Trump's SCOTUS picks

[jimnyc]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Presumptive Republican U.S. presidential nominee Donald Trump on Wednesday unveiled the names of 11 judges - eight men and three women, all white and all conservative - he would consider, if elected, to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

Six of them are judges who were appointed to federal appeals courts around the country by Republican former President George W. Bush. The other five serve on various state supreme courts.

Scalia's replacement could tip the ideological balance of the court, which now is evenly divided with four conservative justices and four liberals. Scalia, who died in February, was one of the court's most conservative justices.

"We're going to choose from, most likely from this list," Trump said in an interview with Fox News. But Trump said he could deviate from the list and added, "At a minimum we will keep people within this general realm."

All of Trump's 11 judges are listed as affiliated with the Federalist Society on the influential conservative legal group's website. The organization is known as a breeding ground for conservative legal thinkers.

It is unusual for a presidential candidate to release names of potential Supreme Court or Cabinet nominees before winning an election.

But Trump is working to assure conservatives in his own party that, if elected president on Nov. 8, he would not appoint a liberal or moderate to the court. Trump allies had encouraged him to announce the names of potential court nominees to allay fears among conservatives wary of a Trump presidency.

Trump's list includes: Steven Colloton of Iowa, a judge on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; Raymond Gruender of Missouri, also a judge on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals; and Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, a judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

It also includes: Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, a judge on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals; William Pryor of Alabama, a judge on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals; and Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The state supreme court jurists include: Allison Eid of Colorado; Joan Larsen of Michigan; Thomas Lee of Utah; David Stras of Minnesota; and Don Willett of Texas.

Democratic President Barack Obama in March named centrist appellate court judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy. But the Republican-led Senate has refused to hold confirmation hearings or a vote, insisting that Obama's successor should get to select Scalia's replacement.

Trump said in a statement that the 11 judges were "representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value" and said he would use the list as a guide for nominating a justice.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-identifies-11-potential-supreme-court-nominees-104824077.html?ref=gs

[Kathianne]

For many reasons, not the least being his propensity to change positions in nanoseconds, I can't trust that he would pick 'among them.' Indeed, true to form he releases a list, only to say, he would use the list as a guide for nominating a justice.

Previously in your article: "We're going to choose from, most likely from this list," Now he did say he'd use suggestions from the Federalist Society, which he did:
All of Trump's 11 judges are listed as affiliated with the Federalist Society on the influential conservative legal group's website.

I just see him saying, 'I had to negotiate to get the best justice I could, sorry he's not on some wonky sites list.'

Perhaps if he'd come out super strongly on the list, it would give me pause. I didn't expect him to and he didn't disappoint.

[Elessar]

I think it is a wise move to put his cards on the table. After all,
we are looking at the future of our kids and grand-kids right now.

Allowing Liberals or 'Progressive' onto the Court will further erode
the very basis that formed this Nation.

[jimnyc]

For many reasons, not the least being his propensity to change positions in nanoseconds, I can't trust that he would pick 'among them.' Indeed, true to form he releases a list, only to say, he would use the list as a guide for nominating a justice.

Previously in your article: "We're going to choose from, most likely from this list," Now he did say he'd use suggestions from the Federalist Society, which he did:

I just see him saying, 'I had to negotiate to get the best justice I could, sorry he's not on some wonky sites list.'

Perhaps if he'd come out super strongly on the list, it would give me pause. I didn't expect him to and he didn't disappoint.

What is your concern, that perhaps this is a ruse, and he would nominate a liberal judge? Or that he may choose a conservative judge not listed here? Or just that you don't believe him?

Even if he doesn't use one of these specifically, so long as he goes with someone with the same "principles" in mind, I'm aok with that. Perhaps that's why he left it slightly open, but I doubt he did so in order to make a bad pick. There are better judges I have read that many think he should have had on his list. Who knows, it's possible he even ends up going with someone not on this list, but better qualified.

[jimnyc]

I think it is a wise move to put his cards on the table. After all,
we are looking at the future of our kids and grand-kids right now.

Allowing Liberals or 'Progressive' onto the Court will further erode
the very basis that formed this Nation.

I think he's making it clear that he understands folks know this is a huge issue, and give a very good understanding of exactly what he is looking it. It sounds like he definitely is going to ensure a solid conservative would get the nod should he get elected.

[Gunny]

I think it is a wise move to put his cards on the table. After all,
we are looking at the future of our kids and grand-kids right now.

Allowing Liberals or 'Progressive' onto the Court will further erode
the very basis that formed this Nation.

Completely agree. I'm more concerned about the Supreme Court than the Presidency. If the Court tips in favor of the left, we are screwed.

