President Trump now gets to appoint a new judge to the 9th Circuit Court

[Rams]

Federal Judge Alex Kozinski announces retirement after sexual misconduct allegations
https://www.aol.com/article...llegations/23310573/

Judge Alex Kozinski, a veteran of the powerful 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California, said in a statement that he is retiring “effective immediately” because “I cannot be an effective judge and simultaneously fight this battle.”

Looking forward to this.

I believe that President Reagan appointed Judge Kozinski to the 9th Circuit Court.   As things are today, this should be interesting.

[Serk]

Even with this and other open seats on the 9th circus, that one's gonna stay an embarrassment I'm afraid. If President Trump is able to fill all the vacancies on that bench, 17 of the 29 seats will still be communist.

(However, it'll at least be an improvement!)

[Rams]

Even with this and other open seats on the 9th circus, that one's gonna stay an embarrassment I'm afraid. If President Trump is able to fill all the vacancies on that bench, 17 of the 29 seats will still be communist.

(However, it'll at least be an improvement!)

As I remember, the way to eat an elephant....................

One bite at a time.   

[Serk]

Even with this and other open seats on the 9th circus, that one's gonna stay an embarrassment I'm afraid. If President Trump is able to fill all the vacancies on that bench, 17 of the 29 seats will still be communist.

(However, it'll at least be an improvement!)

As I remember, the way to eat an elephant....................

One bite at a time.   

Oh I agree, progress is better than regressing! Anything that can back us away from the brink of destruction is a step in the right direction...

[Rams]

Trump has now appointed most ever federal appeals judges in 1st year
https://www.axios.com/trump-appeals-court-approval-record-2517522236.html

Senate Republicans on Thursday confirmed President Donald Trump's twelfth federal appeals court nominee, setting a record for the most circuit court picks confirmed in a president's first year.
Why this matters: The federal courts carry significant weight in almost every area of policy: gun rights, executive power, LGBT rights, freedom of religion, etc, and have blocked multiple Trump initiatives in his first year. Trump's picks of young, conservatives judges for the lifetime appointments will far outlast his presidency.

Background: Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy successfully appointed 11 appeals court judges in their first year.

Former President Barack Obama successfully appointed three appeals court judges in his first year in office in 2009, as well as Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. His predecessor, George W. Bush, got six confirmed.

What they're saying: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has spearheaded the effort, said Republicans were having a "historic week."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, lambasted Republicans, saying that the "speed at which these judges are being rammed through the process is stunning."

    This should have a long lasting effect on the courts.   Hopefully!!

[The emperor has no clothes]

Trump has now appointed most ever federal appeals judges in 1st year
https://www.axios.com/trump-appeals-court-approval-record-2517522236.html

Senate Republicans on Thursday confirmed President Donald Trump's twelfth federal appeals court nominee, setting a record for the most circuit court picks confirmed in a president's first year.
Why this matters: The federal courts carry significant weight in almost every area of policy: gun rights, executive power, LGBT rights, freedom of religion, etc, and have blocked multiple Trump initiatives in his first year. Trump's picks of young, conservatives judges for the lifetime appointments will far outlast his presidency.

Background: Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy successfully appointed 11 appeals court judges in their first year.

Former President Barack Obama successfully appointed three appeals court judges in his first year in office in 2009, as well as Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. His predecessor, George W. Bush, got six confirmed.

What they're saying: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has spearheaded the effort, said Republicans were having a "historic week."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, lambasted Republicans, saying that the "speed at which these judges are being rammed through the process is stunning."

    This should have a long lasting effect on the courts.   Hopefully!!

Long lasting and good for the country are not always in harmony. Some of these guys have not even tried a case as a lawyer. Much less decided a case as a judge. May God have mercy on our souls.

[Valker]

May God have mercy on our souls.

Some of us think He is already.

