MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

The Judicial Nomination Train Keeps Rolling

Whatever else the Trump Administration is (or is not) doing, it continues to announce excellent judicial nominees for federal appellate courts - while showing it's capable of working with Democratic Senators.

Last weekend Beltway pundits may have proclaimed the White House was off the rails, but the Trump judicial nomination train remains on track. The White House announced its eleventh set of judicial nominees on Monday. As we've come to expect, the Administration put forward an impressive list of jurists, led by four noteworthy picks for appellate courts, including several who are guaranteed bipartisan support.

The latest appellate nominees are Andy Oldham (Fifth Circuit), Michael Scudder (Seventh Circuit), Amy St. Eve (Seventh Circuit) and Mark Bennett (Ninth Circuit). In addition, Trump nominated John Nalbandian (Sixth CIrcuit) and Joel Carson (Tenth Circuit) in January and December, respectively.

Oldham currently serves as General Counsel for Texas Governor Greg Abbott, and previously worked in the Texas Solicitor General's office, the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, and in private practice in Washington, DC. He clerked for Justice Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court and Judge David Sentelle on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. His nomination is no surprise, as he is razor sharp and had been among those considered for prior Texas vacancies on the Fifth Circuit. Of this week's nominees, he's also the one most likely to end up on a future Supreme Court short list.

Two of this week's nominees are for Illinois seats on the Seventh Circuit. Scudder is a White House and Justice Department veteran who is now a partner at Skadden Arps. He clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy and has taught at both the Northwestern Pritzker and University of Chicago law schools. St. Eve is a federal district court judge in the Northern District of Illinois and former Whitewater prosecutor. She, too, has taught at Northwestern. Bennett is the former Hawaii Attorney General and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who has taught at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa.

Although news stories tend to suggest the White House refuses to consult with Senators about potential judicial picks, this week's nominations tell quite a different story. All of the appellate nominations announced this week enjoy the support of their home-state Senators, including those from states with deep-blue delegations.

While Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) has led the attack against some of Trump's judicial nominees in the Senate Judiciary Committee, she joined Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) in praising Bennett as a "well-qualified" pick for the Ninth Circuit. Perhaps more surprising is the statement released by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) praising the Trump Administration's Seventh Court picks:

We are pleased that the President has nominated Judge St. Eve and Mr. Scudder. They both have the experience, integrity, and judgment that we look for in federal judges, and we expect them to serve with distinction on the Seventh Circuit. We appreciate the Administration's willingness to work with us and with our nonpartisan screening committee to reach consensus on nominees who will serve the people of Illinois well. We look forward to guiding these nominations through the Senate.

The latest set of nominations illustrates that the Administration is more than willing to consult with home-state Senators before making judicial picks, even for appellate courts. All that's necessary is for Senators to negotiate in good faith. They also suggest that insofar as vacant seats on some courts languish without nominees, it's unlikely due to a lack of effort by the White House Counsel's office.

If Senators Hirono, Schatz, Durbin, and Duckworth could come to terms with the White House on potential appellate nominees, what's stopping Senate delegations from states with other longstanding vacancies? There are several vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which have been declared "judicial emergencies" - including one seat that has been vacant for over two years - and yet the California Senators seem completely unwilling to cut a deal.

Judge Alice Batchelder of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit announced her intention to take senior status upon the confirmation of her successor and there's still no nominee for her position. Judge Batchelder sits in Ohio, and there's no lack of highly qualified potential nominees the White House would readily put forward with Senator Rob Portman's enthusiastic support. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), on the other hand, appears to have been wholly uncooperative. It's as if he (and some of his Democratic colleagues) are looking for ways to make Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) ignore their blue slips.

Even with this week's announcement, there remain quite a few seats to fill. As of this week there are 146 vacancies on federal courts, which accounts for approximately 16 percent of the federal bench. An additional thirty seats are classified as "future vacancies," as the judges in these seats have announced their intent to retire on a date certain or upon the confirmation of their successor. Seventeen of the current vacancies are on federal appellate courts, as are seven of the future vacancies. Not including those announced Monday, there are 50 pending nominations, including seven for appellate seats. Although the Senate has sought to expedite the confirmation process, the nomination pipeline remains full. (Information on vacancies and pending nominees may be found here.)

