visionary Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 https://apnews.com/0e74beb1191a4489a20e3576ce3339eb?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics Quote Trump intends to announce his Supreme Court pick on Feb. 2 President Donald Trump said Wednesday he intends to announce his nominee for the Supreme Court on Feb. 2, and three federal appeals court judges are said to be the front-runners to fill the lifetime seat held by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon. The leading contenders, who have met with Trump, are William Pryor, Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman, according to a person familiar with the process who was not authorized to speak publicly about internal decisions and discussed the search on condition of anonymity. The three, ranging in age from 49 to 54, were on the list of 21 potential high court picks Trump announced during his presidential campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Obvious question: Are these guys the pro-lifers and 2nd amendment guys he promised his voters? If so, I expect this to give us plenty to talk about. I'm more interested in where they stand on the rest of the Bill of Rights, particularly things like due process and the 1st amendment. I'd also like to know whether they think corporations get the same rights as people. I guess I'll have to do some reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 26, 2017 Author Share Posted January 26, 2017 Quote People familiar with the search process have said that Hardiman, 51, and Gorsuch, 49, have emerged as the frontrunners to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, with Pryor’s chances fading in recent weeks due to opposition from the evangelical community. Trump has said he plans to name a justice next week. A second Trump adviser said that while Barry has unquestionably backed Hardiman, her support has not been determinative: “I don’t think it is fair to say the only reason he’s got juice on the list is because of her.” A third official who’s been involved in the process said winning support from Trump’s family has been one of the key elements of the search. Barry, 79, is a well-respected judge who was first appointed to a federal district court more than three decades ago by President Ronald Reagan. President Bill Clinton elevated her to the appeals court in 1999, and she assumed senior status there in 2011. Hardiman joined the 3rd Circuit in 2007. “They are regularly sitting together, deciding cases together, participating together in oral arguments,” said appellate lawyer Matthew Stiegler, who also writes a blog about the Third Circuit. Stiegler was among those who see Barry’s hidden hand behind the steady ascent of Hardiman, who was among the lesser-known judges under consideration. “Judge Gorsuch is a judge who was on a lot of conservative radar screens a year ago and I don’t know if the same could necessarily be said of Judge Hardiman,” he said. Of Hardiman’s new place on the Supreme Court shortlist, he added: “I think one good explanation for that is that [Trump’s] sister regards him very, very highly.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 My natural inclination is that the Alabama AG would be the frontrunner, and the one who gave me the most trouble. Reading about Evangelical opposition due to him upholding Constitutional rights makes me feel better about the pick. I think Hardiman, Pryor, Gorsuch is what may be the "best". Sucks that Obama didn't win and likely fill Scalia's spot. Hope everyone knows we have a new precedent for blocking SC nominees... but I am not sure how many recent nominees got in over a Senate party not in power. Wow - both Thomas and Souter were HW confirmations with Democratic Senates. So this IS somewhat new precedent. That was 1990 and 1991... frankly it makes GOP look like a bunch of nagoffs for not considering Garland. Supreme Court SHOULD NOT BE A POLITICAL WEAPON!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 It's gonna be Pryor. Trump gets his orders from Bannon and Sessions. On a weird note, I live in NC and they have commercials running here asking residents to call our congressmen to tell them to confirm Sessions as AG. Just seems odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 It's gonna be Snoke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 36 minutes ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said: It's gonna be Pryor. Trump gets his orders from Bannon and Sessions. On a weird note, I live in NC and they have commercials running here asking residents to call our congressmen to tell them to confirm Sessions as AG. Just seems odd. I haven't seen those commercials here in Raleigh, but I haven't seen much TV recently. I fear Pryor, he would be awful. Hardiman seems fairly mainstream so he's my hope...which means he has no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 I like that they are young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 So, is it possible to withhold a vote for 4 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 2 minutes ago, Springfield said: So, is it possible to withhold a vote for 4 years? Estrada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 I said in a diff thread, if Trump was smart, he would nominate Merrick Garland. And let the Senate vote no. Then pick the New Model Scalia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 2 hours ago, Springfield said: So, is it possible to withhold a vote for 4 years? It used to be possible but now the only way you could do that is if the Party opposing the candidate has the majority. Minority parties no longer have the ability to vigorously hold up nominations (or even legislation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 47 minutes ago, nonniey said: It used to be possible but now the only way you could do that is if the Party opposing the candidate has the majority. Minority parties no longer have the ability to vigorously hold up nominations (or even legislation). Not the case right now. It could be stopped. The question is will the REP change the filibuster law to include the Supreme Court?? I believe they would because they will do anything to get what they want. What seems weird for either party is a simple majority vote can overturn a rule requiring 60 to pass. http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/10/is-the-supreme-court-filibuster-in-play-in-2017/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 9 