[¿spoom]

By nature of the words conserve or progress, I prefer to conserve the law of the land by having it enforced according the Constitutionality of the laws. The Constitution can always be changed if the people truly desire it. Sotomayor is not fit, yet she serves. As with the Presidency itself, the true Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Lehrner/Comey legacy is that the bar they set is so low that anyone is now qualified for any job.

[¿spoom]

Even with this and other open seats on the 9th circus, that one's gonna stay an embarrassment I'm afraid. If President Trump is able to fill all the vacancies on that bench, 17 of the 29 seats will still be communist.

(However, it'll at least be an improvement!)

As I remember, the way to eat an elephant....................

One bite at a time.   

Very true! (But never order an elephant ear sandwich - they're always out of those big buns) 

[Cracker Jack]

This judge apparently is not very smart anyway. What he should have done is pulled a Franken and promised to resign at some undetermined point in the future and go on about his business.

Franken's stunt stopped the media outrage as intended. I'd be very surprised if he ever actually resigns.

[Savago]

I would only hope that the President would try to nominate competent people, not only his friends from the Golf Club.

It is truly embarassing to watch the quizz of Matthew Spencer Pettersen:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/12/15/matthew-spencer-petersen-kennedy-judicial-nomination-bts.senate-tv

The guy knows nothing about the job he is supposed to do (or even basic law).
ps: who is gonna be the first to cry 'fake news'?
 

[Serk]

ps: who is gonna be the first to cry 'fake news'?

You did... When you posted a link to CNN...

[Savago]

I guess you won the prize!
 

If it makes you feel better, I can register a domain that sounds better (i.e.' trumprulez.org') and post the same video of that wimp.

It doesn't change the fact the this guy (Pettersen) is totally unfit for the job.

[Serk]

Meh... A holder of a JD from the University of Virginia School of law, member of the Virginia Law Review, who had been working in "out of the courtroom" legal areas is grilled, in an extremely high stress environment, on particulars of litigation that he has not dealt with makes him unfit?

He's got the background, he's shown his ability to learn by obtaining and holding his JD.

I think your real problem with him was that he has an (R) after his name and was appointed by President Donald Trump.

[Robert]

I would only hope that the President would try to nominate competent people, not only his friends from the Golf Club.

It is truly embarassing to watch the quizz of Matthew Spencer Pettersen:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/12/15/matthew-spencer-petersen-kennedy-judicial-nomination-bts.senate-tv

The guy knows nothing about the job he is supposed to do (or even basic law).
ps: who is gonna be the first to cry 'fake news'?
 

Wow have to admit he may not be the best candidate, but in all fairness we have no base line for any other appointee that any other president has appointed either.

I would also have to say the appointees that Obama did seem to be the social justice warriors that dont follow rule of law. So even if they know more are they really using this knowledge in a factual and unbiased way? With this we really have to ask, So did the choices really come out any better?

If you start to look at the appointees through the years and their associations you see that certain favoritism have been there. So by Trump appointing some new judges its not monumental but a start to take back the judicial system. It has been these appointees that have changed the face of the US as we know it.

[Savago]

Meh... A holder of a JD from the University of Virginia School of law, member of the Virginia Law Review, who had been working in "out of the courtroom" legal areas is grilled, in an extremely high stress environment, on particulars of litigation that he has not dealt with makes him unfit?

He's got the background, he's shown his ability to learn by obtaining and holding his JD.

I think your real problem with him was that he has an (R) after his name and was appointed by President Donald Trump.

Serk, you were doing great with the first paragraph but then fall into an ad-hominen attack.

I personally like a few Republicans (e.g. John McCain) while really dislike a few Democrats (e.g. Dianne Feinstein).

Concerning high stress: if you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. My issue with this guy is that he volunteered for this job and is clearly incapable of doing it.

If it is only about partisanship, there *must* be a Republican in this country that would be a better name for nomination.

I'm really concerned that meritocracy doesn't seem to matter a damn thing in this administration.

