SCOTUS-Watch: It's Gorsuch!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't think anyone really has a good feel for who is more conservative and it is hard to quantify, but remember the whole list was lauded by Fed Society and the right in general.

I have seen charts painting Kethledge as the middle of the road choice and Hardimen about even with Roberts.

Change the cases you emphasize and the whole thing will shift so these charts very likely can be skewed either intentionally or not and thus not paint the proper picture.

[Klartext89]

I don't think anyone really has a good feel for who is more conservative and it is hard to quantify, but remember the whole list was lauded by Fed Society and the right in general.

I have seen charts painting Kethledge as the middle of the road choice and Hardimen about even with Roberts.

Change the cases you emphasize and the whole thing will shift so these charts very likely can be skewed either intentionally or not and thus not paint the proper picture.

Yeah, that's it.

I began with hoping for Pryor, than changed to Gorsuch and now thought (till reading this thread) that Hardiman would be the best choice for conservatives... I'm a bit stunned now, but all three are defenders of the Second Amendment, so you can't really lose something.

Boy, let's be Gorsuch!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't think anyone really has a good feel for who is more conservative and it is hard to quantify, but remember the whole list was lauded by Fed Society and the right in general.

I have seen charts painting Kethledge as the middle of the road choice and Hardimen about even with Roberts.

Change the cases you emphasize and the whole thing will shift so these charts very likely can be skewed either intentionally or not and thus not paint the proper picture.

Yeah, that's it.

I began with hoping for Pryor, than changed to Gorsuch and now thought (till reading this thread) that Hardiman would be the best choice for conservatives... I'm a bit stunned now, but all three are defenders of the Second Amendment, so you can't really lose something.

Boy, let's be Gorsuch!

I started with Sykes. A part of me still wants her to get it, but of course the reporting seems to put her chances in single digits. I guess either of two main contenders at this point are fine.

[Klartext89]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-thomas-hardiman/

Still can't understand what is wrong with Hardiman (if picked)... Hopefully his GOP/Conservative critics here are awaken soon (sorry, it's 10:07 in Germany) :-D

"During his nearly ten years as a federal appeals court judge, Hardiman has weighed in on a variety of hot-button topics important to Republicans, and his votes in these cases have consistently been conservative. For example, the gun rights cases in which Hardiman has participated reflect an originalist approach to the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Although he rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the general constitutionality of the federal law barring felons from possessing firearms, last year he concurred in a pair of challenges to the law by two men who had been convicted of corruption of a minor and carrying a handgun without a license, respectively. Hardiman agreed with the would-be gun owners that, at least as applied to them, the federal law violates the Constitution. He explained that “the threshold question in a Second Amendment challenge is one of scope: whether the Second Amendment protects the person, the weapon, or the activity in the first place. This,” he continued, “requires an inquiry into ‘text and history.’” Based on that inquiry, he concluded that “the most cogent principle that can be drawn from traditional limitations on the right to keep and bear arms is that dangerous persons likely to use firearms for illicit purposes were not understood to be protected by the Second Amendment” – a category into which the individuals in this case, in his view, did not fall. Relying on this principle, Hardiman also joined an unpublished and unsigned opinion rejecting a Second Amendment challenge to the federal and state bars on gun ownership by an inmate released from prison after serving time for armed robbery.

Hardiman’s opinion in Drake v. Filko is a strong statement of his commitment to a more expansive view of the Second Amendment. The case was a challenge to a New Jersey law regulating the issuance of permits to carry handguns in public. Among other things, the gun owner seeking a permit is required to show that he has a “justifiable need” to carry the gun. The panel ruled in favor of the state, but Hardiman dissented from that ruling. He emphasized that the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago both “indicate that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home,” and that – at least in his view – the law violates the Second Amendment. After considering the case at three different conferences, the Supreme Court declined to review the case on the merits, as it did with several other cases presenting the same question."

Sounds well...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

CNN says Democrats plan to wuss out on a fight.  Sad, but not surprising.

