Trump is taking over the courts
mark94
Arizona
A plan has been revealed that will result in 650 federal judges being appointed in the next 12 months. This is more than double the number appointed by Obama in 8 years. The plan would stack the courts with conservative, originalist judges in their early 40s, assuring conservative control until 2050.
Trump will do this by eliminating 125 administrative judges within agencies and expanding the number of lifetime appointed federal judges by 450.These judges can be approved by the Republican Senate thanks to Harry Reid’s ending of the filibuster on appointments plus Mitch McConnel’s ending of blue slip vetos by individual Senators.
The Federal courts have been left leaning for 80 years, going back to FDR. As a result, the courts allowed more and more control of everyday life and commerce by the federal government, ignoring the clear intent of the Constitution. In less than a year, that could all change.
Trump will do this by eliminating 125 administrative judges within agencies and expanding the number of lifetime appointed federal judges by 450.These judges can be approved by the Republican Senate thanks to Harry Reid’s ending of the filibuster on appointments plus Mitch McConnel’s ending of blue slip vetos by individual Senators.
The Federal courts have been left leaning for 80 years, going back to FDR. As a result, the courts allowed more and more control of everyday life and commerce by the federal government, ignoring the clear intent of the Constitution. In less than a year, that could all change.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
29 comments
Same goes to all the celebrities who said the same thing, "We're waiting!"
Alexander Hamilton seemed to read the provision exactly that way: “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
That means you can’t indict and try a sitting president. He has to be removed first.
Obama was actually a prick about it. And a primary reason Trump was elected by those who voted for him was to change the Federal courts.
But regardless, it won't ever happen. When the Democrats take over the House in 2018, and IF they find enough Republican Senators to vote to convict him, and IF Mueller can actually put together enough charges to stick to Trump... Pence will just automatically pardon him if he ever wants to have a chance at the GOP nomination himself. After all, Trump is very popular with the GOP base and they won't look kindly on someone who was disloyal to him. And Trump will likely remain popular with the base even after being impeached. Of course, Pence could choose to let Trump's conviction stand, but then he'll lose the nomination to whichever candidate promises to pardon Trump (I'm guessing that would be Tom Cotton, but it could always be a wild card, much like Trump himself was in 2016... so perhaps Roy Moore? IDK).
Anyway, as to your point about Trump remaking the Judiciary, I strongly approve. It's one of several things that Trump and his people are quietly doing that I think will be a huge benefit to this country. (As another example, his FCC chief is finally getting rid of Net Neutrality. I believe this will Make The Internet Great Again. Seriously, I'm not kidding.)
I'm not sure I agree that the Judicial branch is so left-leaning. I read something a few years ago that said that the Federal and administrative courts were roughly evenly distributed between Democratic and Republican appointees. But the problem isn't just the composition of courts, it's that Republicans and conservatives in general are hamstrung by their silly belief in "Judicial Restraint," which is basically the belief that judges shouldn't do their job of interpreting laws and determining whether they're constitutional or not - that they should "defer" to state legislatures, congress, the president, and voter referenda in most matters. The end result is that liberal judges are MUCH more likely to challenge legislation that is brought before them. I think conservatives need to seriously rethink their approach to the bench. Judges are supposed to be the ones who put a stop to legislative and executive foolishness and the Tyranny of the Majority, not merely rubber-stamp it.
When the Senate was controlled by Democrats, the Republican Presidents nominated judges with no paper trail so they could be confirmed. A lot of them turned out to be liberal, activist judges.
That's true. I would like to see a conservative activist judge for a change. Or maybe even a libertarian judge. There actually are 5 or 6 of them out there, you know. If I were whispering in Trump's ear, I would tell him to nominate Janice Rogers Brown, Alex Kozinski, Andrew Napolitano, Randy Barnett, and Richard Epstein. If we get even 1 or 2 of them on the Supreme Court, that would be a real victory.
Just out of curiosity, what do you like about Napolitano that sets him apart in your mind from the others I mentioned?
Anyway, yes, all of the people on my list are at least 65 years old. I agree this is problematic. But I simply don't know of any young libertarian judges or law professors. If we need someone young, I would recommend choosing one of the lawyers from The Institute For Justice.
