has no substantive right for a judicial review of a denial of a visa. Nor, do the states have a right to act on their behalf, government lawyers said.
The order doesn’t violate the Constitutional rights of lawful permanent residents, the government argued. The executive order is “neutral with respect to religion,” it said.
If the government fails to persuade the appeals court to block the order, it might petition the Supreme Court to intervene. Five of the eight justices would be needed to reverse that decision. However, Kathleen Kim, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles said “I think it’s unlikely this makes it to the Supreme Court,” adding “I believe that if the Supreme Court wants to maintain its integrity as a majoritarian body serving as a legitimate system for checks and balances, it will not consider an appeal.”
That would leave the merits of the arguments to be debated in a Seattle courtroom, with the case and perhaps others making their way to the top court for review in months or even years - especially if appeals courts issue conflicting rulings on whether it’s legal. The immigration case has already cropped up in the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, with Democrats questioning whether he would be able to check Trump’s exercise of executive power. Gorsuch, a conservative who favors originalism when interpreting the Constitution, could be the tie-breaking vote on the currently split court.
President Donald Trump shakes hands with Judge Neil Gorsuch after nominating him to the Supreme Court during a ceremony January in Washington, DC. (image: Getty)
(The Real Agenda News) Democrats and Republicans agreed on one issue after the election: the most important thing at stake was the Supreme Court.
The most prominent reason why Democrats, Liberals and other left-leaning people are so scared about confirming Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court is that he is the closest to an ‘originalist’ when interpreting the US Constitution.
People who read his opinions and know the way he thinks explain he won’t attempt to adapt the meaning of what is written on the founding document and instead will rule as the founders who have ruled when the Constitution was drafted and approved.
Judge Neil Gorsuch will be the tilting vote on issues like abortion, immigration, rights for members of the LGBT community and the environment. According to pundits and experts, Gorsuch is as close as it gets to late Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, who passed away last year.
After being nominated by Donald Trump on Tuesday to fill the ninth court seat as soon as he is approved by the Senate, Gorsuch will join the conservative wing over the next few decades and help decide some of the most important matters in recent years.
Some of those issues will be studied this year and range from abortion to the environment or immigration and in the near future, the court may address issues such as the regulation of the Second Amendment. These are the key rulings that the Court will be looking at as early as April.
Trump’s executive order which installed a temporary ban on immigration from seven countries just 10 days after arriving at the White House has been denounced before federal courts. The Supreme Court is ultimately responsible for deciding whether it respects the US Constitution or not.
Opponents to the Executive Order issued by Trump argue that this type of veto is illegal and that it violates constitutional principles.
Current immigration laws prohibit discriminating against candidates for travel to the US because of their country of origin, according to an analysis by David J. Bier of the Cato Institute, but the Trump Administration can challenge that before a conservative majority court. Also, there is no constitutional right for foreigners to gain access to the the United States as a visitor or as a refugee.
On women’s issues, one of Donald Trump’s electoral promises was the election of a judge willing to revoke the 1973 ruling that recognised the right to abortion.
In recent years, several complaints have advanced through the judicial circuit against the restrictions imposed in many states governed by the Republican Party.
Opponents say that the arrival of one of them to the Supreme Court would be the first opportunity in decades to cut the rights of American women.
The issue of whether a woman has the right to abort her baby is surrounded by a lot of hypocrisy. While women’s groups argue that a woman’s body is hers and that the decision to abort should be hers and hers alone, these groups also demand that government provides tax payer money so that they can pay for their abortions or that the government finances places like Planned Parenthood so that women can have abortions for free.
If having an abortion is a decision that women should make all by herself, without coercion from anyone else, shouldn’t women also be responsible for the costs of such procedure as opposed to having tax payers subsidise it?
Another important issue that the current Supreme Court will deal with is that of environmental regulations. The court will examine the lawsuit filed by an employers’ association against the Clean Water Act, which seeks to eliminate the regulations approved by the Barack Obama because they believe they interfere with commercial matters.
When it comes to education, the Obama Administration decided that public schools must recognise the gender identity of their students. However, a complaint states that federal law interprets the obligation to give access to restrooms “according to the sex” of students and that in that definition it refers exclusively to the sex assigned at birth, not to the one they have chosen later.
This issue has to do with the ability of schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms according to the their later choice and not to the definition on their birth certificate. If the Obama decision is upheld, schools would be forced to build special bathrooms for transgender students or in many cases allow men to use women’s bathrooms and vice versa.