minutes ago, HOF44 said: What seems weird for either party is a simple majority vote can overturn a rule requiring 60 to pass. I believe Reid is to thank for that. Which is what nonniey is talking about. The filibuster and whether or not is defacto-dead because Reid did it for stuff they wanted, and then threatened to broaden it if the GOP continued to be able to hold things up. They didn't, so he didn't broaden it. So the argument against it being defacto-dead is that he didn't actually broaden it. There, I just saved you from reading the impending 6 pages of arguments about whether or not the filibuster is dead for SCOTUS appointments, defacto-dead across the board, what the definition of defacto is, and whether or not Reid is the fault of this or it's the GOP. Which, btw, will be be a repeat of the argument that was had in another thread a few months ago, to the point it will feel like everyone is copy/pasting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Pryor is a zealot and considers Roe v Wade “the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.” He would be a terrible choice, so naturally it will probably be him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 33 minutes ago, tshile said: I believe Reid is to thank for that. Which is what nonniey is talking about. The filibuster and whether or not is defacto-dead because Reid did it for stuff they wanted, and then threatened to broaden it if the GOP continued to be able to hold things up. I get what Reid did, but my point was how did it get set up for a simple majority vote to change a rule that would require a super majority on some items. Seems like it should have taken a super majority to change the rule. Seems badly written at the beginning and it was taken advantage of by the Dems, and now the Rep will broaden it more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Gorsuch seems the most appropriate given the 8-10 line summaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 26, 2017 Author Share Posted January 26, 2017 From the other thread: http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Trump-narrows-down-Supreme-Court-nominee-list-to-3-10880465.php Quote Of the three leading candidates, only Pryor faced significant opposition when nominated to the appeals court. Senate Democrats refused to allow a vote on his nomination, leading Bush initially to give Pryor a temporary recess appointment. In 2005, the Senate confirmed him 53-45, after senators reached an agreement to curtail delaying tactics for appellate judgeships. Gorsuch was approved by a voice vote in 2006. Schumer and Feinstein were among the 95 senators who voted for Hardiman's confirmation in 2007. Hardiman is a colleague of Trump's sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry. Pryor has a reputation as staunch conservative with a taste for academic rigor. He once called the landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion the "worst abomination in the history of constitutional law." As Alabama attorney general, he also angered some conservatives for urging a judicial discipline panel to remove Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore from office after he refused to obey a court order take down a Ten Commandments monument from the lobby of the state judicial building. Some conservatives also have recently criticized Pryor for his vote in 2011 in favor of a transgender woman who sued for sex discrimination. Quote Gorsuch is the closest on Trump's list to a Washington insider — the son of former EPA administrator Anne Gorsuch, educated in the Ivy League and at Oxford, law clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy and Bush-era Justice Department official. His opinions and outside writings, praised for their clear, colloquial style, include a call for courts to second-guess government regulations, defense of religious freedom and skepticism toward law enforcement. He has contended that courts give too much deference to government agencies' interpretations of statutes. He sided with groups that held religious objections to the Obama administration's requirements that employers provide health insurance that includes contraception. Hardiman has sided with jails seeking to strip-search inmates arrested for even minor offenses and has supported gun rights, dissenting in a 2013 case that upheld a New Jersey law to strengthen requirements for carrying a handgun in public. Last year, he joined two 3rd Circuit colleagues in affirming the $1 billion settlement of NFL concussion claims, rejecting complaints that men with depression and mood disorders were left out of the deal. A Massachusetts native, he settled in Pittsburgh, where his wife comes from a family of prominent Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Trump announced he will announce tomorrow night at 8 instead of the 2nd. Trying to change the narrative? Can the GOP convince 8 Dems to vote for whomever the choice is? Or are we headed for the nuclear option right away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 By the way, I saw somewhere that Hardiman is the favorite. (Let me see if I can find out where) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: Trump announced he will announce tomorrow night at 8 instead of the 2nd. Trying to change the narrative? Can the GOP convince 8 Dems to vote for whomever the choice is? Or are we headed for the nuclear option right away? Reckon that depends on who the nominee is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 Not sure I believe this account, but something to think about maybe: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said: Reckon that depends on who the nominee is. If it's one of the 3 being mentioned everywhere? I think the Dems are prepping for war regardless of who is nominated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: If it's one of the 3 being mentioned everywhere? I think the Dems are prepping for war regardless of who is nominated. I haven't read up on them yet. Been too distracted by the EOs. Figure whoever it is will probably be hyper partisan, pretty young, and will ultimately be confirmed anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 From what I have read, neither Gorsuch or Hardiman are Scalia-like and seem more in the mold of the moderate conservative justices. Obama not getting to fill this seat was BS, but not getting someone from the Scalia like looney bin would be alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.