The Trump Administration has made judicial nominations a priority. With a few notable exceptions, it has succeeded in putting forward highly qualified nominees. At the same time, it has shown a willingness to work with home state Senators in selecting nominees. Yet I doubt this cooperative posture will last forever. Where home state Senators are unwilling to engage in good faith consultation with the Administration, I expect the White House will evenutally proceed on its own -- and given the current make-up of the Senate, these nominees will get confirmed, with or without home state support.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Ugh.

    This speaks more to my biases than Prof. Adler's, but at this point these posts feel like gloating.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Let them have their moment under the sunlamp, Sarcastro. You are destined to enjoy the last laughs, and they should be great.

  • OtisAH||

    After the next 30 years under that sun lamp, the last laughs will likely be few and far between.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You figure our society's general arc of progress is going to sustain an about-face, and that conservative preferences are going to make a huge comeback in America? Prepare to be surprised as America continues to improve despite conservatives' preferences and efforts. The most conservatives seem likely to accomplish will be periodic, brief delays in that progress.

  • OtisAH||

    I certainly hope you're right, but I fear the result of this judicial nomination train will be to drag us back to the start of the 20th century. 100 years of hard fought, and "won", progress wiped clean in a couple breezy decades. Well, maybe not not "clean," but close enough to let the mailman stand in the foyer.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Relax. At most, these guys will delay progress, relatively briefly.

    Who -- other than those on a true-believing Mission From God -- genuinely believes that America will go back to the "good old days" of gays being beaten in alleys (by police) and being afflicted by government discrimination; that abortion will be criminalized; or that drug warriors have much of a leash left?

    Who expects men to resume smacking women around with societal acquiescence, or that beating children as neighbors watch will return to our public life?

    Who predicts prayer and creationism are to return to legitimate classrooms, or Social Security and Medicare are to be eviscerated, or race-targeting voter suppression is to make a comeback?

    Who figures police will be able to resume stopping black drivers, and killing the occasional uppity one, without increased accountability? Who expects a return to the "good old days" when black men were compelled to lower their gaze in the company of a white woman? Who believes America will not become less rural, less religious, less white, less Republican, less backward, and less bigoted as our electorate improves on a daily basis?

    Conservatives can't win. At most, they can delay progress to relatively slight degree.

  • tommyguns2||

    ^^^I guess it depends on how one wishes to define "progress."

    To me, "progress" is when non-elected judges rule on the law that was created by the duly elected legislature, and not on re-writing a law one doesn't like to obtain a "correct" result, based on the judge's personal policy preferences.

    According to my definition, "progress" occurs when a judge doesn't enforce their own policy preferences, but rather enforces the policy preferences as set forth in the statutes and constitution. In my definition of "progress", a conservative judge will enforce a liberal result when the statute being enforced reflects a liberal policy preference, and will enforce a conservative result when the statute being enforced reflects a conservative policy preference.

    To me "progress" is achieved by the legislature, and not by the courts.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    You have an amazing fantasy life. My only question is: if not for the sheer of trolling, why are you here? It can't be to educate since you are demonstrably ignorant on just about every subject you address. So, it must be to troll. Suggest you take your talents to whatever discussion pages Marvel Comics maintains.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I was told this was a libertarian site.

    Mostly, though, the comments seem to derive from faux libertarians -- cranky, disaffected, intolerant conservatives waltzing about in libertarian drag.

  • wuracituj||

    I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

    This is what I do... www.onlinecareer10.com

  • greatmag123||

    Methinks the good Rev is imbibing too much of the sacramental wine. There is a higher law than 9 people in black robes, as you, will no doubt find out

  • Jonathan Adler||

    "Gloating"? More like celebrating a silver lining.

  • Sarcastr0||

    As I said, it's more about me than you.

    When I strain to be objective, I can see substance related to the judicial philosophies of future judges.

    There should be a German word for when someone else's silver lining is just darker grey to you.

