Trump unveils list of potential picks for Supreme Court seat

[webfact]

Trump unveils list of potential picks for Supreme Court seat
By JILL COLVIN and MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Wednesday released a list of 11 potential picks to replace Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court, a mix of federal and state judges that appeared tailored to win over conservatives still skeptical of his candidacy.

The decision to release such a list is highly unusual for a presidential candidate, and comes as Trump is working to unite a Republican Party fractured by his candidacy and assuage still-skeptical establishment Republicans who question his ability to win a general election.

"I have a lot of people that are conservative that really like me, love everything I stand for, but they really would like to know my view," Trump said Wednesday in an interview with Fox News, "because perhaps outside of the defense of our country, perhaps the single most important thing the next president is going to have to do is pick Supreme Court justices."

The list, which featured several prominent names floated repeatedly on conservative wish lists to replace Scalia, won immediate praise from those Trump is trying to win over.

"This list ought to be encouraging to anyone who prioritizes the rule of law, and I congratulate Mr. Trump on making a very significant policy statement about his desire to prioritize the future of the Supreme Court," said Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network, a group leading the opposition to President Barack's Obama's pick to replace Scalia, Merrick Garland.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, a Republican who has refused to hold a hearing to consider Garland's appointment to the high court, said Trump has "laid out an impressive list of highly qualified jurists."

"Understanding the types of judges a presidential nominee would select for the Supreme Court is an important step in this debate so the American people can have a voice in the direction of the Supreme Court for the next generation," he said.

Among the judges on Trump's list is Joan Larsen, who serves on the Michigan Supreme Court. A former law clerk to Scalia, Larson delivered one of the tributes to the late justice at his memorial service. She served in the Justice Department office that produced the legal justifications for the enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, that critics have called torture.

"I was surprised," Larson said. "I did see the list and those are incredibly distinguished jurists and I'm honored to be associated with judges on that list. It's an incredible list."

Another pick is Don Willett, a justice on the Texas Supreme Court perhaps best known outside his state for his Twitter account, @justicewillett. Willett has openly mocked Trump to his more than 35,000 followers, including on Aug. 27, when he wrote, "Can't wait till Trump rips off his face Mission Impossible-style & reveals a laughing Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

Mobbed by reporters Wednesday when he showed up at a book signing with Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott just as news of Trump's list was breaking, Willett giggled at the attention. He said he was "exercising judicial restraint" by declining to comment.

Trump's list is also notable for the names that don't appear. It omits two of the biggest stars in the conservative legal world, Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the federal appeals court in Washington, and former Bush administration Solicitor General Paul Clement.

Also absent is his former rival, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who clerked for former Chief Justice William Rehnquist and served as Solicitor General in Texas.

Since Scalia's unexpected death in February, both Trump and his likely Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, have tried to make the Supreme Court a key election issue, reminding their supporters that its future is hanging in the balance of the 2016 election.

If Clinton is elected, Trump told supporters at a rally earlier this month, "You will have a Supreme Court that will destroy our nation."

"The battle lines have been drawn and the two sides are now clear," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, head of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List. She added the group is "already working to make the case to pro-life voters that the court matters and must be protected. This is not an election for pro-lifers to sit out."

Clinton, meanwhile, had warned before Wednesday that Trump's picks for the court would roll back the rights of individuals and further empower corporations. Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, which has endorsed Clinton, panned the list as "a woman's worst nightmare."

"Their records reveal a lineup of individuals who would likely overturn Roe v. Wade if given the chance, gutting what's left of abortion access in this country and heaping punishment on women," she said.

Trump first said in March that he planned to release a list of potential justices in an effort to ease concerns about his conservative credentials, which had come under attack in the heated Republican primary. Among his critics was Cruz, who ran an ad saying Trump could not be trusted with a Supreme Court nomination.

It was a rare acknowledgment from Trump that he could be doing more to appease those in his party who opposed his candidacy.

