New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Trump's Judicial Makeover is White and Far Right

georgephillip

georgephillip

Senator
One area where Trump is making real progress is the federal judiciary:

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19988:Trump's-Judicial-Makeover-is-White-and-Far-Right

"With most of the country's focus elsewhere, Trump is overseeing a radical overhaul of the U.S. Judiciary.

"Trump inherited 107 vacancies of the 890 federal judicial positions.

"That's the most empty bench seats since President Clinton, and Trump is taking advantage.

"He's filling the bench with nominees in his image who come from the radical far-right.

"It's not just on the bench that Trump is overseeing a makeover, but also on the side of the prosecution.

"Of the 42 U.S. Attorneys that Trump has nominated, 41 of them are men, 38 of those men are white.

"There's just one African American and one woman."

Many of these appointments are for life, so they will continue to impact US law long after Trump goes back to his Golden Tower ( or prison):p
 
After years of ultra leftjudges being appointed, this is great news and will help push the country back towards the center.
 
georgephillip said:
One area where Trump is making real progress is the federal judiciary:

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19988:Trump's-Judicial-Makeover-is-White-and-Far-Right

"With most of the country's focus elsewhere, Trump is overseeing a radical overhaul of the U.S. Judiciary.

"Trump inherited 107 vacancies of the 890 federal judicial positions.

"That's the most empty bench seats since President Clinton, and Trump is taking advantage.

"He's filling the bench with nominees in his image who come from the radical far-right.

"It's not just on the bench that Trump is overseeing a makeover, but also on the side of the prosecution.

"Of the 42 U.S. Attorneys that Trump has nominated, 41 of them are men, 38 of those men are white.

"There's just one African American and one woman."

Many of these appointments are for life, so they will continue to impact US law long after Trump goes back to his Golden Tower ( or prison):p
Click to expand...

Exactly why I voted for him. This was the most important aspect of last years election. I could care less about the racial and gender make up of the nominees. But I absolutely wanted him to fill the judiciary with constitutional conservatives. Nothing will be better to keep the leftists in line.
 
georgephillip said:
One area where Trump is making real progress is the federal judiciary:

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19988:Trump's-Judicial-Makeover-is-White-and-Far-Right

"With most of the country's focus elsewhere, Trump is overseeing a radical overhaul of the U.S. Judiciary.

"Trump inherited 107 vacancies of the 890 federal judicial positions.

"That's the most empty bench seats since President Clinton, and Trump is taking advantage.

"He's filling the bench with nominees in his image who come from the radical far-right.

"It's not just on the bench that Trump is overseeing a makeover, but also on the side of the prosecution.

"Of the 42 U.S. Attorneys that Trump has nominated, 41 of them are men, 38 of those men are white.

"There's just one African American and one woman."

Many of these appointments are for life, so they will continue to impact US law long after Trump goes back to his Golden Tower ( or prison):p
Click to expand...

I believe the appointment are for "good behavior," i.e., judges can be removed by impeachment.
 
georgephillip said:
One area where Trump is making real progress is the federal judiciary:

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19988:Trump's-Judicial-Makeover-is-White-and-Far-Right

"With most of the country's focus elsewhere, Trump is overseeing a radical overhaul of the U.S. Judiciary.

"Trump inherited 107 vacancies of the 890 federal judicial positions.

"That's the most empty bench seats since President Clinton, and Trump is taking advantage.

"He's filling the bench with nominees in his image who come from the radical far-right.

"It's not just on the bench that Trump is overseeing a makeover, but also on the side of the prosecution.

"Of the 42 U.S. Attorneys that Trump has nominated, 41 of them are men, 38 of those men are white.

"There's just one African American and one woman."

Many of these appointments are for life, so they will continue to impact US law long after Trump goes back to his Golden Tower ( or prison):p
Click to expand...

So white men can't be good just judges? Why is that?
 
Corruptbuddha said:
No, I mean the one that has about 90% of it's decisions overturned.
Click to expand...


“Of course, none of what the president has charged about the 9th Circuit is true. The 9th Circuit is as well organized as any in the country. Of the very few 9th Circuit cases the Supreme Court takes up, a significant portion are overturned, but that’s true for every circuit, several of which are overturned at a higher rate than the 9th Circuit. And overall, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of 9th Circuit decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court.”

— House Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democratic member John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), opening remarks during House hearing, March 16, 2017


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-percent-of-its-cases/?utm_term=.3a4dd6c4b28e
 
Craig said:

“Of course, none of what the president has charged about the 9th Circuit is true. The 9th Circuit is as well organized as any in the country. Of the very few 9th Circuit cases the Supreme Court takes up, a significant portion are overturned, but that’s true for every circuit, several of which are overturned at a higher rate than the 9th Circuit. And overall, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of 9th Circuit decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court.”

— House Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democratic member John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), opening remarks during House hearing, March 16, 2017


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-percent-of-its-cases/?utm_term=.3a4dd6c4b28e
Click to expand...

Hmmm...you use a quote, from a man, that the link you provided says gets the same number of 'Pinocchios' as Trump (read the last line of the article you linked)? I think I would use a more credible source if I were using them to try to counter someone's point...but, that's just me. By the way...I copied the Post's quote to save you some time...

