Here Is a Simple Rule Regarding Kennedy Replacement

Townhall ^ | July 3, 2018 | John R. Lott, Jr.

[rogerantone1]

Here is a simple rule: you can judge the caliber of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee by how angry the Democrats get. The smarter and more influential the nominee, in an important sense the more qualified they are, the angrier Democrats will get.

[Liz]

.......you can judge the caliber of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee by how angry the Democrats get.
The smarter and more influential the nominee, the more qualified they are, the angrier Democrats will get.......

Good rule.

[Rurudyne]

I’d like to someday see a headline that “Republicans celebrate Democrat outrage”

[ScottinVA]

That’s a valid rule of thumb for any nomination or policy decision. Gauge how vehemently the dems oppose it — the more rabid they are about it, the better decision it is.

[NorthMountain]

It’s an extension of the cold war “Soviet Outrage Principle”.

[JohnBrowdie]

this guy is missing the point. trump should pick the next nominee because it the right nominee with the right principles and the right temperament, not according to how hysterical the nomination makes an already hopelessly hysterical bunch of weirdos.

[depressed in 06]

Bolshies got Kagen and Sotomayor, of course, they are going to be angry.

[CommerceComet]

I have always thought that the biggest threat of Robert Bork to the liberals was not his intellect (which was prodigious) but his persuasiveness. His argumentation was so logical that it compelled people to come along with him in a way that neither Rehnquist nor Scalia could match. Because of this ability, Bork didn’t really represent one vote on the Court but effectively two or three as he pulled Justices his way.

[fireman15]

I do not think that this is a valid way to judge anything in the current climate. President Trump could nominate Maxine Waters to the Supreme Court and the left would still be mad and be protesting. There is no way to placate the current mob.

[Balding_Eagle]

The reason you say that is because you didn’t read the article.

[PghBaldy]

They got crazy over Souter, which shows they are crazed indiscriminately.

[CommerceComet]

this guy is missing the point. trump should pick the next nominee because it the right nominee with the right principles and the right temperament, not according to how hysterical the nomination makes an already hopelessly hysterical bunch of weirdos.

However, any nominee worth his or her salt will create hysteria on the left. While that shouldn't be the objective of his nominee, it is a predictable outcome from a good selection.

[grania]

Trump should pick the next nominee because it is the right nominee with the right principles and the right temperament

I agree. Add to that, it might be best if it's not one of the proclaimed frontrunners. Might be best to catch the maniacs off guard.

[DannyTN]

I agree with you. Democratic outrage might be an indicator, but it’s just one indicator and not a reliable one. And some day the rats might use reverse psychology.

Therefore it can’t and should never replace fundamental analysis of a judge’s actual record.

[elcid1970]

Are you saying that Robert Bork, having been denied a seat on the Supreme Court by Swimmer Kennedy’s evil, went on to influence the sitting justices through his writings and conversations with them?

Nothing prohibits a failed SCOTUS nominee from further contact with the incumbents. Never thought of it that way before, I’m serious.

[gibsonguy]

“I do not think that this is a valid way to judge anything in the current climate. President Trump could nominate Maxine Waters..”

You are right about the rabid mob but when it comes to Chuky’s gang it takes a more nuanced view. What we can say is ANY Trump nominee that gets more than one or two Rat votes is a bad pick. Just look at that Deep State fool Wray. Barret got over 30 which makes me very nervous. I don’t trust her when it comes to immigration. No woman has EVER moved or stayed conservative as a SC Judge.

[clee1]

Yeah? Does Sandra Day O’Conner ring a bell?

[CommerceComet]

Nothing prohibits a failed SCOTUS nominee from further contact with the incumbents. Never thought of it that way before, I’m serious.

IIRC, Bork withdrew, for the most part, from active legal practice and dedicating time to writing. I have no idea if he regularly had contact with the USSC Justices after his failed nomination.

What I was referring to was Bork's opinions on the D. C. Court of Appeals. There were several times that he wrote an opinion that undermined earlier USSC precedents and that was accepted by the current Court when the case was heard. I remember at the time of his nomination hearing a couple of liberal legal talking heads expressing fear over this fact suggesting that Bork's argumentation was particularly influential.

[rlmorel]

I may well manufacture A Supreme Court Justice Approval Level Meter tonight in Photoshop!

[vette6387]

But you haven't seen anything until Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg kicks off and has to be replaced! The RATs see that as a “Leftist Seat,” unlike Kennedy's which is the “moderate” one. Put up Amy Coney Barrett for that one and the RATs will be apoplectic! And that is why we need to widen our margin in the Senate, so Murky and Collins don't have any power. Get Tester, Manchin, Heitcamp, and maybe one or two others, and hold onto the two seats in AZ, the one in NV and the one in Tennessee