  • Chem_Geek||

    Silver lining? No, President Trump's judicial nominations are akin to the cherry atop the (two-scoop!) sundae.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Libertarians for Trump?

    Hilarious.

  • tlapp||

    Absolutely agree. Also these appointments will have a long lasting impact.

  • greatmag123||

    Arthur L. Kinkaid a Reverend?

    Nice try.

  • Kazinski||

    It's not gloating. In fact I'm getting tired of it all. All the winning.

    But seriously, what's so bad about judges that make a serious effort to follow the law? And leave it to Congress to make the law.

    As opposed to judges that decide that whatever Trump does is outside the law, like the two judges that decided Obama's extra legal DACA, which even Obama characterized as prosecutorial discretion is now the law of the land. While it was perfectly legal for Obama to use his discretion, it's now arbitrary and capricious for Trump to use his discretion.

    That's why we need a more originalist judiciary.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Read my comment again. I said it isn't gloating.

    ALL (or nearly all) judges make a serious effort to follow the law. The fact that you've decided a bunch do not because you don't like their jurisprudence doesn't change that.

    It does lead to your being able to declare judges you disagree with not just wrong but liars rationalizing their spite.
    Which partisan speculation allows your to rationalize more and more extreme ways to upset the methods by which the judiciary remain impartial.

  • damikesc||

    Well, two judges have ruled that the President is unable to rescind an Executive Order...which the courts, mind you, have no power to prevent and one said he was allowed to do so but he STILL had to abide by it.

    It gets mentioned because plenty of judges do not attempt to follow the law.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Have some humility. Just because you don't like the judge's reasoning doesn't mean the judge isn't following the law.

  • Dilan Esper||

    damikesc:

    The briefs arguing for the illegality of Trump's DACA action are available online, on PACER. As are the orders granting preliminary injunctive relief. If you think they do not state the law accurately, why don't you post your own analysis, supported by cases, of why you think this is true?

    That, of course, is a rhetorical question. You are most likely not even capable of producing such an analysis, and if you are, you are also aware that while the DACA decisions might be wrongly decided, they are well within the realm of attempts to "follow the law" and that the "law" does not on its face conclusively tell us whether Trump's DACA action is legal and requires a careful analysis.

    I am sick of right wingers who pretend this thing I spent a lot of time studying and am paid a lot of money to do, and which requires a great deal of intelligence, thought, and study, is so simple that all one has to do is state one line about a case and declare that the law was "not followed" or that it things are "plain" or "clear". If the common law system, which is hundreds of years old and which the framers enacted by means of Article III of the Constitution (and if you don't believe me on this, it is even mentioned in the Seventh Amendment), yielded those sorts of simple and simplistic answers, we wouldn't need courts and lawyers and casebooks and law schools and scholars. All you'd have to do is ask any right winger on the street to tell you the answer. It's obvious!

  • damikesc||

    An Executive Order cannot be above the realm of a different executive rescinding it. That's why legislation is the better method to pass laws.

    The reasoning is faulty from the most basic levels. Courts cannot ORDER an executive to issue an order (which is what is happening here. Trump is under no obligation to maintain DACA. There is zero legal justification to pretend that he is) . They cannot prevent an executive from terminating one --- especially one that was ALREADY dubious on Constitutional grounds as is. Judges attempting to justify a bad decision only harms the judiciary.

    Much like the "uproar" over the travel ban...the judges who tried to stop it, ultimately, were wrong. And the judiciary playing politics hurt the judiciary.

  • Sarcastr0||

    So you haven't read the opinions. Or at least you don't know the current state of the law.

    The idea that the right to grant means the right to freely rescind hasn't been the law since 1960 employment cases.. Some rights manifest only once provided.

    And your separation of powers argument was decided back in Jefferson's day. Courts can invalidate actions by any of the other branches of government if said action violates the Constitution.

    Someone has to have the final say. And it's not you.

  • tommyguns2||

    "ALL (or nearly all) judges make a serious effort to follow the law. The fact that you've decided a bunch do not because you don't like their jurisprudence doesn't change that."

    Posner came right out and said he didn't. Most of the 9th circuit don't explicitly say this, they just explicitly do this.