[Oss]

The job description for Supreme Court justice is IMHO the opposite of high stress  Just a few terms of court, they meet even less than congress

After all the Justices of the Supreme Court all have at least TWO superbly qualified law clerks. These kids would sell their souls for the job and they are the ones putting in 80 plus hrs.

The Justices decide which cases they want to hear and get to speak with their fellow justices about the cases BEFORE the oral arguments.  All justices at all levels of appellate litigation have read both parties briefs and In my experience the questions I have been asked are beyond what I briefed.  Then and only after the oral argument the justices again get to talk to their fellows and the clerks do the same and then the justice tells his clerk what he wants to do.   The clerk may actually write most of the decision which the judge approves after marking it up

Why did I just go thru this exercise? Because whether democrat or republican, there is a learning curve but it not impossible and remember once a judge they dont give interviews about their cases Anyone remember Clarence Thomas?  Or Bill Clinton?  Funny how the wheel turns.....

[Alpha Dog]

Trump has been running his picks through a vetting process at the Heritage Foundation, ( which I donate to yearly ) or at least he had been.  These are stories that go unreported for the most part at least by the fake news outlets that will spend the next three years looking for a Russian boogyman, or try to determine if the insides of someone's ear looks like Trump, or how many scoops of ice cream he gets at a meal or how many diet cokes he may consume in one day, all the while they blast themselves silly with martinis and high powered spirits, prescription pill, and quantities of marijuana.  Red diaper doper babies some doctor coined about them some 20 years ago.  And I know for sure they do not want to look at the economic boom going on right now that will soon pass 4 percent gdp growth and we are only getting started.

Oh and if Ms Finestein is blasting Repubs for pushing them through at record speed - well she should take her grievance to Dingy Harry.  He is the one who changed the rules a few years ago to fast track the judges.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The job description for Supreme Court justice is IMHO the opposite of high stress  Just a few terms of court, they meet even less than congress

After all the Justices of the Supreme Court all have at least TWO superbly qualified law clerks. These kids would sell their souls for the job and they are the ones putting in 80 plus hrs.

The Justices decide which cases they want to hear and get to speak with their fellow justices about the cases BEFORE the oral arguments.  All justices at all levels of appellate litigation have read both parties briefs and In my experience the questions I have been asked are beyond what I briefed.  Then and only after the oral argument the justices again get to talk to their fellows and the clerks do the same and then the justice tells his clerk what he wants to do.   The clerk may actually write most of the decision which the judge approves after marking it up

Why did I just go thru this exercise? Because whether democrat or republican, there is a learning curve but it not impossible and remember once a judge they dont give interviews about their cases Anyone remember Clarence Thomas?  Or Bill Clinton?  Funny how the wheel turns.....

Evan, I have the feeling you could have answered all those questions that the nominee couldn't. It would seem important that a judge have some experience in a courtroom ?

[Robert]

Trump Nominee Withdraws in Latest Judicial Setback for White House

Mr. Petersen’s withdrawal over the weekend was the third nomination by Mr. Trump to collapse in recent days.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/18/us/politics/matthew-petersen-judge-nominee-withdraws-trump.html

He couldn't take it and its better he is out, but its not good look for the president, since it looks bad for the vetting that he is doing.

[Valker]

A proper and thorough vetting does not mean they are prepared to slog through the witchhunt currently ongoing.

[The emperor has no clothes]

A proper and thorough vetting does not mean they are prepared to slog through the witchhunt currently ongoing.

Asking some simple questions is a witch hunt now ? 

[Rams]

My understanding from a friend who follows Left based information sources says that this is more about getting Justice Thomas impeached.   The Left is bringing back Anita Hill from 27 years ago and hoping to raise enough stink to get him to step down or impeach him.

It doubtful either option will happen but, even if it does, the Left doesn't have the votes to stop President Trump from putting another Constitutionalist back on SCOTUS.   

The Pendulum will swing back to the left, it always does go from one side to the other but, the Left's fear is based on the Life Time appointments that President Trump may do and get confirmed.   

