In just a few weeks, President Trump will be able to begin filling the dozens of federal judge positions, including the most important Supreme Court vacancy. Who are your top picks that Trump and the majority of the Senate would approve, and any explanations why they are most deserving?
I would like to see Trump consider a candidate for the Supreme Court who is NOT a lawyer. Possibly a Constitution historian or other NOT a lawyer person of appropriate qualifications. Moi r > g View attachment 47073 Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
The answer to this is relatively simple. To select the best candidates for judges and Justices to the Supreme Court, pick the EXACT OPPOSITES of the kind of hyperliberal, revisionist stooges that radical Democrats have picked, including Sotomayor and Kagan. With that as the baseline criterion, Trump really can't go wrong....
That would be a mistake. I understand your logic, but a lot of what the SCOTUS hears are cases that are very legally technical.
That is Moi's point. Too much lawyer has taken away our Constitution. A Constitution academic would be a qualified voice from a different point of view. Being a lawyer is not a constitutionally required qualification for the Supreme Court. Such a justice might remind the rest of the court that the Constitution was established to "limit the powers of the Federals", not to expand them. Why not? It is only one, not the whole court although Moi r > g
I like Moi's (Votre?) point: It would be good to nominate someone of academic acumen who was able to remind the other Justices at every turn that the Court does not get into the business of setting policy and/or legislating from the bench. The Court has become much too lax in its thinking, as evidenced by the fact that the four liberal Justices (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor) are looked on as sitting on the bench not to cast a judgement about an issue before them, but to cast a vote on that issue. That is incorrect thinking on a good many different levels. In addition to this, the decorum of the Court has suffered greatly recently, what with Justice Ginsburg considering it ok to mouth off about a political candidate with whom she disagrees; sorry RBG, that type of activity is never appropriate coming from a justice on the high court. Having a non-lawyer on the court, someone capable of offering critical thought to a matter and then rendering a judgement on that matter without falling down the slippery slope to move beyond rendering a judgement, that would be a very good thing. Perhaps someone like John McGinnis, or somebody else on the recognized list of Constitutional scholars...
I like Andrew Napolitano. That likely won't happen, though. Although he did meet with Trump as an advisor on the subject. As it is, Trump has a little over a hundred court appointments to make aside from that of the SCOTUS.
Gosh, I thought this was a serious discussion thread. If we're just looking for giggles, I'd have picked someone like Stephen Reinhardt. See? Now that's funny...
I would love to see Andrew Napolatano appointed but I expect more phony CONservative stooges who will always side with law enforcement over personal freedom and sell out the people to corporate raiders at every turn.
And a lawyer too! He did work as a judge and is a published author. Still, he is just another lawyer. Lawyers Keep The People Apart From The Law!
Here is one guy who may take the top spot: Judge William H. Pryor Jr., a Bush appointee, has served since 2004 on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Alabama. Pryor, 54, became Alabama’s attorney general in 1997 after his predecessor, Jeff Sessions, was elected to the U.S. Senate as a Republican. (Trump has announced he intends to nominate Sessions as U.S. attorney general.) Pryor was elected in his own right in 1998 as state attorney general and was re-elected in 2002. In 2013, he was confirmed to a term on the United States Sentencing Commission. Pryor received his law degree from Tulane. http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/01/o...omen-will-be-trumps-first-supreme-court-pick/
You Leftists think we on the Right want the reincarnation of Roland Freisler, but all we really want are Supreme Court Justices who will respect the wording of the Constitution of the United States EXACTLY as it was written, and as it has been legally amended! In other words, we DO NOT EVER want any more stooges and goons on the SCOTUS like Kagan and Sotomayor! "What's wrong with Kagan and Sotomayor? They're good liberal Democrat Party loyalists who are 'JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS'...."
` You initial statement totally disqualified you. I'm not a political leftist, a democrat or republican. I leave that for the usually mindless party zealots on both sides who are incapable of seeing past their ideological dichotomy. My statement was tongue in cheek. You might want to seek out discussion with one of your kindred spirits.
Someone who respects civil liberties and who will vote to stop state intrusion into our personal and private lives.
I assumed that you were out there on a Leftist fringe somewhere because you wrote, "It seems obvious to me. The far right wants Sarah Palin on the Supreme Court." Inasmuch as you obviously didn't write that in any kind of complimentary way toward people on the Right, it was logical to assume that you are somewhere definitely left-of-center at least. If that is not the case, then please accept my deep, sincere apology. From time to time, I, too, have been falsely accused of being a dim-witted Leftist (of some kind or other), and it hurts! I have proof dating all the way back to my childhood that I possess a triple-digit IQ, so I'd have to really work at it to be a Leftist of any extreme variety.... Anyway, it is beyond me how anyone would want Sarah Palin on the SCOTUS. Palin has neither the education nor the experience to be a Supreme Court Justice. That said, I'd take her in a heartbeat over hyperliberal, lockstep stooge scum like either Sotomayor or Kagan. Hell, for that matter, I'd take "Joe the Plumber" over either one of those two clowns. At least we could probably count on Palin or Joe to be able to read the Constitution and render judgments accordingly.... . "Obamacare? Legal? Nothing in the Constitution says you can be forced to buy anything!"
