Plan B Forum

Short list is William Pryor (11th Circuit), Neil Gorsuch (10th Circuit) and Thomas Hardiman (3d Circuit). Rumor is that Priebus, Pence and Ryan (the "unholy trinity") favor Gorsuch, but Trump's sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, recommends Hardiman (she is a judge who has frequently been on the same Third Circuit panel with him).

Since you're all entitled to my opinion, here goes:

First note: Three white dudes.

Although far-right culture warriors love him, Pryor is way too far out of the mainstream on social issues. His nomination would be a non-starter, unless Trump is only looking to have an ugly fight to fill up the news cycle. Which may very well be his choice, given the series of dumpster fires he has set over the last week and a half.

I don't know much about Gorsuch's jurisprudence, other than he is generally opposed to current Supreme Court doctrine that demands judicial deference to administrative agencies' rule-making interpretations of statutes. (His position on that question works fine for me in my own practice, although I see where it could cause serious disruption in heavily regulated sectors.)

Hardiman is a pretty traditional conservative and not a firebrand on any particular issues, as far as I have seen. The Third Circuit is my "home court," so I tend to keep up on the judges here; I have had one case before Hardiman (Maryanne Trump Barry and Dorothy Sloviter were also on the panel). I thought he actually listened to the oral argument and understood the issues before ultimately writing the opinion ruling against me (which, BTW, now allows the government to shake down little old ladies, but I digress).

All I can tell is that although conservative, Hardiman probably isn't evil incarnate. Then again, I don't think he's ruled on any hot-button constitutional issues, either, so hard to say.

Anyone else listening to the chatter?

I've heard that Pryor is out...

I don't want any of them - but Hardiman is a Georgetown alum, so I guess I'll root for him?

BoSoxGal wrote:I don't want any of them - but Hardiman is a Georgetown alum, so I guess I'll root for him?

I don't want any of these three either.  Merrick Garland should have been on the bench since last May, at least, and he would have been if it hadn't been for the Republican senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee who petulantly and flatly refused to even consider anyone for the vacancy until after the fall 2016 election had been held.

So fuck them.  Fuck ALL the Republican senators who acted like spoiled ten-year-olds holding their breath until they got their own way, but especially fuck the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Fuck Committee Chair Chuck Grassley of Iowa; fuck Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee of Utah; fuck Jeff Sessions (AL); fuck Lindsey Graham (SC); fuck John Cornyn and Ted Cruz (TX); fuck Jeff Flake (AZ); fuck David Vitter (LA); fuck David Perdue (GA); and fuck Thom Tillis (NC).

-"BB"-

Yes on Garland; yes on fuck them all. Gorsuch makes me feel old - I met his mother once. Ann Gorsuch was head of the EPA during Reagan. I sat next to her at a meeting once and introduced myself.

Republicans have delayed consideration of Obama's SC pick for just about a year now, so I think the Democrats really ought to hold up Trump's pick (by filibuster, or whatever it takes) for the same amount of time.

I'm going with PA's own, Thomas Hardiman. He appears to have the backing of mentor Bannon, and the Trumpster's big sister, Maryanne.

There are rumors, however, that fellow groper and Series 13 Apprentice star, Gary Busey, may be the surprise nominee. Trump says he's unbelievably fantastic.

well.....

sue s views seem reasonable and realistic.



you ve made my day , sue.

thanks,

DFS

If a nutbar like Pryor was the front runner and she was criticizing him, you would be lobbing any manner of insults at her, just because.

Econoline wrote:Republicans have delayed consideration of Obama's SC pick for just about a year now, so I think the Democrats really ought to hold up Trump's pick (by filibuster, or whatever it takes) for the same amount of time.

While there is some enjoyment in contemplating that, I think running with 8 members on the SC is not in the interest of the country and can lead to deadlocks. IMHO there are a lot of other ways to tweak the republicans that are not as problematic.

Late word is that the nom goes to Gorsuch, although Trump is bringing both Gorsuch and Hardiman to DC and programming the announcement like a game show: Who will be the newest Supreme Court Justice? Who will go home a loser? Will the rose go to Tom or Neil? Find out tonight in a very special edition of Justice Denied, live at 8 p.m. Eastern, 7 p.m. Central!"

