13 min read

Trump Could Radically Transform The Supreme Court For Decades

Tyler Durden's picture
by Tyler Durden
Nov 15, 2016 5:10 PM

Trump has the potential to fundamentally transform the Supreme Court of the United States for decades to come and the left is absolutely terrified. As of right now, only Justice Scalia's seat is open and Trump's replacement there will simply restore the previous 5-4 conservative vs. liberal balance. That said, 3 other justices are near/in their 80's and could be replaced during a Trump presidency. If all three judges are replaced, it would massively shift the balance of power to 7-2 conservative vs. liberal. Something tells us that the DNC is going to provide Ginsburg and Breyer with very regular health checkups over the next 4 years.

President Clinton in a Masonic grip with Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. Breyer, a devout cabalistic Jew, was nominated by Clinton to the Supreme Court.

Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

“Her mind is shot.”

That was the crisp diagnosis of Donald Trump on hearing the opinion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the possibility he might become president.

It all began with an interview last week when the justice was asked for her thoughts on a Trump presidency. Ginsburg went on a tear.

“I can’t imagine what this place (the Supreme Court) would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.” Yet she had contemplated the horror of it all, as she quoted her late husband as saying of such a catastrophe, “It’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

This week, Ginsburg doubled down.

“Trump is a faker,” she vented in chambers on Monday, “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head. … He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”

Sounding like Democratic Party Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Ginsburg attacked the Senate for not voting on Judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“That’s their job. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

True, your honor, but there is also nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate must vote expeditiously, or at all.

Ginsburg hailed Justice Anthony Kennedy as “the great hero of this term” for his votes upholding abortion rights and affirmative action.

“Think what would have happened had Justice Scalia remained with us,” she added, which comes close to saying the death of the great jurist was not entirely unwelcome to the leading liberal on the court. “I’d love to see Citizens United overruled,” Ginsburg volunteered, which gives us a pretty good idea how she will vote when that question comes before the court again.

As the Wall Street Journal notes, under Section 28 US Code 455, “(a)ny justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States must disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Since “himself” and “his” refer to men, perhaps Ginsburg does not think the rules apply to her.

The federal code of judicial conduct for U.S. judges, says the Chicago Tribune, states that a “judge should not … publicly endorse a candidate for public office.”

But does not Ginsburg’s relentless trashing of Trump constitute a political attack on him, to help his opponent Hillary Clinton?

Ginsburg “should resign from the Court before she does the reputation of the judiciary more harm,” says the Journal.

There is a precedent. Justice Abe Fortas resigned in 1969 in a scandal when his ties to a convicted swindler became known.

But a dissent here. Why should Ginsburg resign? Did anyone doubt she held these views? Did she hide her radical liberalism from the Senate that confirmed her 96-3 in 1993, with only three Republicans dissenting, led by the venerable Jesse Helms?

Ginsburg was an ACLU lawyer and feminist-activist when she was named to the appellate court by Jimmy Carter. Her views were no secret to anyone when the Senate confirmed her.

Let us not pretend we did not know. Thus, why should she step down for airing political and ideological views everyone knew she held?

Liberal angst is understandable. Ginsburg is giving away the game.

How can liberals credibly uphold the pretense that Supreme Court decisions, where the left is the majority, represent judgments based on the Constitution, when Ginsburg, the leading leftist, has revealed herself to be a rabid partisan who can’t wait to use her judicial power to impose her ideology upon the United States?

Ginsburg detests Trump. She wants to kill super PACs. She thinks discrimination against white males is fine if it advances diversity. She thinks Republican Senators are blockheads who do not know their duties.

She thinks the death penalty is barbaric, and that abortion on demand and same-sex marriage are progressive. She is waiting for a case to come before her so she can restrict gun rights.

In a democratic republic, she has a right to hold and air these views.

But a democratic republic no longer exists when justices of the mindset of Ginsburg, who have never been elected, but serve for life, can impose these views, anti-democratically, upon the country.

Since the Earl Warren era, the Supreme Court has usurped the legislative power and imposed social policies, and Congress, which has the power under Article III to shackle the Ruth Bader Ginsburgs and restrict the court’s jurisdiction, has lacked the courage to do so.

This is the problem, not Ginsburg. She does what leftist ideologues do. The problem is elsewhere.

Pogo said it best, “We have met the enemy — and he is us.”

For his part, Trump has vowed to appoint conservative judges that are "pro-life" and "pro-gun." On his website, Trump released the following comment about his choices for Supreme Court and provided a list of 21 potential selections (see full list at the end of this post).

“We have a very clear choice in this election. The freedoms we cherish and the constitutional values and principles our country was founded on are in jeopardy. The responsibility is greater than ever to protect and uphold these freedoms and I will appoint justices, who like Justice Scalia, will protect our liberty with the highest regard for the Constitution. This list is definitive and I will choose only from it in picking future Justices of the United States Supreme Court. I would like to thank the Federalist Society, The Heritage Foundation and the many other individuals who helped in composing this list of twenty-one highly respected people who are the kind of scholars that we need to preserve the very core of our country, and make it greater than ever before.”

According to The Hill, the left is absolutely terrified of the potential for a massive swing in the balance of power on the Supreme Court to the right.

Trump’s ability to tip the court and his comments on “60 Minutes” have groups on the left panicked after they failed to win confirmation for Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the court.

