Posted on 07/08/2018 10:50:23 AM PDT by springwater13
President Trump is expressing fresh interest in Judge Thomas M. Hardiman, the runner-up for last year’s Supreme Court vacancy, as he pushes his decision on a replacement for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy into the final hours before his self-imposed deadline of Monday night, three people close to the process said.
All cautioned that Mr. Trump could go a different way before he reveals his choice in a prime-time address on Monday. He has said positive things to associates about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a staunch social conservative, the people familiar with the process said, and he has not ruled out Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, a former staff secretary to George W. Bush.
But they said he found Judge Hardiman’s personal story to be compelling. Judge Hardiman was the first member of his family to graduate from college, and he helped pay for his education by driving a taxi.
The only judge among the four whom the president appears to have all but ruled out is Raymond M. Kethledge. People close to the process said the president had found him likable but comparatively dull. And some conservatives, whose support has guided Mr. Trump’s thinking about the courts, have voiced concern about Judge Kethledge on issues like immigration.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
He could be head-faking everyone and choose someone other than the four getting all the press.
I thought he’d made his decision. There were some reports to that effect.
From the paragon of truth, the NYT. No, thanks.
NYT? Yeah, as if they know anything truthful anything at all.
I don’t know enough about Hardiman to say whether he would be a good justice or not, but I’m not sure this decision should be based in any way on his “personal story”.
Is this the guy Ole Mitch is pushing??? If so I say no...the one Mitch wants from what I hear (and who knows what is true nowadays) is he is SOFT on immigration
I think he's probably the most pro 2A judge on the "Big List".
I’m thinking this too. He did it last time with Gorsuch, so why mess with a winning formula?
They are filling up newspaper space. This speculation is BS. We will know tomorrow am.
So, Anne Coulter’s temper tantrum was effective?
Childish and dishonest.
Kethledge is NOT soft on immigration, unless you consider 5 out of 116 cases “soft”. That’s 97% hardline on immigration. But hey, Coulter knows best.
He would be an outstanding AJ for SCOTUS.
Kethledge is supposed to be more of a moderate and Mitch thinks that would get him through easier than some. Hardiman has already been vetted so Mitch thinks he'd be an easier sale too.
Bottom line is that Mitch looks to be pushing what makes life easier for Mitch.
I read that the announcement is set for 9:30 p.m.
The New York Lies using their typical cover for speculation and outright lying. They are clueless and little should be drawn from their BS. Stop believing these people FReepers!
------------------- "...If it has to be one of these four, I good with Hardiman.I think he's probably the most pro 2A judge on the "Big List".
Completely agree based on what I have read from reliable sources and the decisions he has made, NOT on anything the NYT has to say.
This is BS put out by Ann Coulter. I've posted this elsewhere, but Ann in going all out for Kavanaugh kinda went off the rails on Kethledge, claiming he is an "open boarders" advocate. But she lies.
Ann Coulter's last tweet on Kethledge references Van Don Nguyen v. Holder, 571 F.3d 524
In the first place the opinion was written not by Kethledge but by Merritt. All three judges on the panel voted to reverse and did so because of a recent Supreme Court decision noting that the law requiring deportation was for "crimes of violence" and the SC has held on multiple times that this phrase is ambiguous and not well defined in law.
These three judges UPHELD THE LAW. Don't like the law, get Congress to pass a new one. And they did so applying the 2008 Decision of the SC which SCALIA WROTE. The judges here explained:
Justice Scalia recently explained in Santos that the rule of lenity prevents courts from having to "read the mind" of Congress and is a "venerable" requirement that the federal courts have applied for two centuries when interpreting ambiguous criminal statutes. When a criminal statute is ambiguous as to its intent, the "tie" goes to the defendant. Because we cannot find that auto theft is "unambiguously" a crime of violence under Section 16(b), we should follow the ancient rule and overrule the administrative agency in this case..
I don't know about vetting the various choices, but I have vetted Ann here and she is a liar. As an attorney should should know better as well.
Don't blame McConnell for Collins and Murkowski. It's not his fault he has to put up with them.
yet the same writers had this story yesterday. It’s written as if the authors sat in on the meeting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/us/politics/trump-mcconnell-supreme-court.html
If true, there seems to be a direct WH leak to the NYT ?
Why would he reject a confirmable very conservative judge for a much less conservative judge? Makes no sense.
It is the New York Slimes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.