Trump and the judiciary

[Ron]

Are the changes really substantial and/or dramatic?

The right wing media Trumpets it as vindication and proof of President Trumps trustworthyness.

Other sources suggest the impact if his appointments will be less than a game changer.

What do those in the know think and the rest of ya's think?

[French G.]

Obviously I am not in the know but looks to me like he is keeping a campaign promise, clearly an impeachable offense. Also, him ignoring the precedent of the home state senator giving assent tells me he is not trying to pick out leftist pleasing moderates.

And just maybe Trump's huge negatives lose him the general election. But I bet the senate gets redder on angry voter turnout. And them a D president will have their picks blocked. No sense a R senate playing nice and confirming picks, not ever since we went to Harry Reid Thunderdome rules right? May be why this doesn't get talked about, they don't want to admit how royally screwed Reid made them. That's the guy who restored a conservative judiciary, not Trump. Because chances are 26 states will be red flyover s-holes with two red senators for a long time. And the House will be a blue rabble and much to the delight of all of us whos in whoville nothing will get done in DC.

[MechAg94]

It has only been 3 years and it is only 150 or so judges.  At this point, it only slows down the leftward slide.  Another 4 years might make a difference.  There is still a slim and questionable conservative majority on the SC.  It will take more numbers to make a big difference and make up for weak conservatives.    

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/12/trump-judges-mcconnell-circuit-082836
Trump tightens grips on judges as McConnell wins 50th Circuit pick.  And Republicans are working to confirm even more judges before the Senate recesses next week.

I saw an article saying 25% of all circuit court judges were appointed by Trump and that at #45.  So I think that will have an impact though maybe not headline grabbing impact.  Lots of cases get decided that never make it to the SC.  I actually hadn't realized they were close to filling all vacancies.  

The rest of that article mentioned Repubs were willing to allow some Democrat favored judges through if Democrats will vote for the whole package, but not if Dems oppose it.  Dems were quoted as saying they have no intention of playing ball.  I hope that will be the case.  I don't want any Democrat judges let through.

Still, the judicial numbers are staggering. In three years, McConnell has confirmed two Supreme Court justices, 50 Circuit judges and 120 District judges. That last figure is roughly on pace with previous presidents, but McConnell is doing his best to outdo them.

170 federal judges.

[Hawkmoon]

If there was any lingering question about Trump's impact on the federal judiciary, the anti-Trump vitriol in this article should put all doubts to rest:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecreationproject/2019/11/legal-federalist-society-stole-federal-courts-conquered-washington-dc-imperiled-nation/

Apparently, appointing judges who might respect the Constitution and the rule of law is now "... a broadening bench of (invariably) young, (usually) white, (generally) male, (often) Catholic, (frequently) unqualified, (reliably) reactionary, and (intensely) agenda-driven federal judges committed to chopping up decades of legal precedent on the procrustean bed of natural law and constitutional fundamentalism;..."

[MechAg94]

He starts off pretty good.

As a result of these achievements, the Federalist Society has probably locked down for the next half-century a backward-looking, frozen legal and political vision – based on the precepts of natural law, textual interpretation, and original intent – that truly has nothing to do with the social, environmental, and technology dynamics of the 21st-century.

Yep, that is exactly the sort of judges I wanted Trump to appoint.  Win, Win.  I guess he was hoping for a different outcome.  His preference is scary.  

Seriously, if your nation is experiencing societal upheaval, the worst thing to do is water down the rule of law with a bunch of confusion and ambiguity.  A clear and simple framework of rules in which people can operate is the best way to ride through changes.  

Outside of that, hasn't the Federalist Society been making judicial recommendations for quite a while now?

[Hawkmoon]

Outside of that, hasn't the Federalist Society been making judicial recommendations for quite a while now?

Yes, but Obama wasn't interested. The people the Federalist Society recommends tend to believe in the Constitution, and politicians of a certain persuasion aren't interested in paying attention to that musty old document. Personally, if judges are going to have an agenda, I would much prefer that agenda to be supporting the rule of law and the Constitution rather than an agenda of dismantling the Constitution and making the rule of law into an a la carte menu of politically correct social causes.

[Chester32141]

Not so good … 

"Aside from the well-known power to impeach judges, Congress can also pack the Supreme Court. Yet it apparently has still another power, one little known: to abolish entire federal courts."

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/how_democrats_could_undo_trumps_lasting_legacy_in_the_courts.html

[MechAg94]

Not so good … 

"Aside from the well-known power to impeach judges, Congress can also pack the Supreme Court. Yet it apparently has still another power, one little known: to abolish entire federal courts."

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/how_democrats_could_undo_trumps_lasting_legacy_in_the_courts.html

Well lots of things could happen if Democrats got power back.  And given the type of people populating that party's elected offices these days, there would be little they wouldn't do to gain and hold power. 

[Ben]

Not so good … 

"Aside from the well-known power to impeach judges, Congress can also pack the Supreme Court. Yet it apparently has still another power, one little known: to abolish entire federal courts."

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/how_democrats_could_undo_trumps_lasting_legacy_in_the_courts.html

There's lots of stuff they could do while they're in power, but then there's also the Reid Rule to bite them in the ass down the road.

I generally don't like the idea of lowering oneself to fight in the gutter, but it seems there's little choice anymore with these nutballs. They all want to go Scorched Earth.

[230RN]

Hawkmoon said,

Personally, if judges are going to have an agenda, I would much prefer that agenda to be supporting the rule of law and the Constitution rather than an agenda of dismantling the Constitution and making the rule of law into an a la carte menu of politically correct social causes.

Hear, hear, and hurrah !