"I am going to give a list of either five or 10 judges that I will pick, 100 percent pick, that I will put in for nomination," Trump said at an event in Palm Beach, Florida. "Because some of the people that are against me say: 'We don't know if he's going to pick the right judge. Supposing he picks a liberal judge or supposing he picks a pro-choice judge.'"

___

Colvin reported from New Jersey. Associated Press writer Michael Gerstein reported from Lansing, Michigan.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-05-19

[keemapoot]

I haven't looked at the list at all, but I'm guessing that every one of the candidates is someone highly acceptable to establishment Republicans. This would be one small way that Trump would try to bring some establishment credentials to his campaign.

And, it's a meaningless giveaway anyway for him. He doesn't even know what a Supreme Court Justice does.., nor does he care.

[Boon Mee]

Ted Cruz should be on Trumps list - top of the heap IMHO

[keemapoot]

"I'm going to pick Supreme Court Justices who will investigate Hilary Clinton's email scandal."

OMG, it's like he failed High School Civics class.

Edited May 19, 2016 by keemapoot

[ilostmypassword]

Trump's move here is actually a typical play out of the Republican handbook. Remember George Bush running against gay marriage but after the election pushing to privatize social security? Get the base riled up on emotional issues. But when it comes to substance, give it up to the wealthy and well connected. The potential justices listed here are all members of the Federalist society. Justices who are members of the Federalist society rule consistently in favor of big business and against labor. Whether it comes to increasing corporate rights because corporations are "persons" or cutting the pension rights of workers, or the rights of workers in general, this is what they do. But since they tend to rule in favor of conservative social positions, like ruling against gay marriage as a right. this will appeal to the Republican base. So the Republican base can look forward to the end of gay marriage as a right and also to becoming poorer and weaker as the wealthy and corporations strengthen their stranglehold on the system..

Edited May 19, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[Tanlic]

Trump's move here is actually a typical play out of the Republican handbook.

Maybe that's because he is a Republican

[Tanlic]

He doesn't even know what a Supreme Court Justice does.., nor does he care.

Of course he does.... he puts people like Hillary Clinton in jail where she belongs

[ilostmypassword]

Which shows that however little Trump knows about the Supreme Court, he most likely knows more than you.

[ilostmypassword]

Trump's move here is actually a typical play out of the Republican handbook.

Maybe that's because he is a Republican

But he represents himself as being a different kind of Republican. The kind who will stand up for the American worker. It turns out that he's just more of the same. Get the base riled up on red meat issues, but when it comes to economics, screw them over.

[Tanlic]

Rubbish....he is 100% genuine and will try hi heart out to do the best he can to make the usa great again....

Look back at Trump when he had no axe to grind and he says the same then as he does now 10 years ago

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[chilli42]

Trump's move here is actually a typical play out of the Republican handbook. Remember George Bush running against gay marriage but after the election pushing to privatize social security? Get the base riled up on emotional issues. But when it comes to substance, give it up to the wealthy and well connected. The potential justices listed here are all members of the Federalist society. Justices who are members of the Federalist society rule consistently in favor of big business and against labor. Whether it comes to increasing corporate rights because corporations are "persons" or cutting the pension rights of workers, or the rights of workers in general, this is what they do. But since they tend to rule in favor of conservative social positions, like ruling against gay marriage as a right. this will appeal to the Republican base. So the Republican base can look forward to the end of gay marriage as a right and also to becoming poorer and weaker as the wealthy and corporations strengthen their stranglehold on the system..

How many more compromises will he have to make before he is just another of the Washington political establishment ... that so far he has promised to tear down.

[atyclb]

I haven't looked at the list at all, but I'm guessing that every one of the candidates is someone highly acceptable to establishment Republicans. This would be one small way that Trump would try to bring some establishment credentials to his campaign.

And, it's a meaningless giveaway anyway for him. He doesn't even know what a Supreme Court Justice does.., nor does he care.

even some tv forum intellects know what the role of supreme court judges is. why wouldn't a university of pennsylvania wharton mba know ?

[ilostmypassword]

Rubbish....he is 100% genuine and will try hi heart out to do the best he can to make the usa great again....

