Democrats praise Trump nominee for 9th Circuit

[INVAR]

Grow up, life is hard.

I'll have to admit that attempting to cover for reneged promises and lies while spinning every unflattering truth into some kind of dimensional chess genius for Trump has to be quite the endeavor for you people.

[Mod1]

I'll have to admit that attempting to cover for reneged promises and lies while spinning every unflattering truth into some kind of dimensional chess genius for Trump has to be quite the endeavor for you people.

This is not the topic.

[Jazzhead]

Where is the evidence that Mr. Bennett has a "limited view of gun rights"?   Keep in mind that state AGs often take positions in amicus briefs that reflect the politics of their state.   Is that what Bennett did?   And what evidence exists that such a brief (if I'm right about that) reflects Bennett's personal view on the matter?

All I'm saying is let's not go off half-cocked because of some horror headline that Dems have said positive things about a guy.   

[Hoodat]

There are currently seven vacancies on the 9th Circuit appellate court.  That is nearly one-fourth of the total membership.  It is critical to appoint seven 'Scalia' types to this court.  Trump should defer to Ted Cruz on this one.

Also, there are over 25 vacancies on the lower courts of the 9th Circuit.  These should have all been filled by Feb 28, 2017.  Someone is dropping the ball, big time.

If only we had someone in the White House who understood the importance of this.

[Polly Ticks]

Disappointing.

[Hoodat]

@Jazzhead

This to me is the kiss of death:

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Democrat, asked Mr. Bennett why he backed legalizing same-sex marriage in Hawaii even before the U.S. Supreme Court had established a nationwide right.

“As a private citizen, I felt it was appropriate for my voice to be heard,” Mr. Bennett said.

Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat who has found few of Mr. Trump’s appeals court nominees palatable, raved over Mr. Bennett. She praised him for saying judges sometimes should look beyond legal precedent to reach their rulings.

Without exception, Judges should always rule based upon the law as written, and not upon what they wish the law said.  This guy is a judicial-fiat-loving liberal douchebag.

[Hoodat]

Mark Jeremy Bennett (born February 24, 1953) is a Honolulu, Hawaii attorney who served as Attorney General of Hawaii from 2003 to 2010 in the two-term administration of Republican Governor Linda Lingle. He is the first attorney general appointed by a Republican governor since the governorship of William F. Quinn,

Mark Jeremy Bennett is also a liberal who believes that law should be written by judges - not legislators.

[Hoodat]

My guess is that they will come up with a new definition of "conservative" to fit Trump' actions (or inactions). 

They did that the other day when I was told Trump's use of the term, "broke in " has a completely different definition from the term, "break in."   

An anti-Trump populist posted the dictionary definitions that showed exactly that.  Conspicuously absent from that thread was any contrary evidence provided by anyone.  Just the difference in parts of speech alone should have clued anyone in.

[INVAR]

Mark Jeremy Bennett is also a liberal who believes that law should be written by judges - not legislators.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Democrat, asked Mr. Bennett why he backed legalizing same-sex marriage in Hawaii even before the U.S. Supreme Court had established a nationwide right.

“As a private citizen, I felt it was appropriate for my voice to be heard,” Mr. Bennett said.

Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat who has found few of Mr. Trump’s appeals court nominees palatable, raved over Mr. Bennett. She praised him for saying judges sometimes should look beyond legal precedent to reach their rulings.

And again - we were assured and promised that Trump would be nominating Originalists and Constitutionalists to the Bench, and that was reason No. 1 why we were told to support and vote for the guy.

So I'm laughing my ass off at those who insist that those who criticize Trump and point out yet another bogus promise reneged upon are stopping "at nothing, including the dissolution of our rule of law, to settle your loss in the primaries", given the guy Trump nominated to the bench has openly told Congress that the rule of law is what he personally feels it should be.

[Jazzhead]

HERE is some limited information about Mark Bennett from National Review.   As I suspected,  he's been in involved in various amicus briefs;  but as I noted above these aren't necessarily indicative of his personal views or (more to the point) his philosophy of judging.  Indeed, he's never been a judge. 