Bleerrrrrgggghhh. This is so crass, so awful, so Trump. I can't believe no one has had the nads to mention something about "dignity."

ETA:

I guess we can be grateful that there is no call-in number to vote for our favorite after the swimsuit competition.

Gorsuch. Bleh. Anne just about destroyed the EPA. Bitch.

This Week's Contestants:




My guess is Trump will choose the one who can tell the most groping story.

Oh, well, as granny used to say, "six of one, half dozen of the other." Maybe Gorsuck will be proven to be a moderately conservative -- much like Roberts. Regardless, outside of the usual partisan bluster, I doubt there will be much opposition standing in his way.

Sue U wrote:Late word is that the nom goes to Gorsuch, although Trump is bringing both Gorsuch and Hardiman to DC and programming the announcement like a game show: Who will be the newest Supreme Court Justice? Who will go home a loser? Will the rose go to Tom or Neil? Find out tonight in a very special edition of Justice Denied, live at 8 p.m. Eastern, 7 p.m. Central!"

Bleerrrrrgggghhh. This is so crass, so awful, so Trump. I can't believe no one has had the nads to mention something about "dignity."

ETA:

I guess we can be grateful that there is no call-in number to vote for our favorite after the swimsuit competition.

Yes, I suppose we can be grateful for that...

As I said before, Paddy Chayefsky was a starry-eyed optimist...

It's going to be tough for Gorsuch to get to 60 votes, not so much because he is somehow unqualified, or "out of the mainstream" but because of the bitterness over Garland...


But if the Dems try to torch his nomination just on that basis, then I suspect that McConnell will counter with the long established Senate rule known as "Payback's a Bitch"...

It was Senator Slime (the only truly unscrupulous and unprincipled Mormon I've ever known of...he should have been Censured by the Senate like Joe McCarthy for his deliberate and admitted lying on the Senate Floor about Mitt Romney paying no taxes for 10 years...but I digress...) who went "nuclear" in using procedural rules to eliminate the filibuster 60 vote threshold for appellate court federal judgeships...

BTW, if there are any of Trump's cabinet appointees you wish could be shot down by filibuster in the Senate, (there are a couple on my list) you can also thank the erstwhile Senator Slime for making that impossible as well...

since I agree with jim so seldom these days....

....I d like to take this opportunity to join his view of harry (wes spits) reid.

though now that I have taken this position jim may change his mind ....

what do you think about Nancy Pelosi , jim ?

Well, the case I'm most interested in this term is scheduled for oral argument on March 1 and is all about "Chevron deference," which is the aforementioned doctrine requiring courts to defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of statutes -- a doctrine that is a particular bugaboo for Gorsuch. Problem for the court is that if it throws out Chevron deference, or decides not to apply it in this case, it will then be squarely confronted with the question of whether the statute at issue is constitutional. And the court's prime directive is to avoid adjudicating a constitutional question when there is any other basis on which to dispose of the case. The court has managed to duck the issue here twice before, but this case is now back like Freddie Kreuger and there are at least four different ways the court could rule. If Gorsuch is confirmed and on the bench by then, it could radically change the dynamic of both the argument and the ultimate decision.

wesw wrote:well.....

sue s views seem reasonable and realistic.



you ve made my day , sue.

thanks,

DFS

My "views" were only that Hardiman is not purely evil while Pryor is, and aside from the Chevron deference issue, I didn't know much of anything about Gorsuch, nor about Hardiman's record on hot-button constitutional issues that are likely to come before the court. However, it's certainly "reasonable and realistic" to say "I don't know" when you actually don't know; more people should try that approach.

Hobby Lobby is one of the most personally offensive decisions the Supreme Court has made in my lifetime, but the case challenging the application of the Chevron doctrine would have long-lasting and devastating impacts on federal regulatory agencies, and likely trickle down into the state courts (and thus impact state and local agencies) as well. It would be a disaster for my clients in many ways.

Grrrrrr.

Lord Jim wrote:It's going to be tough for Gorsuch to get to 60 votes, not so much because he is somehow unqualified, or "out of the mainstream" but because of the bitterness over Garland...

60 votes? Not so fast says the Trumpmeister.
Trump urges Senate to change rules if necessary to push through Supreme Court nominee
http://www.readingeagle.com/news/articl ... rt-nominee

In Case Of Nuclear Option: (Go directly to #7)