There will be no leak and the media will have a hay day on Sunday.
I suppose Collins and Murkowski will be invited to every show.
The media primarily care about two things: Will the nominee allow a massive wave of unvetted filthy people to swamp us from the south? and Will the nominee allow irresponsible women (and girls) to kill their babies if they feel like doing so?
Okay, three things, because they also really really care about damaging President Trump in any way possible.
Since immigration is Trump’s big issue, I seriously doubt he’d nominate an amnesty advocate.
i’ll consider Not considering you because you are laced with Bush. Pass!
Isn’t interesting how the dimwit Liberal left radical fools always stick together even their judge nominees. But the GOPe, why these idiots could not find their way out of a paper bag and they nominate judges who are Not in the least conservative. It’s baffling and cause contention in scotus appeals.
I can only think the Jared/Ivanka wing of the administration are behind this. His record on immigration was well known even before his name was floated. Bad choice.
The only nominee with a proven track record on immigration is Brett Kavanaugh. Amy Barrett might be OK, or might not. She's a big question mark in this area of law.
This is based on the outcome of some case, not the reasoning the went into it. It's not the outcome that matters but how he got there.
perhaps:
Kirstjen Michele Nielsen (born May 14, 1972)
Secretary of Homeland Security
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirstjen_Nielsen
She earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1999.
Since Senator Collins is going to block an abortion reformer, I say go with a law and order person.
She’ll learn the ropes of running the court from the other eight Justices.
The left wants unfettered murder of babies and unfettered importation of colonists. The grandstanding during hearings will be absolutely as disgusting as the Bork travesty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Kethledge
It discusses a number of cases.
He seems to be a fair, no-nonsense judge.
He clerked for Justice Kennedy.
I did not know this before, but I consider it disqualifying.
If you get it wrong on abortion, second amendment, or immigration, move on.
past confirmation hearing testimony:
https://www.congress.gov/110/chrg/shrg48894/CHRG-110shrg48894.htm
[I don’t have the time to read it.]
Deep Stater who will further take away our freedom.
No way in hell should this be the pick.
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit (Michigan) Age: 49
Education: Boston College; University of California, Berkeley Law
Clerkships: Arthur Spiegel (Southern District of Ohio); Nathaniel Jones (6th Circuit)
Amul Thapar was Trump’s second judicial nominee following the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Last May, the Senate confirmed Thapar to the 6th Circuit on party lines, by a vote of 52-44 (four Democrats abstained from voting).
Before ascending to the appeals court, he spent nearly a decade as a trial judge on the Eastern District of Kentucky. President George W. Bush nominated Thapar to that judgeship in May 2007, and he was confirmed by a voice vote in December 2007, making him the first South Asian-American federal judge and one of the youngest in the entire federal judiciary. He also volunteered to hear immigration cases during a judicial emergency in the Southern District of Texas.
Before joining the federal court, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia and in the Southern District of Ohio and later as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. He also worked in private practice in Washington, D.C., and Cincinnati, Ohio, and served as general counsel for Equalfooting.com, a business-to-business online marketplace.
In a recent Michigan Law Review article, Thapar and attorney Benjamin Beaton reviewed former 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner’s new book in which Posner recommends abandoning a formalist approach in which judges rely on historical meaning, established interpretive tools, and precedent in favor of a more consequentialist, more overtly outcome-driven approach.
Thapar offers a robust defense of textualism, arguing that Posner’s approach would prove unworkable and unpredictable and would turn judges into policymakers, thereby violating separation of powers. He concluded the article:
Because judges are human, formalism is in a sense aspirational. As Justice Scalia admitted, ‘the main danger in judicial interpretation of the Constitution—or, for that matter, in judicial interpretation of any law—is that the judges will mistake their own predilections for the law. Avoiding this error is the hardest part of being a conscientious judge; perhaps no conscientious judge ever succeeds entirely.’ But this is no basis for rejecting a formal approach to interpreting legal texts; it only heightens the need to incorporate limits, rather than license, into the judicial system. That textualism will sometimes fail to constrain judges is no reason to surrender to other interpretive approaches that, by their very design, impose fewer and less effective constraints.
Although he has only been an appeals court judge for little over a year, he wrote 36 appeals court opinions when he sat on the 6th and 11th circuits by designation, and he’s written 10 published opinions since his confirmation last year. As a district court judge, Thapar published 631 orders—only 11 of which were reversed on appeal.