Democrats will be the same pathetic lapdogs they were during the Bush administration? Sad!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-thomas-hardiman/

Still can't understand what is wrong with Hardiman (if picked)... Hopefully his GOP/Conservative critics here are awaken soon (sorry, it's 10:07 in Germany) :-D

"During his nearly ten years as a federal appeals court judge, Hardiman has weighed in on a variety of hot-button topics important to Republicans, and his votes in these cases have consistently been conservative. For example, the gun rights cases in which Hardiman has participated reflect an originalist approach to the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Although he rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the general constitutionality of the federal law barring felons from possessing firearms, last year he concurred in a pair of challenges to the law by two men who had been convicted of corruption of a minor and carrying a handgun without a license, respectively. Hardiman agreed with the would-be gun owners that, at least as applied to them, the federal law violates the Constitution. He explained that “the threshold question in a Second Amendment challenge is one of scope: whether the Second Amendment protects the person, the weapon, or the activity in the first place. This,” he continued, “requires an inquiry into ‘text and history.’” Based on that inquiry, he concluded that “the most cogent principle that can be drawn from traditional limitations on the right to keep and bear arms is that dangerous persons likely to use firearms for illicit purposes were not understood to be protected by the Second Amendment” – a category into which the individuals in this case, in his view, did not fall. Relying on this principle, Hardiman also joined an unpublished and unsigned opinion rejecting a Second Amendment challenge to the federal and state bars on gun ownership by an inmate released from prison after serving time for armed robbery."

Sounds well...

History! In 1990, John Sununu assured George H. W. Bush that David Souter was a solid choice and that his lack of record meant that he could sail through the Democratic Senate. He was half right. He did sail through the Senate, but he turned out to be a solid liberal on many issues including upholding Roe two years later. In his capacity he had ruled on mostly business cases and thus did not have the paper trail that would harm his chances at confirmation, but at the same time there was no way to prove his commitment one way or the other on various social issues. Just like Conservatives have been loathe to repeat Bush 41's raising taxes, the same can be said for conservatives when it comes Bush 41 appointing Souter.

This is nothing new either, Republicans as far back as Ike appointing Brennan found themselves lamenting the choice, because they turned out to be liberals. Nixon had Blackmun, Ford had Stevens, Reagan had O'Connor and Kennedy, and Bush had Roberts. In some of these cases the President's maintained their approval of their nominees, but the Party and movement did not.

[Klartext89]

History! In 1990, John Sununu assured George H. W. Bush that David Souter was a solid choice and that his lack of record meant that he could sail through the Democratic Senate. He was half right. He did sail through the Senate, but he turned out to be a solid liberal on many issues including upholding Roe two years later. In his capacity he had ruled on mostly business cases and thus did not have the paper trail that would harm his chances at confirmation, but at the same time there was no way to prove his commitment one way or the other on various social issues. Just like Conservatives have been loathe to repeat Bush 41's raising taxes, the same can be said for conservatives when it comes Bush 41 appointing Souter.

This is nothing new either, Republicans as far back as Ike appointing Brennan found themselves lamenting the choice, because they turned out to be liberals. Nixon had Blackmun, Ford had Stevens, Reagan had O'Connor and Kennedy, and Bush had Roberts. In some of these cases the President's maintained their approval of their nominees, but the Party and movement did not.

Fully understandable, thank you!

That's the big joke of American politics, that mostly the people vote conservative and GOP Presidents, but the Court never really got this way because of wrong appointments.

Hope Trump doesn't get betrayed, too...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Some Justices like Blackmun and Stevens become more liberal after a few years. However, and this especially seems to impact Chief Justices, it is clear that Justices like Warren Burger, found themselves left behind by the conservatives. He had been considered adequate in 1969 (Nixon was determined to find Conservative Justices and Burger was his first pick because of that, not in spite of it), but his support for Roe put him at odds with what became the defining issue for the right regarding the courts. Going even further, in the early 1990's (after retiring), he completely dismissed the notion of an individual right to bear arms being established by the Second amendment.

By the same token, Roberts was Bush's first choice for Associate Justice before kicking him upstairs when Rehnquist passed away. Bush no doubt figured he met all the benchmarks and yet could still be easily confirmed. Obamacare of course changed that calculus and Republican primary candidates instantly dropped him from their "model Justice list", leaving it just Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

The critics want a passionately committed Justice who adheres to a strict philosophy thus avoiding the risk of a shift in ideology or outright miscalculation.