As I said, this should be interesting.   

[Oss]

Admission

I have NOT watched the hearing, but I understand that a few softball questions were lobbed by republicans at him and he failed badly in his responses.

Thanks Rob, but I am not running for office, my leanings are both too conservative and too libertarian for the mainstream or left and they also bother many on the right.  Jess would be a better choice as he has probably had 4 times the trials I have and I never had a criminal trial just civil cases.   Most of my cases settle with good result because I understand the process.  Trial should always be a last resort and even then most cases still settle before verdict.

Anyone running for judge should have IMHO practiced in some court at some time, understand the rules of evidence (how to rule on objections) and should be able to truthfully say she can uphold the constitution.  I want to see conservative WOMEN nominated NOW

This is the new mccarthyism. Many will be snared. Some will deserve their fates for their egregious conduct. I am fearful however that many will not deserve the smear and disgrace alleged and that there will be no recompense for those wrongly accused  A reputation ruined is tough to regain

[baldo]

A proper and thorough vetting does not mean they are prepared to slog through the witchhunt currently ongoing.

Asking some simple questions is a witch hunt now ? 

 

Trump doesn't have clue one who these nominees are. He's handed a list that's put together by outfits like The Heritage Foundation and who knows how many others. He doesn't get involved in the hard stuff.

These nominees that are 'questionable' at best? Why would a lifelong appointment judge ever need any courtroom experience? It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

[Rams]

A proper and thorough vetting does not mean they are prepared to slog through the witchhunt currently ongoing.

Asking some simple questions is a witch hunt now ? 

 

Trump doesn't have clue one who these nominees are. He's handed a list that's put together by outfits like The Heritage Foundation and who knows how many others. He doesn't get involved in the hard stuff.

These nominees that are 'questionable' at best? Why would a lifelong appointment judge ever need any courtroom experience? It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

While not in 100% agreement, I do partially agree with you.   The President most likely doesn't know all of the potential appointees personally and I'm sure he depends on others to vet those candidates.   The vetting process needs to be in depth and transparent.    We need well qualified judges.

I understand your concern, I felt the same way about the vast majority of Obama's selections.   
I'm all for Constitutionalists being appointed and confirmed to these positions.   The judicial branch has become the tool the left uses to push their social agenda and that is not the intent of the system.

It does appear that all is fair in love, war and politics now.   The right didn't change the rules, the left did that.   I fully expect the pendulum to swing back but, these judges are getting life time appointments.   It will be interesting as they are appointed and confirmed.   President Trump's selections will help protect the Constitution for a long time.   

Yes, the left should be concerned.   I'm not. 

[baldo]

 The right didn't change the rules, the left did that.   

The changes wouldn't have been necessary if the right hadn't been up to their usual BS.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/09/ben-cardin/did-senate-republicans-filibuster-obama-court-nomi/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_judicial_appointment_controversies

https://www.thedailybeast.com/its-not-just-merrick-garland-republicans-are-blocking-so-many-nominees-its-caused-a-judicial-emergency

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-court-vacancies-20161225-story.html

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/obamas-judicial-appointments-time-extraordinary-obstruction

[Rams]

 The right didn't change the rules, the left did that.  

The changes wouldn't have been necessary if the right hadn't been up to their usual BS.

Bud, blame Harry Reed.  

The old saying about crap is very applicable,

Don't start crap and there won't be any crap.   The Left simply changed the rules.  

Additionally, as was previously posted:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, lambasted Republicans, saying that the "speed at which these judges are being rammed through the process is stunning."

    This should have a long lasting effect on the courts.   Hopefully!!

What's really funny is, Senator Feinstein was all for the changes when the shoe was on the other foot.  Interesting at least.  Don't you think?       Actually, I think it's funny as hell.   

Don't worry, that pendulum will swing back, it always does.   But, thankfully, those judges will be in life long positions.   Our Constitution will be safe and sound (for a while).