"We’ll award Two Pinocchios to both Trump and Conyers for their use of the different reversal rates, which only give one side of the story."
 
Number_58 said:
Hmmm...you use a quote, from a man, that the link you provided says gets the same number of 'Pinocchios' as Trump (read the last line of the article you linked)? I think I would use a more credible source if I were using them to try to counter someone's point...but, that's just me. By the way...I copied the Post's quote to save you some time...

"We’ll award Two Pinocchios to both Trump and Conyers for their use of the different reversal rates, which only give one side of the story."
Click to expand...
Exactly.

So...the truth is not to be found in the claim regarding the 9th. Feel free to provide the actual numbers.
 
Number_58 said:
Hmmm...you use a quote, from a man, that the link you provided says gets the same number of 'Pinocchios' as Trump (read the last line of the article you linked)? I think I would use a more credible source if I were using them to try to counter someone's point...but, that's just me. By the way...I copied the Post's quote to save you some time...

"We’ll award Two Pinocchios to both Trump and Conyers for their use of the different reversal rates, which only give one side of the story."
Click to expand...

Maybe a better tack would be to provide more information...


...It’s also clear that, while the 9th Circuit has the second-highest rate of reversal among the federal appeals courts, it isn’t dramatically outside the mainstream. Between 1999 and 2008, all of the circuits had reversal rates of at least 55 percent at the Supreme Court, a study by lawyer Roy E. Hofer shows. Eleven had reversal rates of at least 60 percent, and six were above 70 percent. While 80 percent is undeniably high, it isn’t appreciably larger than other courts, all of which struggle under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny.

At least some of this can be attributed to the volume of cases the 9th Circuit hears each year. In any given year, it adjudicates approximately 12,000 cases. The next largest circuit court hears approximately 6,000. What’s more, 27 percent of the court’s cases between 1999 and 2008 came to the Supreme Court by way of the 9th, the study shows. While volume is not at all dispositive, the burgeoning number of cases heard by the court is much more likely to create conflicts in law with other circuit courts, heightening the chance for Supreme Court review. It also makes the 9th much more likely to generate the elusive “appropriate case” or a controversy the justices are interested in resolving, provided the right fact posture or plaintiff vehicle is present...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/12/t...l-rate-has-nothing-to-do-with-liberal-judges/
 
Corruptbuddha said:
So white men can't be good just judges? Why is that?
Click to expand...
Conservative white men who believe natural law trumps the US Constitution aren't likely to be good, just judges, are they?

https://www.thenation.com/article/t...ist-fake-news-purveyors-to-the-federal-bench/

"Damien Schiff, Trump’s nominee for the US Court of Federal Claims, also ran a blog called 'Omnia Omnibus' on Typepad.

"In June 2007, he called Justice Anthony Kennedy a 'judicial prostitute.':eek:

"He also expressed extreme anti-gay views on several occasions; in 2009, he criticized a California school district for advancing the idea 'not only that bullying of homosexuals qua homosexuals is wrong, but also that the homosexual lifestyle is a good, and that homosexual families are the moral equivalent of traditional heterosexual families.'

"According to a Lambda Legal Foundation analysis, Schiff adheres to the idea that 'natural law' trumps constitutional rights—that morality matters above all. (Gay identities and relationships, in his view, would be unnatural.)"
 
connieb said:
Exactly why I voted for him. This was the most important aspect of last years election. I could care less about the racial and gender make up of the nominees. But I absolutely wanted him to fill the judiciary with constitutional conservatives. Nothing will be better to keep the leftists in line.
Click to expand...
When you write "constitutional conservatives" how does that relate to a prospective judge's views on the rights of corporations?

One of Trump's nominees for the US Court of Federal Claims, Damien Schiff, has been accused of being a champion of corporate rights even when they come at the expense of natural citizens.

https://www.thenation.com/article/t...ist-fake-news-purveyors-to-the-federal-bench/

"This was too much for Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who made it clear he thinks Schiff was nominated because of his far-right views, particularly on the rights of corporations, which Schiff appears to think are near-absolute."
 
Fast Eddy said:
After years of ultra leftjudges being appointed, this is great news and will help push the country back towards the center.
Click to expand...
Can you provide any names of ultra left judges who've been recently appointed? Trump is filling the federal bench with radical nominees after Senate Republicans obstructed Obama's picks for the last eight years.
 
Constitutional Sheepdog said:
a communist would not make good judges.
Trump is putting America back in it constitutional foundation.
Click to expand...
Back to separate but equal?
"Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896) was a landmark constitutional law case of the US Supreme Court decided in 1896. It upheld state racial segregation laws for public facilities under the doctrine of 'separate but equal'.[1]

"The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson
 
georgephillip said:
When you write "constitutional conservatives" how does that relate to a prospective judge's views on the rights of corporations?

One of Trump's nominees for the US Court of Federal Claims, Damien Schiff, has been accused of being a champion of corporate rights even when they come at the expense of natural citizens.

https://www.thenation.com/article/t...ist-fake-news-purveyors-to-the-federal-bench/

"This was too much for Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who made it clear he thinks Schiff was nominated because of his far-right views, particularly on the rights of corporations, which Schiff appears to think are near-absolute."
Click to expand...

A corporation is nothing more than a collection of citizens so there is basis to afford much of the same rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top