[Elessar]

Addressing both @jimnyc (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1) and @Gunny (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=30), I also think he should lay out a list
of Cabinet choices to further ensure the public that he is choosing advisers wisely.

[Gunny]

Addressing both @jimnyc (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1) and @Gunny (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=30), I also think he should lay out a list
of Cabinet choices to further ensure the public that he is choosing advisers wisely.

Too early to show those cards. My main concern is the Supreme Court and losing Congress. If Trump manages to win, he'll be a one hit wonder. I doubt he's going to win. If he does, he'll be a one-termer. What he needs to figure out is how he can the half of the right that isn't supporting him to do so. Some people are willing to throw our entire nation down the sh*tter for the same reasons they have the past 8 years. Only we have more to lose than just the Presidency this time. Supreme Court justices don't go away until they die.

[DLT]

What is your concern, that perhaps this is a ruse, and he would nominate a liberal judge? Or that he may choose a conservative judge not listed here? Or just that you don't believe him?

Even if he doesn't use one of these specifically, so long as he goes with someone with the same "principles" in mind, I'm aok with that. Perhaps that's why he left it slightly open, but I doubt he did so in order to make a bad pick. There are better judges I have read that many think he should have had on his list. Who knows, it's possible he even ends up going with someone not on this list, but better qualified.

That's the problem with Trump IMO. Anything IS possible. Everything is negotiable and subject to 'deal-making' with him. And unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the deal he would make would be any better for America than the deals already made. It's the uncertainty, as well, that is killing the economy. We can't count on a rogue, wild-card candidate to do what we want him to do and what needs to be done, no matter how hard we want to believe we can.

[Kathianne]

That's the problem with Trump IMO. Anything IS possible. Everything is negotiable and subject to 'deal-making' with him. And unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the deal he would make would be any better for America than the deals already made. It's the uncertainty, as well, that is killing the economy. We can't count on a rogue, wild-card candidate to do what we want him to do and what needs to be done, no matter how hard we want to believe we can.
Indeed, those are among my concerns. I think he may well win, I hope he is just what his supporters all hope for. I'm not going to argue with them at this point, it's not worth it. I'll assume we're all doing what we believe is correct.

[jimnyc]

What is your concern, that perhaps this is a ruse, and he would nominate a liberal judge? Or that he may choose a conservative judge not listed here? Or just that you don't believe him?

Even if he doesn't use one of these specifically, so long as he goes with someone with the same "principles" in mind, I'm aok with that. Perhaps that's why he left it slightly open, but I doubt he did so in order to make a bad pick. There are better judges I have read that many think he should have had on his list. Who knows, it's possible he even ends up going with someone not on this list, but better qualified.


That's the problem with Trump IMO. Anything IS possible. Everything is negotiable and subject to 'deal-making' with him. And unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the deal he would make would be any better for America than the deals already made. It's the uncertainty, as well, that is killing the economy. We can't count on a rogue, wild-card candidate to do what we want him to do and what needs to be done, no matter how hard we want to believe we can.

Thank you for taking the time to answer, at least I know my writing of questions wasn't a complete waste of my time once again. Tough questions, tough questions!!

And I disagree. I think he nominates a good judge. You say anything is possible. Do you think it's all a ruse, and once in office he would nominate a very liberal judge? Do you really believe that?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Simple questions-

Will you bet against Trump for what one only supposes he may do?
Or not vote and bring in the Hillary with clear knowledge of what she surely will do?

Justify--bringing her in by not voting for the Republican nominee, if you are so inclined, not necessary as its your right to vote or not vote..

To me its like this, on one hand is a known deadly snake anxious to strike(hildabeast) on the other hand is a snake one is not sure about(Trump).
You have only two paths to walk---which one would you choose??--Tyr

[Kathianne]

Simple questions-

Will you bet against Trump for what one only supposes he may do?
Or not vote and bring in the Hillary with clear knowledge of what she surely will do?

Justify--bringing her in by not voting for the Republican nominee, if you are so inclined, not necessary as its your right to vote or not vote..

To me its like this, on one hand is a known deadly snake anxious to strike(hildabeast) on the other hand is a snake one is not sure about(Trump).
You have only two paths to walk---which one would you choose??--Tyr

Luckily we don't have just the two paths.

As I said earlier on this or another thread, I believe we are all making the choices we consider to be best.

[Gunny]

Thank you for taking the time to answer, at least I know my writing of questions wasn't a complete waste of my time once again. Tough questions, tough questions!!

And I disagree. I think he nominates a good judge. You say anything is possible. Do you think it's all a ruse, and once in office he would nominate a very liberal judge? Do you really believe that?

I don't think he'll nominate a leftwinger judge. The problem is getting him into office. One step at a time. You can't play King of the Mountain until you get up the mountain. He's got a long row to hoe, and a lot of fences to mend.