Trump and Judges

[corbe]

Trump and Judges
by Peter Spiliakos October 7, 2016 10:34 AM

<...snip...>

There is no reason to suspect that Trump knows or cares anything about the role the Supreme Court plays on abortion, religious liberty, or much of anything else. The path of least resistance for Trump would be to cut a deal with incoming Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer to nominate a blank slate (who would turn out to be a liberal) and then get Senate approval through united support from the Democrats and the votes of whatever Senate Republicans wanted to stay in Trump’s good graces, or who secretly weren’t all that upset about a Supreme Court that is aggressively liberal on social issues.

<..snip..>

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner  (3 or 4 stories down)

[Oceander]

Bingo!!!!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Trump and Judges
by Peter Spiliakos October 7, 2016 10:34 AM

<...snip...>

There is no reason to suspect that Trump knows or cares anything about the role the Supreme Court plays on abortion, religious liberty, or much of anything else. The path of least resistance for Trump would be to cut a deal with incoming Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer to nominate a blank slate (who would turn out to be a liberal) and then get Senate approval through united support from the Democrats and the votes of whatever Senate Republicans wanted to stay in Trump’s good graces, or who secretly weren’t all that upset about a Supreme Court that is aggressively liberal on social issues.

<..snip..>

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/440836/

The link doesn't work.  But I'd point out the following:

1) There is no evidence or argument that Trump would actually prefer to take the path of least resistance.  However, assuming that he does....

2) There is no guarantee that Schumer will become Majority Leader.  If he does not, then the path of least resistance (under the above assumption) would be to go along with whomever McConnell would prefer.  Therefore, the election of Trump creates the possibility of nominating/confirming  a conservative justice -- something that the election of Hillary Clinton does not offer because she really does care about those issues.

3) While nominating a liberal activist might be the "path of least resistance"on the single issue of judges if Democrats control the Senate, it would also amount to a huge betrayal of the GOP and likely would mean he'd lose any support among Republicans in the House or Senate.  That would leave him with no allies period, and likely create the path of most resistance moving on to other issues.

[corbe]

  fixed LINK

2) There is no guarantee that Schumer will become Majority Leader.  If he does not, then the path of least resistance (under the above assumption) would be to go along with whomever the McConnell would prefer.  Therefore, the election of Trump creates the possibility of nominating/confirming  a conservative justice -- something that the election of Hillary Clinton does not offer.

  If Schumer is majority Leader Trump appoints WHO Schumer wants.

  If McConnell is majority leader he and 95% of his Republicans in the Senate approve who Trump appoints, if past history is any indication.

[Free Vulcan]

As @jmyrlefuller pointed out, Trump will likely dole out SCOTUS nominations on a patronage basis if he wins. Ideology won't matter squat to him, just friendly payback.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

  fixed LINK

  If Schumer is majority Leader Trump appoints WHO Schumer wants.

What is your evidence of that?

You are certain that Trump will follow Schumer's lead, but will not follow McConnell's lead.  How can you know that?

[Oceander]

What is your evidence of that?

You are certain that Trump will follow Schumer's lead, but will not follow McConnell's lead.  How can you know that?

Past history, had you read the post.

[dfwgator]

Past history, had you read the post.

Trump couldn't do any worse than Judas Roberts.

[RAT Patrol]

“Neither the Founding generation nor their children nor their children's children, right on down to our grandparents' generation, were so passive about their role as republican citizens. They would not have accepted-did not accept-being told that a lawyerly elite had charge of the Constitution, and they would have been incredulous if told (as we are often told today) that the main reason to worry about who becomes president is that the winner will control judicial appointments. Something would have gone terribly wrong, they believed, if an unelected judiciary were being given that kind of importance and deference. Perhaps such a country could still be called democratic, but it would no longer be the kind of democracy Americans had fought and died and struggled to create.”  ~ Larry D. Kramer, The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 228.

What should matter when selecting men for office:

"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate, look to his character. The scriptures teach that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, able men, men of truth, hating covetousness. It is to the neglect of this rule that we must ascribe the multified frauds, breaches of trust, and embezzlement of public property which tarnish the character of our country and disgrace government. When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility, he sacrifices not only his interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country." Noah Webster, 1823

“When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, "just men who will rule in the fear of God." The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be sqandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.”

[Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337]

[Oceander]

Trump couldn't do any worse than Judas Roberts.

Oh yes he could.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

If Trump wins, I suspect all of his nominees will have the same last name.

[geronl]

The link doesn't work.  But I'd point out the following:

1) There is no evidence or argument that Trump would actually prefer to take the path of least resistance.  However, assuming that he does....
.

Trump is a liberal and he will appoint liberals.