    With all the immigration litigation that has occurred since Trump was elected, there ought to be an asterisk on many of the opinions that states, "This holding has no precedential effect after Trump is gone."

  • greatmag123||

    No. I read their opinions and most are not based on the law or the Constitution. I believe that the voters of the individual states have the right to form their own laws on abortion (as of Roe v Wade 17 states had legalized abortion), rather than some people in black robes finding a non-existent right in the Constitution. Historically the courts are the last refuge of the fascist. They cannot get their evil passed by a free people and know they cannot amend the Constitution. So they appoint evil jurists and label them as progressive to impose their will on all of us.

  • Bru||

    Very excited about the Mike Scudder nomination. It's cool to see someone I went to grade school and high school with enjoy such success.

  • bernard11||

    Your biases are showing, Jonathan.

    If Senators Hirono, Schatz, Durbin, and Duckworth could come to terms with the White House on potential appellate nominees, what's stopping Senate delegations from states with other longstanding vacancies?

    Lousy nominees? Your posts notwithstanding, Trump has nominated some real clinkers.

    There are several vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which have been declared "judicial emergencies" - including one seat that has been vacant for over two years - and yet the California Senators seem completely unwilling to cut a deal.

    It actually takes two sides to make a deal. Why is it the Senators' fault if they can't agree with Trump? Is it possible he's the one who is "completely unwilling to cut a deal?"

  • Jonathan Adler||

    Of course that's possible, but why then do we have agreement in Illinois? Do we think there are not equivalent potential nominees in California? Do we think there aren't enough other openings (district courts, US Attorneys, etc.) to facilitate a deal? It seems to me that the only significant element that's different between the two cases is the identities of the Senators. If I am provided any information that suggests otherwise, I'd be happy to post it.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You mentioned one vacancy extending "over two years." Why wasn't that one filled during its first year?

  • Jonathan Adler||

    Because Senate Republicans followed the recent (and regrettable) tradition of not voting to confirm nominations made during an election year.

  • MikeP2||

    Because Obama was notorious for appointing extremists and the first chance Repubs had to put the brakes on that, they did.

    Libertarians should be thankful for that. Proggy justices are one of the primary causes statism expansion.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Obama was notorious for appointing extremists

    Oy.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    They're wingnuts, Sarcastro. They genuinely believe this stuff. They prefer fairy tales to reality, across the board. Plus, the black guy. A Muslim. From Kenya.

  • bernard11||

    the only significant element that's different between the two cases is the identities of the Senators. If I am provided any information that suggests otherwise, I'd be happy to post it.

    OK. Here is some information that suggests otherwise: the nominees being discussed in CA are different people than the IL nominees.

    That looks like a significantly different element to me.

    Besides, the CA senators are entitled to their views whatever the IL senators think. You seem to claim that it is the senators who are being unreasonable. Why isn't it Trump? That he nominated people acceptable to Duckworth and Durbin doesn't prove anything beyond that simple fact.

    If you want to blame one side for an impasse, you need to do more than just make an assertion.

  • Joe_JP||

    Yes, different reactions by senators of different states seems to be a sensible result especially if you are big on federalism. That is something appealed to by some on this blog.

    Anyway, the descriptions are very subjective as your reply suggests. There are "differences" and what "good faith" means is bound to be open to dispute as to what "willingness to work" means. Democrats have already argued Trump hasn't adequately worked together in that respect.

    I'm far from shocked some here disagree with the Democrats but a full accounting would express the whole picture.

  • Careless||

    You seem to claim that it is the senators who are being unreasonable. Why isn't it Trump? That he nominated people acceptable to Duckworth and Durbin doesn't prove anything beyond that simple fact.

    Well, you're free to argue that the Senators from Hawaii and Illinois and Trump and the Californians are the only reasonable ones

  • bernard11||

    I'm not arguing anything except that when parties can't agree it is foolish to blame the impasse on one side without pretty good information as to what the dispute is about.

    Adler, ISTM, wants to claim, without providing any evidence, that it is the Democratic senators who are being unreasonable. I think that's unjustified and, protestations notwithstanding, reveals his biases in the matter.

