SCOTUS Judge Nomination Watch

[Aim1]

Instead of having a new thread every time a SCOTUS judge nomination comes up I figured we can have one dedicated thread.







http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...udge-jane-l-kelly-for-supreme-court-seat.html

Obama reportedly considering Judge Jane L. Kelly for Supreme Court seat


Published March 03, 2016 FoxNews.com

President Barack Obama is reportedly vetting Jane L. Kelly as a possible Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Kelly, 51, is a federal appellate judge in Iowa. The FBI has been conducting interviews with Kelly as part of the process to find a new justice, The New York Times reported Wednesday. Obama is expected to choose Scalia’s successor in the next few weeks, but might face a block from congressional Republicans. Grassley praised Kelly in a speech on the Senate floor in 2013 prior to her being confirmed for her current position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He also urged his colleagues to support his decision.

Other potential candidates on the short list include Judges Patricia Millett and Sri Srinvasan, both who are on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

 

[lilguy]

Any of them have pro 2 leanings?

The problem is a moderate/conservative appointee can wander off the reservation. A liberal never does. The threat is real. Justice Thomas infered
recently that gun rights are safe, for now. No one knows better than he how tenuous our position is.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Note:

If we are going to discuss here the pros or cons of possible Supreme Court nominees, opinions regarding the desirability or lack thereof a particular nominee will need to be based on good evidence, e. g., the nominee's public statements or court decisions he has written or joined in.

Please supply links and/or citations.

 

[Red Wind]

Senator Grassly has considered UBC's in the past as we see here.

I would be quite leery about anyone he recommends for Justice Scalia's SCOTUS seat. He is not the most conservative tool in the GOP shed, that is for sure.

If this is considered OT, please delete.I think it's relevant in that some GOP Senators are probably willing to compromise

 

[Aim1]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/obama-supreme-court-interviews-adalberto-jordan/index.html

First on CNN: Top name withdraws from Supreme Court consideration

By Manu Raju, Kevin Liptak and Ariane de Vogue

Updated 2:11 PM ET, Wed March 9, 2016

Washington (CNN) Adalberto Jordan, a federal judge in Miami seen as a top contender for the Supreme Court vacancy, has withdrawn his name from contention, a lawmaker told CNN on Wednesday.

"He pulled himself out of consideration," Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida told CNN. Nelson said Jordan made the decision because of a "personal, family situation" involving his mother.

"I talked to him ... I think that's unfortunate because he is squeaky clean," Nelson said, citing Jordan's long judicial record and his overwhelming confirmation by the Senate in 2012.

Jordan, who would have fit the bill of another Obama appellate nominee who has an engaging personal story, was recently vetted for a federal judgeship and won a large majority in the Senate when confirmed.

 

[Aim1]

Another one bites the dust.


http://www.aol.com/article/2016/03/...ks-not-to-be-considered-for-supreme/21324877/

US Attorney General Lynch asks not to be considered for Supreme Court vacancy

ERIC WALSHMar 8th 2016 10:58PM

WASHINGTON, March 8 (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch asked not to be considered as a nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month, the Justice Department said on Tuesday.

Lynch, 56, was rumored to be under consideration by Democratic President Barack Obama. She is held in high regard within the administration, received bipartisan support for her nomination as attorney general and would be the first black woman to serve on the Supreme Court.
"Given the urgent issues before the Department of Justice, she asked not to be considered for the position," the department said in a statement.

 

[Aim1]

It looks like this is Obama's short list for SCOTUS nominee and that he may may his choice as soon as tomorrow.



It looks like: Sri Srinivasan – D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Merrick B. Garland – Chief Judge, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Paul J. Watford – U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.





http://wiat.com/2016/03/14/obamas-super-short-supreme-court-nominee-list/

Obama’s super-short Supreme Court nominee list

Chance Seales, Media General National Correspondent Published: March 14, 2016, 7:30 am

WASHINGTON (Media General) – It could be any day now. President Obama is said to have settled on a slimmed-down list of possible Supreme Court nominees.

Three names have climbed to the top of the heap, as first reported by NPR’s uber-connected SCOTUS correspondent Nina Totenberg.

Overall, Mr. Obama appears set to pick a well-qualified moderate. The Associated Press surmises, “The choices suggest the White House plans to challenge the Republican Senate to block a nominee whose pedigree might have paved the way for a relatively easy confirmation, if the fight weren’t playing out in an election year.”

 

[old lady new shooter]

It looks like: Sri Srinivasan – D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Merrick B. Garland – Chief Judge, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Paul J. Watford – U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.

http://wiat.com/2016/03/14/obamas-super-short-supreme-court-nominee-list/

An email I received this morning offers background information on these prospective nominees, I have not checked any of this. NOTE: I deleted the editorializing-type language:

First we have Judge Sri Srinivasan, a native of Chandigarh, India. He was part of the legal team that presented arguments before the Supreme Court against the Defense of Marriage Act in the case of United States v. Windsor. He was also was one of three judges on a panel that refused to halt the Obama administration’s "Clean Power Plan". He worked as a clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and was confirmed 97–0 in 2013 to the DC Court of Appeals.

Next up we have Judge Paul Watford, of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Before reaching the bench, Watford is noted for partnering with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) in two cases to oppose Arizona’s 2010 immigration bill. He was also a former clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.


And last but not least, Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the DC Circuit. Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense. He also voted to uphold a Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement.

