Trump Releases List of Judges That He Will Nominate To SCOTUS

[Orlong]

I gotta say there are a lot of good picks here.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...05-18-14-08-40

JERSEY CITY, N.J. (AP) -- Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has released a list of 11 potential Supreme Court justices he plans to vet to fill the seat of late Justice Antonin Scalia if he's elected to the White House.

Trump's picks include Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado and Raymond Gruender of Missouri.

Also on the list are: Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas. Trump had previously named Pryor and Sykes as examples of kind of justices he would choose.

"I am going to give a list of either five or 10 judges that I will pick, 100 percent pick, that I will put in for nomination. Because some of the people that are against me say: 'We don't know if he's going to pick the right judge. Supposing he picks a liberal judge or supposing he picks a pro-choice judge,'" Trump said at an event in Palm Beach, Florida.

[Lenonis]

Trump should be careful on this issue -- the SCOTUS is way more of a factor in this election that before and if he picks judges to appeal to his base that would alienate moderates/independents he'll hurt his chances in the general.

I don't know much about these judges, but if you approve them that indicates to me I should be worried.

[Deleted]

So considering Trump made this list, is this a list of assholes?

[Wildtree]

How long will this list be valid? Tomorrow or next week?

[provaporous]

thats a big list!

I'll wait for the media to tear it apart, probably going back 30 years and finding some random case for a single judge to crucify them over, then call it Trumps fault.

As long as they keep the status quo ill be happy, the supreme court is not supposed to be an easy way to legislate from the bench as Obama and Hillary want, laws are the job of Congress and the states' legislature, not the Judiciary.

[Wildtree]

So considering Trump made this list, is this a list of assholes?

Well...

Since concept of justice being impartial, unbiased and neutral evades many people..

the list was compiled "first and foremost, based on constitutional principles, with input from highly respected conservatives and Republican Party leadership."

[Deleted]

Was Judge Judy on there? I mean Napolitano is, right, and he's a TV judge.

Or, did Trump walk back his Napolitano comments? I wouldn't be surprised. He walks back everything.

[Deleted]

Well...

Since concept of justice being impartial, unbiased and neutral evades many people..

Yeah, yeah, blah blah blah mambo jumbo.

[Wildtree]

Yeah, yeah, blah blah blah mambo jumbo.

LOL.... that is all you can come up with?

[Wildtree]

Was Judge Judy on there? I mean Napolitano is, right, and he's a TV judge.

Or, did Trump walk back his Napolitano comments? I wouldn't be surprised. He walks back everything.

The ice cream judge is not on the list.
Judy isn't either.. She doesn't have to, given how she's one of the richest TV personalities. I think she's like #2 behind Oprah from all the money she made with her court show.

[Alvito]

How long will this list be valid? Tomorrow or next week?

Nothing Trump says is ever valid. He is nothing but lies empty statements and promises. If blow back from something is too extreme or doesn't go the way he wants he says it was just a suggestion or idea.

[Jotaux]

Is there anyone of note on that list? I think Trump has to be careful here, SCOTUS appointments are one of the main reasons to chose Hilary over him for independents and moderates.

[Wildtree]

But Obama is going to nominate the new judge for SCOTUS.
This list is useless.

IF...
If the Democrats can win the Senate majority back, then the new Justice will come from Obama, indeed.
Elections are in November, President gets inaugurated in January. Senate already earlier.

[Xisa]

But Obama is going to nominate the new judge for SCOTUS.
This list is useless.

Nominate, yes, but the Republicans aren't going to approve his nominee.

That'll fall to the next President, although the Republican Senate has hinted they wouldn't be opposed to only having 8 justices until there was another Republican President, regardless of how long it takes.

[Sky High]

the only list I wan to see from the Drump is a list of his tax returns.

[Reg]

Is there anyone of note on that list? I think Trump has to be careful here, SCOTUS appointments are one of the main reasons to chose Hilary over him for independents and moderates.

The one dude Gruender was part of the debate whether women could get insurance coverage for contraception with the sole purpose of preventing pregnancy. The others aren't ringing a bell with me.

[Lenonis]

the Republican Senate has hinted they wouldn't be opposed to only having 8 justices until there was another Republican President, regardless of how long it takes.

That would be really really stupid. You might be willing to get the American people to buy the argument that they should wait for the next president, but if Hillary gets elected and they declare they won't approve a nomination for 4 years that will give the DNC all they need to railroad enough seats out to flip the Senate.

Assuming, of course, the senate doesn't flip in 2016, which is quite possible.

[Teebone]

Looked up a few...

William H. Pryor

One possible Supreme Court nominee whom Trump has specifically praised is William H. Pryor, selected by President George W. Bush to be on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Formerly Alabama’s attorney general, Pryor has a history of extreme right-wing activism, severely criticizing not just women’s right to choose under Roe v. Wade but even the constitutionality of the New Deal.