  • Careless||

    Well, yes, if it weren't for the post you were replying to and the top post we were commenting on, which pointed out that the two sides were working together, and it was specifically the Californians who weren't

  • bernard11||

    I was saying, and still say, that Adler's assertion that the CA senators, and Sherrod Brown, are being unreasonable is unsupported and betrays his bias.

    If you try to sell me a car, and we don't come to agreement on a price, that says nothing about which of us was being unreasonable, or even if either of us was.

    Senators from two states agreed about nominations. Senators from CA don't, and neither does Brown from OH. From this, with no discussion of actual potential nominees, Adler draws his conclusions, which you seem to agree with. I know he loves all those Trump judges, but you know, some of them are pretty miserable, and fully deserve what he calls caricatures.

  • Martinned||

    Really, is high-quality nominees what we've come to expect? Maybe if you know these people, but simply following general press reporting what we've come to expect is clunkers.

    As for why Democrats won't make a deal on judicial nominees: Yeah, that's a real puzzle... Mysterious, that...

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "simply following general press reporting what we've come to expect is clunkers"

    The "general press" hates Trump and prints propaganda.

  • M.L.||

    Simply following general press reporting . . . . Good one!

    What one should expect, is that anyone who swallows their propaganda whole is an ignorant fool.

  • Jonathan Adler||

    If we've paid attention to the qualifications of the nominees, as a whole, instead of the caricatures drawn about a handful of them, then yes, this is what we've come to expect. It's not what many of us expected before Trump was elected, to be sure, but it is what we've seen since.

  • bernard11||

    Caricatures?

  • Bongo Supreme||

    A caricature is like a funny-looking picture.

  • bernard11||

    I know what it means, thanks. I also know that the negative reports about some of them are not caricatures.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    If left wing Dems like Schatz and Duckworth praise a nominee, you can bet it is not a good nomination, credentials aside.

    We need more picks like Oldham, people with both great credentials and proven conservative political chops.

  • Jonathan Adler||

    That's unfair to these nominees. Scudder is precisely the sort of nominee conservatives claim to want. Judge St. Eve is a solid, experienced pick. Bennett is significantly older than one might like, but he's about as conservative a jurist as you'll find in Hawaii.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "he's about as conservative a jurist as you'll find in Hawaii"

    In other words a liberal.

    If you cannot find a decent Hawaii pick, select from another state in the circuit.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    A liberal? Part of the group that has forged American progress throughout my lifetime? Much to the displeasure of stale-thinking goobers who pine for illusory good old days and can't stand modernity?

  • Sarcastr0||

    If left wing Dems like Schatz and Duckworth praise a nominee, you can bet it is not a good nomination, credentials aside.

    'reverse barometer' politics is for people dumber than you, Bob.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    Bah. They support them because they are confident that they will just be another wimpy moderate.

    I want judges Dems hate.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Sure, and I want judges Republicans hate.

    But that's not all I want, not is it dispositive for all judges up-and-down the line.

  • loki13||

    Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

    At least Judas got his thirty pieces of silver. Not to put too fine a point on it, but any GOP President would get you roughly comparable judges.

  • swood1000||

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but any GOP President would get you roughly comparable judges.

    Not sure that's really the case. Trump seems to be the first one to rely so heavily on the Federalist Society for his nominees. Other presidents have seemed to be more willing to accept the recommendations of Senators, or to use a process that doesn't have the same philosophy as the Federalist Society.

  • Jonathan Adler||

    If only that were so. As much as I hate to admit it (as I did not support Trump at any point during the campaign), his judicial nominations to date -- on the whole -- have been better than those of any President in my lifetime.

  • David Nieporent||

    I reiterate the fact that Harry Reid gets the credit for this. Past presidents had to compromise because their nominees needed 60 votes. Since Trump's nominees only need 50 thanks to Reid, he is free to choose them without needing buy-in from Democrats. (The blue slip issue remains a speed bump in some states, but Democrats have abused that so badly that it's been only a minor one.) It's no longer enough for Democrats to say "Federalist Society! Eww!" to block a nominee.