[Torie]

Some Justices like Blackmun and Stevens become more liberal after a few years. However, and this especially seems to impact Chief Justices, it is clear that Justices like Warren Burger, found themselves left behind by the conservatives. He had been considered adequate in 1969 (Nixon was determined to find Conservative Justices and Burger was his first pick because of that, not in spite of it), but his support for Roe put him at odds with what became the defining issue for the right regarding the courts. Going even further, in the early 1990's (after retiring), he completely dismissed the notion of an individual right to bear arms being established by the Second amendment.

By the same token, Roberts was Bush's first choice for Associate Justice before kicking him upstairs when Rehnquist passed away. Bush no doubt figured he met all the benchmarks and yet could still be easily confirmed. Obamacare of course changed that calculus and Republican primary candidates instantly dropped him from their "model Justice list", leaving it just Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

The critics want a passionately committed Justice who adheres to a strict philosophy thus avoiding the risk of a shift in ideology or outright miscalculation.

The rap sheet on Burger is that he often switched his vote so that he could be a part of the majority and control who wrote the opinion. One of his clerks was my professor in law school, and he told me that privately. He did not respect Burger for that, among other reasons.

[krazen1211]

I started with Sykes. A part of me still wants her to get it, but of course the reporting seems to put her chances in single digits. I guess either of two main contenders at this point are fine.

If they are down to 2, the guy who doesn't get the first appointment will be the frontrunner for the second appointment. So it really is just a matter of order.

[The Other Castro]

Manu Raju ‏@mkraju  25m25 minutes ago
Hardiman, Gorsuch brought to Washington for SCOTUS announcement - and Gorsuch is leading candidate, via @PamelaBrownCNN @Arianedevogue

[The Other Castro]

Crazy thought: What if both of them are being nominated, and an additional Justice (Thomas perhaps) is stepping down?

[Vega]

How Conservative is Gorsuch?

[Tartarus Sauce]

Crazy thought: What if both of them are being nominated, and an additional Justice (Thomas perhaps) is stepping down?

Doubtful, but that would ultimately be a net benefit from my viewpoint. Removing Thomas from the equation tilts the court more leftward no matter who you replace him with.

[The Other Castro]

The choice has presumably already been made and the candidate has most likely already been informed, so why would both agree to come to Washington? Is it really worth it to build the extra suspense when the choice is being announced tonight anyway?

[RI]

Really hoping for Gorsuch at this point.

[Tender Branson]

After the past week, I'm 98% sure it will be Pryor ...

[The Other Castro]

If there is a dual nomination, it could explain why networks have conflicting sources that seem very confident their guy is getting nominated.

[7,052,770]

The choice has presumably already been made and the candidate has most likely already been informed, so why would both agree to come to Washington? Is it really worth it to build the extra suspense when the choice is being announced tonight anyway?

Reality show mindset. He always brought multiple people into the Boardroom on the Apprentice even when he knew for sure who would be fired

[Klartext89]

I also don't get it why both have to come to DC... Ok, being the #2 today isn't bad because Trump will with 99% certainty fill at least another seat, but I wouldn't want to come to DC to congratulate someone else...

Weird.

[The Other Castro]

Andrea Drusch ‏@AndreaDrusch  6m6 minutes ago
Judicial Crisis Network prepped ads for either SCOTUS pick, launching $2M TV & digital campaign tonight in MO, IN, MT, DC


The Judicial Crisis Network is a conservative group, and it looks like they're going to try and pressure McCaskill, Donnelly, and Tester into voting for confirmation.

[Gass3268]

Andrea Drusch ‏@AndreaDrusch  6m6 minutes ago
Judicial Crisis Network prepped ads for either SCOTUS pick, launching $2M TV & digital campaign tonight in MO, IN, MT, DC


The Judicial Crisis Network is a conservative group, and it looks like they're going to try and pressure McCaskill, Donnelly, and Tester into voting for confirmation.

Ugh, why does DC have to be on their list?

[Classic Conservative]

Really hoping for Gorsuch at this point.

[Klartext89]

Andrea Drusch ‏@AndreaDrusch  6m6 minutes ago
Judicial Crisis Network prepped ads for either SCOTUS pick, launching $2M TV & digital campaign tonight in MO, IN, MT, DC


The Judicial Crisis Network is a conservative group, and it looks like they're going to try and pressure McCaskill, Donnelly, and Tester into voting for confirmation.

Hope they vote No, I want their seats ^^

[The Other Castro]

According to unnamed sources, Gorsuch has been told he is likely the nominee.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-report-idUSKBN15F28Z?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social