Pryor has called Roe the “worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.” He has claimed that with the New Deal and other measures, the U.S. has “strayed too far in the expansion of the federal government,” and asserted that it “should not be in the business of public education nor the control of street crime.” As a judge, he has helped uphold a restrictive Georgia voter ID law and joined just one other judge on the 11th Circuit in claiming that “racially disparate effects” should not be enough to prove a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, even though the Supreme Court has ruled precisely the opposite.

Pryor came first on a wish list of Supreme Court picks that the Heritage Foundation published shortly after Trump promised to consult them before naming justices.

So here we have an ultra-con and a climate denier. There's a real winner. Not.

Diane Sykes

Trump has also repeatedly named Diane Sykes, a Seventh Circuit federal appeals court judge appointed by President George W. Bush, as a potential Supreme Court nominee. Sykes, who previously served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and a trial court, has also won high praise from the Heritage Foundation and from right-wing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

In a series of dissents, Sykes has argued in favor of big business and against consumers and discrimination victims, including cases where she tried to limit corporate liability for product defects and overturn a $1 million damages award, to protect a corporation from having to defend against an employee’s claim of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and to reverse a $3.5 million bad faith judgment in favor of a Lutheran church against its insurance company.

She showed her anti-reproductive-choice views in providing a lenient sentence to two anti-abortion protesters who had to be forcibly removed from blocking the entrance to a Milwaukee abortion clinic and had previously been arrested 100 times for such offenses; Sykes nevertheless praised them for their “fine character” and expressed “respect” for the “ultimate goals” the blockade “sought to achieve.”

She asserted in dissent that a jury verdict against a criminal defendant should have been upheld even though one of the jurors did not understand English, that a prosecutor should be immune from a claim that he fabricated false evidence that wrongly convicted a man for 17 years, and that a conviction under federal law against someone convicted of domestic violence for possessing firearms should be reversed and that the law itself could well be unconstitutional, in disagreement with all 10 other judges on the court of appeals. She voted in favor of a Wisconsin voter ID law and of a claim by a student group that it should receive state funding and recognition despite its violation of a university rule prohibiting against discrimination based on sexual orientation, an issue on which the Supreme Court reached exactly the opposite conclusion several years later.

And she could set us back decades...

Steven Colloton

The third name on Heritage’s list of possible Supreme Court nominees is Judge Steven Colloton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, after previous service for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and as a U.S. attorney.

Colloton has been at the forefront of a number of troubling Eighth Circuit rulings, including writing decisions that reversed an $8.1 million award to whistleblowers who helped bring a defective pricing and kickback claim against a large corporation and a nearly $19 million class action judgment against Tyson Foods for violating the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. He also joined a ruling making the Eighth Circuit the only appellate court in the country that found that the Obama administration’s efforts to accommodate religious universities and other religious nonprofit objectors to the provision of contraceptive coverage under the ACA was insufficient, an issue now being considered by the Supreme Court.

Even more troubling, Colloton has dissented from a number of Eighth Circuit rulings that have upheld the rights of employees, consumers and others against big business and government agencies. He dissented from a decision giving African-American shoppers the opportunity to prove discrimination claims against a large department store, and then saw his view prevail by one vote when the full Eighth Circuit reheard the case. In another case, he dissented from a decision finding that a city had violated the Voting Rights Act by improperly diluting the voting strength of Native Americans.

Colloton dissented from rulings that gave individuals a chance to prove claims of use of excessive force and, in one case, that a city’s policy to use police dogs to bite and hold suspects without any warning was unconstitutional. In three separate cases, he dissented from decisions that employees should at least get the chance to prove in court that their employers retaliated against them for filing sex harassment, age discrimination, or other discrimination claims. In two more decisions, he argued in dissent that public employees should not have the opportunity to prove that they were retaliated against for speaking out in violation of their First Amendment rights. Yet he also claimed in a dissent that the First Amendment rights of a candidate for state supreme court justice were violated by a state judicial code of conduct restricting solicitation and other campaign activity in order to promote judicial impartiality and ethical conduct by judges. Even the conservative Roberts Court that decided the Citizens United case has agreed that these concerns justify solicitation restrictions in state supreme court elections.

And the only thing worse than a crooked Judge is one incapable of decisions.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...ump-or-cruz-do

I figured since this election was a fucking farce I'd get my research from some place equally looney. Where do I apply to become a Mexican?

[Kujako]

Next week, Trump denies having released list of potential SCOTUS nominees and calls anyone who said he did a doody head.

[Reg]

Next week, Trump denies having released list of potential SCOTUS nominees and calls anyone who said he did a doody head.

So this is John Miller's list?