None of my suggestions will ever happen, by the way. Obviously. Just to take our guy, Andrew Napolitano, as an example: 1) no Democratic Senator would ever vote for him because he's a former Fox News host and he's a big ally of the Koch brothers; and 2) many Republicans would also protest and withhold their votes because he's gay. And also because Napolitano is pro-gay rights, pro-immigration, pro-drug and prostitution legalization, etc. Sadly he wouldn't have a leg to stand on in the Senate.
He's a good guy. Ron Paul was the only presidential candidate I'm aware of who ever openly said that he would nominate Napolitano to the Federal Bench (although I have to assume Rand Paul and Gary Johnson would have done the same).
I used to watch his show, Freedom Watch, all the time. Sadly, Fox cancelled it during the run-up to the 2012 election, possibly because they didn't want anyone on the air every night in primetime criticizing Prince Romney. They did the same thing with a show called The Independents, another decent show that was cancelled during the run-up to the 2016 election, again presumably because they didn't want anyone on the air every night in primetime criticizing whoever the GOP nominated (which turned out to be Trump, the candidate that provides libertarians with the easiest target for criticism).
Here's the thing though: Trump is basically doing everything that any other post-Tea Party Republican president would do, except that he's doing it with more opposition from members of his own party. If they had been elected instead, Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or Scott Walker would basically be trying to do the same exact things that Trump has been trying to do since his inauguration. But they would have been much more successful by now.
They wouldn't have to deal with as much pushback from members of their own party as Trump does. It's easy for Republican congressmen to oppose Trump because he's a lightning rod of controversy and because he picks fights with people whose support he seems to need. Admittedly, I find this amusing, but the resulting lack of progress is unfortunate.
Yes, the plan to pack the courts is a good thing, but it would have happened under a President Romney or a President Rubio just as well. Plus we would have had healthcare reform and a solid tax reform bill by now if we had a Republican president who was able to impose discipline on the GOP caucus, as Romney, Rubio, Bush, Cruz, etc., surely would have. Trump is an outsider and lots of people simply don't respect him on Capitol Hill, plus he's made lots of enemies while slashing and burning the GOP to the ground over the past two years, leaving them free to "vote their conscience." Think of it this way: can you imagine an online poll asking whether President Scott Walker should leave the GOP and become an independent? No, of course not. But online polls ask this about President Trump all the time. I wonder why.
Also, as I've said before, let's be honest, his judicial picks are not really his own, his nominees and appointees are not really his own, and even his foreign policy decisions are not really his own. He's still a novice and he's clearly deferring to others in virtually all matters. He's just not a deep thinker about these kinds of things. I can't imagine President Ted Cruz needing someone else to tell him whom to nominate.
My point is that we shouldn't be thrilled with this guy. We should be frustrated. Because this sad sack is probably the best we can get. Perhaps ever.
SJG
SJG
Marco and Romney take on the swamp ? I doubt it.
The President is getting advice on judicial appointments ? Yes, that is always the way it works. But, he is the one setting direction, selecting advisors, and making the picks. No President before Trump has ever selected such libertarian-friendly judges, across the board.
We can't know for sure what President Romney or Rubio would have done, we can only speculate. But in a post-Tea Party world, it would be hard to imagine any Republican president not at least trying to undo Obamacare and pass tax reform. And it stands to reason that they would try to deregulate using executive orders, too. Honestly, that's just the bare-bones minimum that we should expect from a Republican president nowadays. But I'm not even sure what you mean when you refer to 'taking on the swamp.' Or even 'government reform.' What do you mean by this? And who are these libertarian-friendly judges whom you say Trump has appointed? You probably mean conservative, not libertarian - they're definitely not the same thing. During the Obama years, the conservative legal movement began building a deep bench of jurists, so Trump has plenty to choose from (or rather, Mike Pence has plenty to tell Trump to choose from). But who do you think Romney would have chosen? Someone from the ACLU? Or perhaps the general counsel for Planned Parenthood?
Come on, don't be silly, he'd be choosing from the exact same pool of people that Trump is choosing from now. Anyway, here's some brief amusing articles about your conservative/libertarian hero; let me know what you think:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/04/flashb…
http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/26/from-i…
http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/26/from-h…
Come November of 2018, a lot more of those like him just might also be chosen!