Look back at Trump when he had no axe to grind and he says the same then as he does now 10 years ago

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

How about less than a year ago when he said the minimum wage was too high?

So what are the things he said 10 years ago that he still says today?

Edited May 19, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[ilostmypassword]

Rubbish....he is 100% genuine and will try hi heart out to do the best he can to make the usa great again....

Look back at Trump when he had no axe to grind and he says the same then as he does now 10 years ago

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

So he's going to make America great again by appointing Supreme court justices who are pro big business $ Wall Street and anti labor?

He's going to make America great again by giving huge tax breaks to the .01%?

He's going to make America great again by doing nothing about the minimum wage?

[keemapoot]

I haven't looked at the list at all, but I'm guessing that every one of the candidates is someone highly acceptable to establishment Republicans. This would be one small way that Trump would try to bring some establishment credentials to his campaign.

And, it's a meaningless giveaway anyway for him. He doesn't even know what a Supreme Court Justice does.., nor does he care.

even some tv forum intellects know what the role of supreme court judges is. why wouldn't a university of pennsylvania wharton mba know ?

See post #4 of this thread or google it. You will see what an idiot the guy is. And, he is not a Wharton MBA, he supposedly did undergrad there, but nobody can remember him, neither students nor faculty. Investigative journalists I'm sure are looking into this now, and we should hear more. But, do you really want someone without even the most rudimentary knowledge of government to be President?

Edited May 19, 2016 by keemapoot

[Boon Mee]

The minimum wage is a crock - more & more kids are out of a job and small businesses are shutting down due to the false 'economics' of a $15.00 an hour wage.

[chuckd]

Trump's move here is actually a typical play out of the Republican handbook. Remember George Bush running against gay marriage but after the election pushing to privatize social security? Get the base riled up on emotional issues. But when it comes to substance, give it up to the wealthy and well connected. The potential justices listed here are all members of the Federalist society. Justices who are members of the Federalist society rule consistently in favor of big business and against labor. Whether it comes to increasing corporate rights because corporations are "persons" or cutting the pension rights of workers, or the rights of workers in general, this is what they do. But since they tend to rule in favor of conservative social positions, like ruling against gay marriage as a right. this will appeal to the Republican base. So the Republican base can look forward to the end of gay marriage as a right and also to becoming poorer and weaker as the wealthy and corporations strengthen their stranglehold on the system..

"The potential justices listed here are all members of the Federalist society."

I'm particularly interested to learn how you know this to be a fact.

I have checked out the Federalist Society and am unable to find a membership roll and have checked several individual profiles and they are not listing membership.

I'm certain you would not just pull something out of the air and expect us to believe it as fact so please provide some support for your allegation.

[chuckd]

I haven't looked at the list at all, but I'm guessing that every one of the candidates is someone highly acceptable to establishment Republicans. This would be one small way that Trump would try to bring some establishment credentials to his campaign.

And, it's a meaningless giveaway anyway for him. He doesn't even know what a Supreme Court Justice does.., nor does he care.

even some tv forum intellects know what the role of supreme court judges is. why wouldn't a university of pennsylvania wharton mba know ?

See post #4 of this thread or google it. You will see what an idiot the guy is. And, he is not a Wharton MBA, he supposedly did undergrad there, but nobody can remember him, neither students nor faculty. Investigative journalists I'm sure are looking into this now, and we should hear more. But, do you really want someone without even the most rudimentary knowledge of government to be President?

"he supposedly did undergrad there, but nobody can remember him, neither students nor faculty. Investigative journalists I'm sure are looking into this now, and we should hear more.

Sort of reminds one of the Obama mystique at his various colleges.

Same, same but, somehow now, it is amazingly different.

[ilostmypassword]

I haven't looked at the list at all, but I'm guessing that every one of the candidates is someone highly acceptable to establishment Republicans. This would be one small way that Trump would try to bring some establishment credentials to his campaign.

And, it's a meaningless giveaway anyway for him. He doesn't even know what a Supreme Court Justice does.., nor does he care.

even some tv forum intellects know what the role of supreme court judges is. why wouldn't a university of pennsylvania wharton mba know ?