  • OtisAH||

    Except, that completely deletes the GOP embargo on Obama nominees from existence, which was ultimately why Reid acted as he did. That fact may not change your conclusion, but it should not be allowed to be memory-holed.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    No, not really. Republican Presidents, at least during my lifetime, (I'm 59) have been spotty at best, and usually awful, in their judicial picks. I've had to conclude that they were lying on the campaign trail about what sorts of judges they wanted, because Trump doesn't seem to be having trouble making better picks.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Maybe Trump is going for the same kinds of judges that past Republican Presidents actually got and is doing just as poorly. :)

  • Joe_JP||

    His lower court picks are comparable to Reagan, Bush & Bush from what I can tell, at least to the degree the average person can tell. His SCOTUS pick was Gorsuch. BushJr, e.g., picked Roberts and Alito. Reagan picked O'Connor (after saying he wanted a woman), Scalia, Rehnquist and Kennedy (given his druthers, he would have picked Bork). etc. Not seeing a lot of lying here myself.

  • damikesc||

    Roberts and Alito aren't exactly the most principled of jurists (Roberts did have to basically re-write a law and ignore repeated statements by advocates as to what it was to allow Obamacare to pass). O'Connor was an ever-loving shit show of a jurist and Kennedy is a flake most of the time. Scalia was quite good and Bush Sr gave us Thomas but also the dreadful Souter.

    Trump has put up excellent jurists.

  • Joe_JP||

    Noting you disagree with what Roberts did in a single case, not sure how much this tells me on how principled those two were, especially since Alito dissented.

    Trump nominated a single justice so far for which we have seen about a year of action. If Alito is impure, would not be surprised even Gorsuch will upset someone. As to lower court judges, Reagan, Bush and Bush put up excellent jurists too.

    Again, especially since your concerns don't largely even go to the whole "lying" bit (Reagan wanted a woman and he picked one; Kennedy wasn't even his second choice; duly noted you don't like Souter, but he very well matched what one expected from an old New England Republican like Bush Sr.), your comments are noted but I hold to mine.

  • damikesc||

    Noting you disagree with what Roberts did in a single case, not sure how much this tells me on how principled those two were, especially since Alito dissented.

    A judge is willing to re-write laws as written to make them Constitutional is problematic, yes. If Congress didn't include a severability clause in the ACA, it was not up to Roberts to decide that they REALLY meant to have one. A judge should decide the law's legality based on what the law itself says, not what he feels it should say.

    And Alito is pretty bad, IMO, on surveillance issues.

    I didn't argue on lying. That was somebody else. And, remember, Bush WANTED to appoint Harriet Meyers to the SCOTUS. He had a massively bad choice shot down before it got too far...but Trump hasn't made a pick that out of left field.

  • damikesc||

    At least Judas got his thirty pieces of silver. Not to put too fine a point on it, but any GOP President would get you roughly comparable judges.

    Neither Bush did. If Jeb won...he wouldn't have either.

  • AlgerHiss||

    Only question I have for these nominees:

    Will you always advise a jury to practice full blown jury nullification?

  • apedad||

    Well obviously Trump isn't making these rational, bi-partisian-friendly decisions.

    Wonder if Judge Maryanne Trump Barry is making the calls and he's just following her lead.

  • WJack||

    Trump is making progress toward making this country "great again" … progressives are, of course, distraught.

  • Sarcastr0||

    It's almost as if we don't care for Trump's version of nativist, isolated, greatness!

    Just kidding - it's because we hate America!

  • Careless||

    What nativist, isolationist things have judges he's appointed done so far?

  • Sarcastr0||

    I was replying to WJack's comment, which appeared to have a more general ambit.

    Of course the judicial changes baked into the cake will take some time to reveal themselves.

  • Sarcastr0||

    I was replying to WJack's comment, which appeared to have a more general ambit.

    Of course the judicial changes baked into the cake will take some time to reveal themselves.

  • MikeP2||

    The inability to recognize the positive that Trump is accomplishing and refusing to admit that there has been clear evidence that he does have some presidential chops, is a very sad and pathetic indictment of the state of discourse and partisanship in this country.