Garland has a long record and it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

[IL Guns]

Those are Obamas two choices. The good thing according to the news the Republicans are having none of it. They have said "Good Luck" in getting someone appointed. Since Obama seems more interested in freestyle rapping in the Rose Garden instead of actually running this country, Good.
His whole case is he has 237 more days in office and until then he is the POTUS and therefore he gets to appoint the next SCOTUS Judge. His problem is he isn't acting like the POTUS, instead he acts the fool. I'm not too worried about it, after the appointees get torn apart during the Senate hearings for the next 237 days you are going to have people saying Thanks for nominating me but I'm good right where I'm at. He will not get a SCOTUS Judge appointed before Michelle has a show on OWN. Good Riddance

 

[v35]

I think it's fair to say the 0utgoing President is not likely to nominate a champion of individual liberty who will elicit overwhelming bipartisan support.

In that case, would someone like to suggest a potential nominee that would?

In the happy (though in my opinion increasingly unlikely) event this country elects a competent and worthy President, he or she will have an immediate need to fill that vacancy * and I'd like to know if anyone would like to suggest a qualified nominee.

Let's say you're President for a day. Who would you nominate, and why?

As Frank suggested, support your case with examples of public statements or court decisions he or she has written, or joined.

... instead he acts the fool.

He's not acting.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

"But Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland

The above link discusses the Second Amendment record of the man that will be announced as the Obama's Supreme Court nominee today. It is worth familiarizing yourself with his thoughts on that issue. Garland voted against Heller at the circuit court level and supported Clinton-era registration as well.

 

[JohnnyK]

I would love to see Ted Poe or Ted Cruz get picked for Supreme Court...

 

[Red Wind]

Mike Lee of Utah would be my first choice for the SCOTUS. A conservative on gun rights to the core.

 

[Aim1]

Not good. Obama nominated Maverick Garland and he's anti-gun.





http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/16/merrick-garland-five-facts/

5 Facts You Need to Know About Merrick Garland

by JOEL B. POLLAK16 Mar 2016316
On Wednesday, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Here are five quick facts you need to know about Garland.

1. Garland is considered anti-Second Amendment. As the National Review noted last week: “Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation” and voted “to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement.” Obama will use his pick to pursue a gun control agenda.

 

[OilyPablo]

Decline. Straight up vote.

 

[Jeff H]

Mike Lee of Utah would be my first choice for the SCOTUS. A conservative on gun rights to the core.

Great. As soon as you are POTUS, you can make that appointment.





Like this guy or hate him, the Senate should do their job and give him a hearing and a vote. If they don't do at least that much, it will be used against them in Nov for sure.

 

[Red Wind]

Forget about it. Shut down all Obama nominees. Starting today. The Senate has no Constitutional duty to appoint anyone. No more falling into Obama traps.

 

[Jeff H]

A pretty thorough article written 6 years ago the last time Garland was considered for the High Court.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-garland/

His actions on Heller are noted in this article and from what I can see, are not quite what the gun blogs are posting. I didn't read the whole article, but the first 1/2 leads me to believe that he is a true moderate. Probably not leaning our way on this particular topic, but overall, not someone who should be dismissed out of hand.

Heller position from the article:

Garland also notably voted in favor of en banc review of the D.C. Circuit's decision invalidating the D.C. handgun ban, which the Supreme Court subsequently affirmed. Garland did not take a formal position on the merits of the case. But even if he had concluded that the statute was constitutional, that view of the case would have conformed to the widespread view that, under existing Supreme Court precedent, the Second Amendment did not confer a right to bear arms unconnected to service in a militia. Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (2007) (see denial of rehearing en banc).

 

[TimSr]

Probably not leaning our way on this particular topic, but overall, not someone who should be dismissed out of hand.

In my opinion, Obama nominated this guy for political purposes, and only because he knew he would not be considered or confirmed. I believe he was selected on the basis of who Obama could make the most political hay out of. It was a political stunt, and should be ignored as such.

 

[old lady new shooter]

7 GOP senators have agreed to meet with Garland

The article also has a chart by Nate Silver showing what kind of nominee we would get depending on the results of the election, with the probability of each election result. Given the probability of each election result according to him, it's pretty depressing.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/...s-willing-to-meet-with-obamas-scotus-nominee/

 

[IL Guns]

Regardless of who Obama nominates the GOP have announced "they would not even shake hands with a Supreme Court nominee selected by the President of the United States." Some consider it petty but many consider it payback. Obama will NEVER get anybody appointed. The GOP should go through the motions to look like they actually care so they aren't too hurt in the future but the point has been made, NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
Now it's a matter of keeping HC out. I think Trump has a whole new special bag of dirty tricks for her so she will be left shaking her head again.
How did I lose again?

 

[roscoe]

Not even considering him is foolish. If Clinton wins, which is a better than average probability at this point, she will appoint someone far less moderate on 2A rights.

If the Republicans were smart, they would drag their feet until the election, then reject or accept based on the result.

 

[old lady new shooter]

If the Republicans were smart, they would drag their feet until the election, then reject or accept based on the result.

I've seen exactly that proposed in more than one article already.

 

[BSA1]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch O'Connell is too be trusted?

Leading the party that is considering denying Trump and Cruz the Republican Party nomination for President and have a brokered convention for someone like Romney?

 

[Red Wind]

^Straying off the reservation. Lets keep it oriented towards the SCOTUS nominations by the lame duck. It's been 1888 since a Justice has been confirmed to the SCOTUS by a divided POTUS/Congress scenario in a Presidents last year in office.

That's 128 years if you're keeping score. So denying Obama his nominee wishes is the the norm , not the extreme.