See post #4 of this thread or google it. You will see what an idiot the guy is. And, he is not a Wharton MBA, he supposedly did undergrad there, but nobody can remember him, neither students nor faculty. Investigative journalists I'm sure are looking into this now, and we should hear more. But, do you really want someone without even the most rudimentary knowledge of government to be President?

"he supposedly did undergrad there, but nobody can remember him, neither students nor faculty. Investigative journalists I'm sure are looking into this now, and we should hear more.

Sort of reminds one of the Obama mystique at his various colleges.

Same, same but, somehow now, it is amazingly different.

Are you seriously contending that Obama. who was President of the Harvard Law review is not remembered there? Is this also from westernjournalism.com?

[keemapoot]

even some tv forum intellects know what the role of supreme court judges is. why wouldn't a university of pennsylvania wharton mba know ?

See post #4 of this thread or google it. You will see what an idiot the guy is. And, he is not a Wharton MBA, he supposedly did undergrad there, but nobody can remember him, neither students nor faculty. Investigative journalists I'm sure are looking into this now, and we should hear more. But, do you really want someone without even the most rudimentary knowledge of government to be President?

"he supposedly did undergrad there, but nobody can remember him, neither students nor faculty. Investigative journalists I'm sure are looking into this now, and we should hear more.

Sort of reminds one of the Obama mystique at his various colleges.

Same, same but, somehow now, it is amazingly different.

Are you seriously contending that Obama. who was President of the Harvard Law review is not remembered there? Is this also from westernjournalism.com?

And who clerked for Lawrence Tribe, one of the most eminent constitutional law scholars of our time.

[Tanlic]

Rubbish....he is 100% genuine and will try hi heart out to do the best he can to make the usa great again....

Look back at Trump when he had no axe to grind and he says the same then as he does now 10 years ago

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

How about less than a year ago when he said the minimum wage was too high?

So what are the things he said 10 years ago that he still says today?

You would know if you hot off you misinformed soap box and go look.....you would swear he made the videos 10 days ago he made 10 years ago talking about trade immigration etc every point he is making now he was making then and was not running for President. The man truly believes he can and wants to help make the USA a better place to live....The establishment want them and their cronies to prosper while the ordinary man/woman,s prospects worsen. Bush and Clinton are proven liars....WMD to Benghazi and now she despite being investigated 5 times and more to come is leading the dems....are u <deleted> serious she dhould be in jail along with her crooked cigar sucking husband...enoughs enough Vote Trump or Vote for another 8 years of being lied to while the Clintons build an empire of gold for themselves and give you what you have in your head for supporting them

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[ilostmypassword]

Rubbish....he is 100% genuine and will try hi heart out to do the best he can to make the usa great again....

Look back at Trump when he had no axe to grind and he says the same then as he does now 10 years ago

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

How about less than a year ago when he said the minimum wage was too high?

So what are the things he said 10 years ago that he still says today?

You would know if you hot off you misinformed soap box and go look.....you would swear he made the videos 10 days ago he made 10 years ago talking about trade immigration etc every point he is making now he was making then and was not running for President. The man truly believes he can and wants to help make the USA a better place to live....The establishment want them and their cronies to prosper while the ordinary man/woman,s prospects worsen. Bush and Clinton are proven liars....WMD to Benghazi and now she despite being investigated 5 times and more to come is leading the dems....are u <deleted> serious she dhould be in jail along with her crooked cigar sucking husband...enoughs enough Vote Trump or Vote for another 8 years of being lied to while the Clintons build an empire of gold for themselves and give you what you have in your head for supporting them

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

So he's going to help the working people by appointing justices to the supreme court who typically rule in favor of big business and against workers. He's going to help the working people by giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy. He's going to helpe the working people by doing nothing about the minimum wage. What we see in your response is the intellectual incoherence and rage that are fueling Trump's campaign.