A conservative Supreme Court can opt for this interpretation, curbing one of the demands of the transgender community, which seeks to extend the civil rights frontier in the US. If, on the contrary, it establishes that schools cannot prohibit access to a bathroom based on gender identity, it will be the first great judgment in their favor.
As an originalist, judge Neil Gorsuch will most likely interpret the US Constitution as it was written by the founding fathers before ruling on any of the issues presented above, which may mean, Democrats and Liberals say, the end of important civil rights for women and members of the transgender community.
Before that happens, though, Democrats in the Senate have promised to obstruct and delay judge Gorsuch’s confirmation as much as possible because according to Nancy Pelosi, they see his nomination as a “hostile” act by President Trump.
Seemingly taking a page out of Europe"s idiotic government decisions, George Washington University Law Professor John Banzhaf is urging President Trump to go slow on appealing a court"s rejection of the administration"s travel ban and instead, follow Germany"s example and put GPS ankle bracelets on visitors from the seven targeted nations until a final decision is made.
As The Washington Examiner reports, a prominent legal expert said that the administration should wait to appeal until Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch gets to the court, giving Trump a 5-4 majority and in the meantime put the tracking devices on any refugee or visitor.
"Going to the Supreme Court now could result in a widely predicted 4-4 decision," warned George Washington University Law Professor John Banzhaf.
Wait instead, he urged, and in the meantime look to Germany"s model of using trackers on those it suspects of having terror ties — not all refugees.
"Imposing such conditions on admission is fully consistent with 8 USC 1182(f) which expressly gives the president the authority to "impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." It is also more likely to be upheld since it is far less objectionable than a total ban," he said.
Ankle bracelets are currently widely used by law enforcement and immigration agencies and Banzhaf suggested that it can be expanded and would be accepted by the nation.
"There have now been several major terrorist incidents in which authorities pointed out that they were suspicious of the perpetrator, but did not have sufficient information to arrest him, nor the vast resources necessary to provide effective surveillance of everyone under suspicion. GPS systems incorporated in ankle bracelets permit one agent to track hundreds of suspects in real time, and provide computer generated alerts if he goes anywhere suspicious (e.g., near a nuclear power plant), meets with other persons likewise wearing ankle monitors," he said.
We look forward to hearing the uproar from the liberal intelligentsia regarding invading the privacy of potential terrorists.
Mike Shedlock previously summed up the inaneness of the idea...
Moments from now, President Trump will announce his much anticipated nominee to fill Antonin Scalia"s vacant seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. Rumors of the most likely picks have been making the rounds for weeks with Judge Neil Gorsuch of Colorado emerging as a front-runner in recent days. That said, per the Washington Post, Trump has beckoned both Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman to Washington D.C. in advance of tonight"s announcement sparking rampant social media debate over whether their will be a last-minute Apprentice-style challenge to determine the ultimate winner.
CNN reported that Judge Neil Gorsuch of Colorado was already in Washington and that Judge Thomas Hardiman was on his way from Pittsburgh. There was no comment from the White House about why both men were needed in the capital, but social media exploded with satirical comparisons to Trump’s television show “The Apprentice,” as well as “The Bachelor.”
Gorsuch, 49, and Hardiman, 51, have emerged as Trump’s most likely choices. A third person on the shortlist — Judge William Pryor of Alabama — has seen his chances diminish as some Republican Senate leaders have said his confirmation would be a difficult.
Pryor’s outspokenness about overturning Roe v. Wade and other controversial remarks when he was Alabama’s attorney general made even his confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit a years-long ordeal.
Of course, with several Democrats in the Senate vowing to fight any nominee that Trump puts forward, tonight"s announcement is likely the easiest part of what will undoubtedly be a very contentious and drawn out path to confirmation. As we noted before (see "Schumer Vows To Fight Trump Supreme Court Nominee: "We’re Gonna Oppose Him Tooth And Nail""), "Fake Tears Chuck Schumer" recently told MSNBC"s Rachel Maddow that he plans to fight Trump"s pick "tooth and nail."
“We are not going to settle on a Supreme Court nominee."
"If they don’t appoint someone who’s really good, we’re gonna oppose him tooth and nail.”
"It"s hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump chooses that would get Republican support that we could support."
All of which brings us to the inevitable final question of whether Republicans in the Senate have the intestinal fortitude to implement the "nuclear option", something we suspect Democrats would do, and have done, with minimal hesitation.
The odds are heavily skewed towards Gorsuch...
With that, here is President Trump with his decision:
