Let’s have a clean thread to discuss this. Announcement should be made today.
I’m hopeful. As much as I dislike Trump, I do prefer a Roberts or Scalia type person on the Supreme Court, so as long is Trump isn’t going to nominate a partisan hack, I’m going to take a rare opportunity to like something he does. I see no reason to expect any GOP opposition to Trump’s pick, even if some Senators have been critical of some of his recent moves.
According to CBS, it’s down to one of these two:
Based entirely on their Wikipedia pages, it looks like what you would expect in terms of a Conservative selection. Basically a choice between God (Gorsuch) vs Guns (Hardiman).
While I loathe both choices, I do so only about as much as I loathed Scalia. At least I’m relieved that it looks like Trump actually listened to someone who knows something about the judiciary in making these picks, rather than nominating someone off the top of his head like Judge Judy, or some random judge who ruled in his favor at one point.
Baby steps, Buck. Baby steps.
There’s a show called “Hot Bench” where there are three judges and they come up with a joint ruling. Expand it to 9 and you got yourself Supreme Court TV!
Favoring a “Roberts or Scalia type” does tell us something about your preferences, but that is a wide window.
Maybe he’ll pick someone who isn’t a lawyer but plays one on TV.
So, those were his choices after he was told that Judge Hardcastle and Judge Dreadd weren’t real?
I posted an open query about thoughts on Gorsuch a few days ago - not one response…
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=817352
Anywho, as I said in that post:
To me, Gorsuch is a conventional choice with fairly impeccable credentials. I would see him being easily confirmed, with the usual partisan objections from the Democratic side. I don’t see him as having deeply objectionable past opinions that would give anyone something to hang their hat on.
Also mentioned in some circles, William Pryor of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and former Alabama AG. That one must be tempting, because he declared Roe v Wade to be “the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law”. So maybe a three-way choice between God (Gorsuch), Guns (Hardiman), and Fetuses (Pryor). Or maybe Trump can pull a surprise and find a Bible-thumping gun nut and pro-fetus misogynist all in one crackpot judge.
ETA:
From what little I’ve read, Gorsuch is probably the least offensive of the two or three possibilities.
That is where I fall with Gorsuch also. In comparing him to Scalia, I don’t see Gorsuch as a willfully obtuse crank, so far at least.
You mean he’s not going to nominate Bannon? Or his son? Or himself?
Small steps!
William Pryor got struck from the list?
Or his sister, (who is actually sorta qualified).
“With all due respect, Mr. President, Judge Wapner is currently 97 years old…”
Supreme Court nominee will be announced on Tuesday, so the day after tomorrow, Trump tweeted.
Remember last time, his shortlist for VP was down to either Guliani or Christie, but “subject to change at the last moment?”
So…
What will be the news Trump wants us to be outraged about?
And what will be the REAL news Trump wants to hide?
“OK, how about that guy from Law and Order? He was a good southern lawyer. Just the values we need!”
Merged in Post #15 from Elections Forum
[/moderating]
I’m hopeful that the Democrats filibuster this appointment and do whatever they can to prevent Donald from ever making a SCOTUS appointment. I don’t care who he nominates to fill the vacancy; that seat was stolen from the Democrats and should have been filled by Obama.
Here’s some recommended reading for 2ManyTacos: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-shouldnt-go-scorched-earth-on-trumps-supreme-court-nominee/2017/01/30/5c284e2c-e71d-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html
It’s not very often that I find myself nodding my head at something published in the Post.
You mean, kinda like a mirror-image Merrick Garland.
If he gets the nod, I’m rooting for his nomination to see the same fate.