I see no evidence at this point for savaging President Trump for this nomination;  Mr. Bennett needs to be questioned by the Senate and we will then be in a better position to assess his bona fides.   Seems he's mostly a specialist in anti-trust and complex litigation.   

Again, what evidence do we have suggesting he's not supportive of the Heller decision regarding gun rights?       

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

This to me is the kiss of death:

Without exception, Judges should always rule based upon the law as written, and not upon what they wish the law said.  This guy is a judicial-fiat-loving liberal douchebag.

C'mon, man.

Just because someone has a political view as a private citizen that you disagree with doesn't mean he'll be an activist judge.  And sometimes activist judges are applauded by the right - see, e.g., Scalia and his decision in Heller.   

His opinion supportive of gay marriage is hardly evidence that he's a "judicial-fiat-loving liberal douchebag".   Lots of conservatives I know support the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection.   

[INVAR]

His opinion supportive of gay marriage is hardly evidence that he's a "judicial-fiat-loving liberal douchebag".   

Well we say he is.

[Jazzhead]

Well we say he is.

Why do you give a damn whether your neighbors can marry?  Mind your own business.  Oh - I forgot - you're the sort of bedroom-lurking Christian who can never mind his own business.   

[aligncare]

C'mon, man.

Just because someone has a political view as a private citizen that you disagree with doesn't mean he'll be an activist judge.  And sometimes activist judges are applauded by the right - see, e.g., Scalia and his decision in Heller.   

His opinion supportive of gay marriage is hardly evidence that he's a "judicial-fiat-loving liberal douchebag".   Lots of conservatives I know support the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection.

Nice counter.

People forget most of their fellow Americans who vote D are not necessarily ideological Leftists, but liberals who disagree on somethings and maybe agree on others. America and the constitution belong just as much to our left leaning neighbors as it does to us.

[INVAR]

Why do you give a damn whether your neighbors can marry?  Mind your own business.  Oh - I forgot - you're the sort of bedroom-lurking Christian who can never mind his own business.   

Why do you give a damn that I have a secret arsenal?  Mind your own business.  Oh, I forgot - you're the sort of tyrannical nosy creep who wants to use the government to take away rights and property so you can feel safe.

[Sighlass]

And, please, if you answer, do so without dragging the Bible into your tantrum; to do so would be an act of extreme disrespect.

How about a joke instead... So.. Two Corinthians walk into a bar...

[Right_in_Virginia]

How about a joke instead... So.. Two Corinthians walk into a bar...

 @Sighlass  Please don't take this the wrong way, but I never really thought of you as clever before. But this is great.   Have you any more to share??  (Pretty please  )

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Trump has nominated over 100 federal judges - over 30 have been confirmed.  I don't like this one either because of his expansive view of the 14th Amendment, and overly-restrictive view of the Second.

But all the caterwauling about how this proves all the skeptics right on judicial nominations is ridiculous.  Would you rather have someone who nominated 100 good ones and one stinker, or the 100 stinkers and 1 good one we might have gotten from Hillary.

The Dems are dragging their feet as hard as possible, yet amazingly, Trump actually set a record for the number of federal judges confirmed in his first year.  People who argue that these positions should all have been filled within a month of him taking office are simply revealing their own ignorance of the nomination and confirmation process.  The Senate won't go any faster than it is.

http://time.com/5066679/donald-trump-federal-judges-record/

I still don't like this nominee, but he is so out of character compared to the other nominees that I wonder if it is part of a deal to ram through some other nominations, either judicial or otherwise.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

His opinion supportive of gay marriage is hardly evidence that he's a "judicial-fiat-loving liberal douchebag".   Lots of conservatives I know support the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection.

Lots of conservatives I know support the Equal Protection Clause as well -- given that it is in the 14th Amendment.  But I don't know many judicial conservatives who thought that clause applied to gay marriage.