[ilostmypassword]

Trump's move here is actually a typical play out of the Republican handbook. Remember George Bush running against gay marriage but after the election pushing to privatize social security? Get the base riled up on emotional issues. But when it comes to substance, give it up to the wealthy and well connected. The potential justices listed here are all members of the Federalist society. Justices who are members of the Federalist society rule consistently in favor of big business and against labor. Whether it comes to increasing corporate rights because corporations are "persons" or cutting the pension rights of workers, or the rights of workers in general, this is what they do. But since they tend to rule in favor of conservative social positions, like ruling against gay marriage as a right. this will appeal to the Republican base. So the Republican base can look forward to the end of gay marriage as a right and also to becoming poorer and weaker as the wealthy and corporations strengthen their stranglehold on the system..

"The potential justices listed here are all members of the Federalist society."

I'm particularly interested to learn how you know this to be a fact.

I have checked out the Federalist Society and am unable to find a membership roll and have checked several individual profiles and they are not listing membership.

I'm certain you would not just pull something out of the air and expect us to believe it as fact so please provide some support for your allegation.

You're correct. I misread the article. Trump did say in the past that he was consulting with the Heritage Society and the Federalist Society in helping to choose the candidates. What are the odds that any of these judges will be anything but anti labor and pro big business?

[mike324]

Just look at how many statements Trump has retracted since the start of his campaign.... you got a lunatic and crook running for office, perhaps the majority needs to look elsewhere ...when other world leaders have to step out to condemn Trumps statements, that says a lot about this candidate

[chuckd]

even some tv forum intellects know what the role of supreme court judges is. why wouldn't a university of pennsylvania wharton mba know ?

See post #4 of this thread or google it. You will see what an idiot the guy is. And, he is not a Wharton MBA, he supposedly did undergrad there, but nobody can remember him, neither students nor faculty. Investigative journalists I'm sure are looking into this now, and we should hear more. But, do you really want someone without even the most rudimentary knowledge of government to be President?

"he supposedly did undergrad there, but nobody can remember him, neither students nor faculty. Investigative journalists I'm sure are looking into this now, and we should hear more.

Sort of reminds one of the Obama mystique at his various colleges.

Same, same but, somehow now, it is amazingly different.

Are you seriously contending that Obama. who was President of the Harvard Law review is not remembered there? Is this also from westernjournalism.com?

Care to point out where I said anything about Harvard Law?

I said "various colleges". He was in more than one, and nobody at either Occidental or Columbia has come forth that I know of.

How about you...or even Keemapoot, to whom my post was directed.

Give us some links so I can get a good night's sleep.

[chuckd]

See post #4 of this thread or google it. You will see what an idiot the guy is. And, he is not a Wharton MBA, he supposedly did undergrad there, but nobody can remember him, neither students nor faculty. Investigative journalists I'm sure are looking into this now, and we should hear more. But, do you really want someone without even the most rudimentary knowledge of government to be President?

"he supposedly did undergrad there, but nobody can remember him, neither students nor faculty. Investigative journalists I'm sure are looking into this now, and we should hear more.

Sort of reminds one of the Obama mystique at his various colleges.

Same, same but, somehow now, it is amazingly different.

Are you seriously contending that Obama. who was President of the Harvard Law review is not remembered there? Is this also from westernjournalism.com?

And who clerked for Lawrence Tribe, one of the most eminent constitutional law scholars of our time.

Golly gee, I really don't know. who clerked for Laurence (sp)Tribe.

Do college professors have "clerks" just like a real Supreme Court Justice would?

[mrwebb8825]

...when other world leaders have to step out to condemn Trumps statements, that says a lot about this candidate

Other world leaders have been stepping out to condemn him because this is the 1st time in history a candidate for the highest office in the most powerful country in the world has stepped up and said "Enough already!", "We're tired of getting the short end of the stick. It's time we wielded the power we own in OUR favor and if you don't like it you can kiss my "big hands"!"

[keemapoot]

"he supposedly did undergrad there, but nobody can remember him, neither students nor faculty. Investigative journalists I'm sure are looking into this now, and we should hear more.

Sort of reminds one of the Obama mystique at his various colleges.

Same, same but, somehow now, it is amazingly different.