Thapar appears to be a committed textualist. In Freeland v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2011), Thapar remanded a diversity case back to state court because it was “exactly one penny short of the jurisdictional minimum of the federal courts.” While admitting that this result was “painfully inefficient,” he said that “[t]he words [amount] ‘in controversy’ have to mean something” and that the statute’s text left no other choice.
In Duncan v. Muzyn (2018), a case dealing with how much notice the Tennessee Valley Authority’s pension board must give members before voting to approve an amendment to the plan, the board argued that it should be granted deference because its rules are ambiguous. In declining to defer to the board’s interpretation, Thapar wrote:
Simply calling something ambiguous does not make it so. Indeed, determining the point at which ‘ambiguousness constitutes an ambiguity’ is no easy task. Contract language is not ambiguous merely because the parties interpret it differently … Rather, where, as here, one interpretation far better accounts for the language at issue, the language is not ambiguous. In terms of the First Amendment, Thapar joined the majority opinion (along with Kethledge) in Bormuth v. Jackson holding that a county board’s practice of opening public meetings with a prayer by a county commissioner did not violate the Establishment Clause.
And in one of his more controversial decisions on the district court, Thapar ruled in Winter v. Wolnitzek (2016) that a number of Kentucky’s judicial conduct rules prohibiting judges from making campaign contributions to others, campaigning as a member of a political organization, and making speeches for or against political organizations were unconstitutional.
Thapar explained:
There is simply no difference between ‘saying’ that one supports an organization by using words and ‘saying’ that one supports an organization by donating money. Put more plainly, if a candidate can speak the words ‘I support the Democratic Party,’ then he must likewise be allowed to put his money where his mouth is. The 6th Circuit praised Thapar’s “thorough and thoughtful opinion,” while overruling the portion of his opinion regarding campaign contributions.
Although he spent much of his career as a federal prosecutor, as a district court judge, Thapar has on occasion ruled in favor of criminal defendants. For example, in U.S. v. Sydnor (2017), Thapar excluded inculpatory statements made by the accused that were obtained before he was given his Miranda warnings, and in U.S. v. Lee (2012), Thapar suppressed evidence that was obtained after the police tracked the defendant using a GPS tracking device without first obtaining a warrant.
And as an appellate judge, he wrote an opinion in United States v. Perkins (2018), affirming the trial judge’s motion to suppress evidence police obtained in a drug investigation based on an anticipatory warrant where the triggering event never happened. He wrote that the government’s interpretation (which made the triggering event irrelevant to the warrant) “lacks common sense,” “runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment,” and is not simply a “hypertechnicality” the court should overlook.
Of the judges Trump has appointed so far, Thapar has the most extensive record of judicial service, covering a range of issues from the criminal justice system to the First Amendment. He also has close ties to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and rumor has it Trump interviewed Thapar for the Supreme Court seat that ultimately went to Gorsuch.
>https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/meet-the-6-stellar-judges-leading-the-pack-trumps-supreme-court-short-list
“He’s committed to diversity in clerk hiring: out of his 48 clerks, 25 are women and 13 are diverse — astounding numbers by the standards of feeder judges, who tend to be white males hiring other white males.”
“The fact that Judge Kavanaugh has managed to send 39 out of these 48 clerks to SCOTUS is a testament to the fact that there’s no tradeoff between diversity and excellence. You just need to work harder at it — as Judge Kavanaugh does, traveling to law schools on his own dime to mentor diverse students, meet with minority law student groups, and give them advice on applying for clerkships.”
“As a Sixth Circuit judge, Kethledge hasn’t handled as many hot-button issues as Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit”
Being a Bush appointee (41 or 43, it makes little difference) is strike 1.
Being soft on immigration is strike 2.
I say let’s avoid a strike-out by appointing someone who will be an Originalist, and who will by dint of that drive the Left even further over the edge of sanity: Thomas Hardiman. Hardiman is VERY pro-2nd Amendment, which by necessity means that he relies upon the TEXT of the Constitution to decide cases...and that’s what we want, an Originalist. That he’s very pro-2nd Amendment is even more reason to appoint him and
NOT Kethledge. NOT Kethledge. NOT Kethledge.
He’s still better on the issue than Hardiman, who is supposedly on the short list again and would be a Kennedy-like “swing vote” on other issues.