[txradioguy]

Lots of conservatives I know support the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection.

It doesn't apply to gay "marriage" anymore than it applies to Obamacare.

You're repeated and purposeful misinterpretations of the Constitution get tiresome sometimes.

[Cyber Liberty]

Trump has nominated over 100 federal judges - over 30 have been confirmed.  I don't like this one either because of his expansive view of the 14th Amendment, and overly-restrictive view of the Second.

But all the caterwauling about how this proves all the skeptics right on judicial nominations is ridiculous.  Would you rather have someone who nominated 100 good ones and one stinker, or the 100 stinkers and 1 good one we might have gotten from Hillary.

The Dems are dragging their feet as hard as possible, yet amazingly, Trump actually set a record for the number of federal judges confirmed in his first year.  People who argue that these positions should all have been filled within a month of him taking office are simply revealing their own ignorance of the nomination and confirmation process.  The Senate won't go any faster than it is.

http://time.com/5066679/donald-trump-federal-judges-record/

I still don't like this nominee, but he is so out of character compared to the other nominees that I wonder if it is part of a deal to ram through some other nominations, either judicial or otherwise.

It's not just about who the Judges are, but which court they're headed for.  The Ninth desperately needed some balance because of all the loony-toons lefties on it, and this was a bad seat to flub.

[GrouchoTex]

Lots of conservatives I know support the Equal Protection Clause as well -- given that it is in the 14th Amendment.  But I don't know many judicial conservatives who thought that clause applied to gay marriage.

Apparently, the 14th amendment means anything anybody wants to mean...

[Cyber Liberty]

It doesn't apply to gay "marriage" anymore than it applies to Obamacare.

You're repeated and purposeful misinterpretations of the Constitution get tiresome sometimes.

I notice he forms those misinterpretations in order to cast social conservatives in a bad light.  That comment was framed as a "Do you still beat your wife" type of comment.  Polemicists love to do that.

[Cyber Liberty]

Apparently, the 14th amendment means anything anybody wants to mean...

Yup!@  The Rorschach Test of Amendments.  You can tell a lot about a polemicist by how he uses the 14th.

[Hoodat]

C'mon, man.

Just because someone has a political view as a private citizen that you disagree with doesn't mean he'll be an activist judge.  And sometimes activist judges are applauded by the right - see, e.g., Scalia and his decision in Heller.   

Good grief, @Jazzhead .  Did you even read what I posted?  Nowhere did I mention his political view.  Nowhere. 

I have a problem with ANYONE who interjects their personal viewpoint, and even worse, personal feelings, in any judicial ruling at the expense of written law.  In other words, I detest ANYONE who legislates from the bench.

I clearly understand that you hold the opposite view - that you applaud judges who use the power of the bench to write 'laws' that are contrary to the Constitution, yet promote your particular viewpoint.  But do not for a minute assume that I think the same way as you.  I do not.  I will always be the one siding with the Constitution of the United States of America here while you argue that the means are somehow justified by the ends.

His opinion supportive of gay marriage is hardly evidence that he's a "judicial-fiat-loving liberal douchebag".   Lots of conservatives I know support the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection.

I don't even know what his opinion of same-sex marriage is.  But the fact that you describe it as 'gay' marriage instead of 'same-sex' marriage proves that you are an enemy of the very 'equal protection' that you pretend to champion.  Marriage laws in states like California held zero regard for preference.  Thus, equal protection applied.  But now that 'preference' has been added to the equation, equal protection no longer applies.  Because my particular preference is denied while the preference of a select class is allowed.  And not by law either.  Nor by the Constitution.  It is allowed purely on the fiat of black-robed tyrants.

Personally, I believe that the members of a society should all have a voice in setting the rules that mold and shape a society.  Yet clearly you do not.  And THAT is what separates you from me.  Not your view on same-sex marriage.  Not your view on gun ownership.  But your utter contempt for allowing society to come together and choose its own laws.