    Sure, Trump has a laundry list of faults, but he is racking up some nice accomplishments that folks in the moderate/libertarian range of political thought should be whole heartedly applauding.

  • Joe_JP||

    I have seen numerous liberal leaning Trump opponents praising various judicial picks.

    His ability to delegate judicial picks to qualified personnel, noting there were some clunkers even in the eyes of Prof. Adler here, helped on the other end by having a Republican Senate with no filibuster in place and a judiciary chairman who doesn't respect blue slips is duly noted.

  • damikesc||

    There is no filibuster thanks to Reid killing it. Let's keep that in mind. And, at a certain point, you have to ignore blue slips. It's been a year of Trump in office and the CA delegation still cannot get off their asses to work with him on a judge?

    Seems to be a CA problem there.

  • Joe_JP||

    One person did not kill the filibuster.

    I keep in mind the whole process involved there -- why it was killed by a vote of a majority of the Senate (not a single senator) & accepted it was a reasonable move. The result, short term, now hurts the Democrats. It just goes to how it is easier for Trump, along with Republicans being in control.

    The same applies to blue slips -- it is cited as a reason why it is easier for Trump to have his judges move ahead. Republicans in the past used blue slips and other mechanisms to delay Democratic nominees for over a year. If this is inherently a bad thing, that's fine, though once upon a time Republicans thought blue slips were important.

  • damikesc||

    And when the rules change, tactics change accordingly.

    It's not like Obama was unable to flood the judiciary with some really, really bad picks. Including two abysmal SCOTUS picks.

  • Sarcastr0||

    As always, Obama justifies the means. Not just doing what he did, but destroying all means and limits.

    I like how appointing Supreme Court justices through the usual methods is 'flooding the judiciary.'

  • jph12||

    "I like how appointing Supreme Court justices through the usual methods is 'flooding the judiciary.'"

    I like how that's not remotely what damikesc said.

    I'm genuinely curious. Is your reading comprehension really so bad that you genuinely think that your restatement is accurate? Or did you know that it wasn't and choose to willfully misrepresent what he said instead?

  • bernard11||

    Where home state Senators are unwilling to engage in good faith consultation with the Administration,

    I missed this earlier.

    Again, your biases are showing in your assumption that it is the senators' fault. What is your basis for that? If you are going to claim it's that some Democratic senators have endorsed some appointments, then it's pretty weak.

  • DarrenM||

    Why is it taking so long to break up the Ninth Circuit?

  • PG23COLO||

    Judges who follow the path to federal circuit court appointments are not likely to protect the Bill of Rights against arbitrary government interference. Nor are they going to undo the oppressive administrative state.

    Nor are they going to protect the rights of defendants to trial by fully informed and fair and impartial juries. Nor are they going to rein in the federal trial court judges who rule based on personal whim, not according to constitutional principles.

    These judges will uphold draconian punishments for victimless crimes. These judges will overlook egregious violations of the rights of defendants.

    These judges will overlook the incompetence of many district court judges.

    These won't be judges who question the legitimacy of the state or uphold the inalienable rights of individuals. These judges will overwhelmingly protect the power of the state.

    Just my opinion.

  • David Nieporent||

    Thanks for sharing.

  • Libertymike||

    Your opinion is also the truth.

  • Sarcastr0||

    A great distillation of a problem with many on the Internet.

  • kramartini||

    Interesting that, despite all of the sound and fury, over half of Trump's confirmations to Federal District Courts were approved unanimously...

  • Johnbr||

    President Trump & the Senate must move faster. As we see w the travel restriction & DACA cases Obama stacked the courts w corrupt Lawless Marxist ideologues who ignore the Constitution & rule of law & rule like tyrant leaving the nation open to immense danger.
    The nominees must be loyal to the Constitution & separation of powers so the rule of law & not corrupt Democrat partisan politics & insanity can be restored. The corruption & lawlessness of hate filled lawless Democrat Senators can't be allowed to stand in the way of repairing the terrible damage Obama inflicted. Move faster.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online