Are you seriously contending that Obama. who was President of the Harvard Law review is not remembered there? Is this also from westernjournalism.com?

And who clerked for Lawrence Tribe, one of the most eminent constitutional law scholars of our time.

Golly gee, I really don't know. who clerked for Laurence (sp)Tribe.

Do college professors have "clerks" just like a real Supreme Court Justice would?

Chuck, I know you detest Obama, and I don't really care for him that much, but really, some of the stuff you guys come up with is hilarious. Yeah, his name is Laurence, not Lawrence, and yeah, Obama was his research assistant, not clerk technically. In any event, only the brightest and best would ever even be considered for such a position, let alone chosen. And, it doesn't matter if Obama did his undergrad by mail order from Uppity Negrow University.

This thread is about Trump and his patently, obviously inferior education, and intellectual laziness or deficiency. Nothing about Obama changes that unfortunately. Trump doesn't have a clue what a S. Ct. Justice does, or if he does now, he recently learned it after his last gaffe.

[chuckd]

Trump's move here is actually a typical play out of the Republican handbook. Remember George Bush running against gay marriage but after the election pushing to privatize social security? Get the base riled up on emotional issues. But when it comes to substance, give it up to the wealthy and well connected. The potential justices listed here are all members of the Federalist society. Justices who are members of the Federalist society rule consistently in favor of big business and against labor. Whether it comes to increasing corporate rights because corporations are "persons" or cutting the pension rights of workers, or the rights of workers in general, this is what they do. But since they tend to rule in favor of conservative social positions, like ruling against gay marriage as a right. this will appeal to the Republican base. So the Republican base can look forward to the end of gay marriage as a right and also to becoming poorer and weaker as the wealthy and corporations strengthen their stranglehold on the system..

"The potential justices listed here are all members of the Federalist society."

I'm particularly interested to learn how you know this to be a fact.

I have checked out the Federalist Society and am unable to find a membership roll and have checked several individual profiles and they are not listing membership.

I'm certain you would not just pull something out of the air and expect us to believe it as fact so please provide some support for your allegation.

You're correct. I misread the article. Trump did say in the past that he was consulting with the Heritage Society and the Federalist Society in helping to choose the candidates. What are the odds that any of these judges will be anything but anti labor and pro big business?

"What are the odds that any of these judges will be anything but anti labor and pro big business?"

Sadly, I am not all knowing and omniscient so I cannot give you an answer. But, then, neither are you.

By the way it isn't the Heritage Society, it's the Heritage Foundation.

One of my granddaughters is serving a summer internship with them as we speak. At least one good conservative mind hasn't been destroyed by some liberal college professor.

[chuckd]

Are you seriously contending that Obama. who was President of the Harvard Law review is not remembered there? Is this also from westernjournalism.com?

And who clerked for Lawrence Tribe, one of the most eminent constitutional law scholars of our time.

Golly gee, I really don't know. who clerked for Laurence (sp)Tribe.

Do college professors have "clerks" just like a real Supreme Court Justice would?

Chuck, I know you detest Obama, and I don't really care for him that much, but really, some of the stuff you guys come up with is hilarious. Yeah, his name is Laurence, not Lawrence, and yeah, Obama was his research assistant, not clerk technically. In any event, only the brightest and best would ever even be considered for such a position, let alone chosen. And, it doesn't matter if Obama did his undergrad by mail order from Uppity Negrow University.

This thread is about Trump and his patently, obviously inferior education, and intellectual laziness or deficiency. Nothing about Obama changes that unfortunately. Trump doesn't have a clue what a S. Ct. Justice does, or if he does now, he recently learned it after his last gaffe.

"And, it doesn't matter if Obama did his undergrad by mail order from Uppity Negrow University."

Getting a tad bit racist with that statement, aren't you?

Technically speaking, this thread has noting to do with Trump's (your words) "patently, obviously inferior education, and intellectual laziness or deficiency".

It is about who might be nominated for the Supreme Court if Trump wins the general election.

We have both drifted off topic.

Cheers.