Judicial nominees

On the Judiciary, the Associated Press Parrots the DNC

Featured image If you ask the average person to name the principal sources of fake news, he is likely to mention the New York Times or the Washington Post. I think the Associated Press is even worse, or at least, more pervasive. A case in point is tonight’s story on President Trump’s judicial appointments: “Trump begins effort to pack courts with conservatives.” Let’s stop right there. All presidents nominate judges with compatible »

Trump selects conservatives for courts of appeals

Featured image Adam Liptak of the New York Times reports on the slate of conservatives President Trump is about to nominate to federal courts of appeals. Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy has this to say about the nominees, who are expected to be announced tomorrow: The nominees make up an impressive list of highly respected jurists, attorneys and legal thinkers. Those of us who doubted Trump would take judicial nominations seriously »

The Luger lobby: Sen. Klobuchar comments

Featured image In Minnesota we are awaiting President Trump’s appointment of a United States Attorney, two federal district court judges and an Eighth Circuit judge. It has previously been reported that Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar seeks the reappointment of Andrew Luger as United States Attorney. The Star Tribune’s Stephen Montemayor reported, for example: “Klobuchar said she will campaign for Luger to be renominated and has already spoken to Sessions and his deputy »

Loose Ends (20)

Featured image • I gather any day now—maybe today, who cares—we shall once again observe Equal Pay Day, when liberals will hector us about the wage gap between men and women. Kudos to Brent Scher of the Free Beacon for catching yet another example of liberal hypocrisy on this issue: Elizabeth Warren’s Female Staffers Made 71% of Male Staffers’ Salaries in 2016 The gender pay gap in Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D., Mass.) »

Will Dems die on Mount Gorsuch?

Featured image I have been skeptical that the Democrats will force Republicans to invoke the Reid rule to end the filibuster of Supreme Court nominees as as the price of confirming Judge Gorsuch. I’m out of the prediction business, but every day it looks more probable that the Democrats may just do it. Late yesterday afternoon, for example, Elana Schor reported that “Gorsuch needs a straight flush to beat filibuster.” From the »

Just How Dumb Are Democrats?

Featured image With the Obamacare repeal fiasco ongoing today, House Republicans are working overtime to reclaim the undisputed title as “the stupid party,” but they are wasting their time, as the Democrats seem determined to keep the title all to themselves. Elsewhere Scott has noted the dumbest questions Senate Democrats have asked soon-to-be-Justice Neil Gorsuch, but one in particular stands out—Sen. Klobuchar’s annoyance that the Constitution uses the generic pronoun “he” so »

We may be the stupid party, but are we that stupid?

Featured image Politico reports that “a group of Senate Democrats is beginning to explore trying to extract concessions from Republicans in return for allowing Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed.” What concessions? The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue. . .would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term. »

The Democrats Blink

Featured image Cooler heads among the Democrats know that they face disaster if they filibuster Judge Gorsuch’s nomination, and I’ve suspected from the beginning that Chuck Schumer is quietly rounding up eight votes from safe Democrats to vote for cloture to prevent the Republicans from getting rid of the filibuster. Politico reports that Democrats are trying to get a deal from enough Republicans—the Gang of 14 redux—to allow Gorsuch to go forward while »

Gorsuch and Finnis, the Sequel

Featured image As you may recall, I predicted here a couple weeks ago that Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Ph.D study with Oxford’s renowned John Finnis would arouse the left, and I was not disappointed! Enter The Guardian: Oxford scholar who was mentor to Neil Gorsuch compared gay sex to bestiality Now, before going into the copy, may I observe that from the headline alone, it isn’t certain whether The Guardian means this as »

The Gorsuch Confirmation and the Finnis Connection

Featured image I haven’t had time to weigh in yet on the Gorsuch nomination to the Supreme Court, so it is time to catch up. In addition to having a law degree from Harvard, it is notable that Gorsuch also took a leave from his lucrative law practice to attend Oxford University to earn a Ph.D under the direction of John Finnis. Never heard of John Finnis? I predict you will in »

Supreme Court Showdown: Keep Your Eye on Ed

Featured image With President Trump’s first Supreme Court nomination coming in a few hours, you can expect all hell to break loose from the left. Whoever it is will be portrayed as the worst person since . . . the last person Trump named to something yesterday. (Which is why I don’t think any nominee can be successfully “Borked.”) But in any case as this unfolds everyone should make a regular daily »

Should Claire McCaskill determine who will replace Scalia?

Featured image Who is the eighth best (or least bad) Democratic Senator? If you answered “I don’t give damn” you are wrong. Under current rules, the eighth best Democratic Senator holds veto power over the person Donald Trump will select to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. Confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee requires 60 votes. There will be 52 Republican Senators in the Senate that decides whether to confirm Trump’s »

Trump puts out new list of potential Supreme Court nominees

Featured image Donald Trump has added ten more names to the group people he says exemplify what he’s looking for in a Supreme Court Justice. Previously, he put out a list of eleven such possibilities. I discussed that group here. The new list consists of: Mike Lee — U.S. Senator, Utah Neil Gorsuch — Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Margaret Ryan — Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for »

Trump, the judiciary, and this election

Featured image For the first time in decades, I am an undecided voter in a presidential election. I haven’t decided whether to vote for Donald Trump or to vote for no candidate. Concern over what the Supreme Court (and the lower courts) will look like if Hillary Clinton wins is one of the main considerations that might cause me to vote for Trump. Thus, when I saw that John Yoo and Jeremy »

What a Hillary-Shaped Supreme Court Would Look Like

Featured image Mark Tushnet of Harvard Law School is one of the leading leftists in legal academia today. Yesterday on Jack Balkin’s website Balkinization, Tushnet lets it all hang out how he thinks a reliably liberal Supreme Court should think and act. I’ve interspersed a couple of my comments in [bolded brackets]. Pay special attention to his Point #6: 1      A jurisprudence of “wrong the day it was decided.” Liberals should be compiling lists »

Joe Biden’s revisionist history of his own views [UPDATED]

Featured image When politicians sanctimoniously advocate positions that everyone knows are the opposite of the ones they would take if the partisan setting were flipped, they reinforce the contempt Americans feel towards them as a class. The dispute over whether to hold hearings for and/or to confirm Merrick Garland is a case in point. Both sides are guilty to some degree of advancing positions they would denounce if the shoe were on »

Another Reason to Be Glad We’re Rid of the Bushes

Featured image Last month I noted that the New York Times had found its newest “conservative” pet, University of Minnesota law professor Richard Painter, who offered up a “conservative” case for campaign finance reform. Today Painter, who served in the White House counsel’s office under George W. Bush, returns to the Times to tell us that “Bush Would Have Nominated Garland.” His advice boils down to: when the other party holds the »