“Unquestionably, the idea that Donald Trump can appoint Supreme Court justices ought to instill the fear of God in every American in the country, both those who voted for him and those who didn’t, because he will appoint individuals, just as his Republican predecessors did, who are hostile to the rights and liberties we Americans have come to accept as basic democratic values,” Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, told The Hill on Monday.

Aron said she fears that Trump’s Supreme Court appointments could reverse “years of progress” on civil rights, reproductive rights and marriage equality.

“One justice will be able to do that, which is the reason they failed to give Merrick Garland his due. It was to keep the seat open, knowing how critically important that seat is for a Republican president to fill,” Aron said, citing the GOP’s refusal to consider Garland’s nomination.

Meanwhile, conservatives have said they're overall pleased with Trump's 21 choices which he crafted with the help of The Haritage Foundation.

Conservatives are overall pleased with Trump’s list, which he crafted with the help of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

“When you have an embarrassment of riches, everyone is going to have a different favorite,” said Michael Lotito, who co-chair’s Littler Mendelson’s Workplace Policy Institute.

“I’m confident he’s going to pick someone who has a great respect for the separation of powers and is very sensitive to the proper role of the judiciary, and I think that is a major change from Obama to Trump.”

And while the GOP doesn't hold the 60 seats necessary in the Senate to block a Democrat-led filibuster, Senate Republicans are already pushing for a rule change that would allow confirmation with a simple majority.

Senate Republicans are set to have a 52-48 majority next year, six votes short of the 60 now needed to break a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee.

If Trump’s pick doesn’t get 60 votes, it’s possible that Senate Republicans will change the rules of the Senate so that Supreme Court nominees can be approved with a simple majority vote. Groups on the right are already pushing for that option.

It looks like some of the procedural shenanigans that democrats played to pass Obamacare may be coming back to haunt them. Isn't the squirming just so glorious to watch?

Below is the full list of 21 potential candidates that Trump has identified for the Supreme Court:

Keith Blackwell is a justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia. He was appointed to the position in 2012. He had previously served on the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Before serving on the bench, Justice Blackwell was a Deputy Special Attorney General of the State of Georgia, an Assistant District Attorney in Cobb County, and a commercial litigator in private practice. Justice Blackwell is a graduate of the University of Georgia School of Law.

Charles Canady is a justice of the Supreme Court of Florida. He has served in that role since 2008, and he served as the court's chief justice from 2010 to 2012. Prior to his appointment, Justice Canady served as a judge of the Florida Second District Court of Appeal and as a member of the United States House of Representatives for four terms. Justice Canady is a graduate of Yale Law School.

Neil Gorsuch is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He was appointed to the position in 2006. Judge Gorsuch previously served in the Justice Department as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Judge Gorsuch was a Marshall Scholar and received his law degree from Harvard. He clerked for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy.

Mike Lee is the Junior U.S. Senator from Utah and currently serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He has previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Utah and as a Supreme Court Clerk for Justice Alito.

Edward Mansfield is a justice of the Iowa Supreme Court. He was appointed to the court in 2011 and retained by voters in 2012. Justice Mansfield previously served as a judge of the Iowa Court of Appeals. He also teaches law at Drake University as an adjunct professor. Justice Mansfield is a graduate of Yale Law School.

Federico Moreno is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States. He previously served as a state and county court judge in Florida. Judge Moreno is a graduate of the University of Miami School of Law.

Margaret A. Ryan has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces since 2006. Judge Ryan served in the Marine Corps through deployments in the Philippines and the Gulf War. She then attended Notre Dame Law School through a military scholarship and served as a JAG officer for four years. Judge Ryan clerked for Judge J. Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit and Justice Clarence Thomas.

Amul Thapar is a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, serving since his appointment in 2007, when he became the first South Asian Article III judge. He has taught law students at the University of Cincinnati and Georgetown. Judge Thapar has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C. and the Southern District of Ohio. Immediately prior to his judicial appointment, Judge Thapar was the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Judge Thapar received his law degree from the University of California, Berkeley.

Timothy Tymkovich is the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Judge Tymkovich was appointed to the bench in 2003. He previously served as Colorado Solicitor General. Judge Tymkovich is a graduate of the University of Colorado College of Law.

Robert Young is the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Michigan. He was appointed to the court in 1999, and became part of a majority of justices who embraced originalism and led what one scholar described as a "textualism revolution." Justice Young previously served as a judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals. Chief Justice Young is a graduate of Harvard Law School.

The full list of the twenty-one individuals Mr. Trump will consider is below:

  1. Keith Blackwell
  2. Charles Canady
  3. Steven Colloton
  4. Allison Eid
  5. Neil Gorsuch
  6. Raymond Gruender
  7. Thomas Hardiman
  8. Raymond Kethledge
  9. Joan Larsen
  10. Mike Lee
  11. Thomas Lee
  12. Edward Mansfield
  13. Federico Moreno
  14. William Pryor
  15. Margaret A. Ryan
  16. Amul Thapar
  17. Timothy Tymkovich
  18. David Stras
  19. Diane Sykes
  20. Don Willett
  21. Robert Young

Perhaps most amusing is what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - a vocal opponent of Donal Trump - told a meeting of the Jewish Federations of North America in a Washington ballroom, as recounted by AP.

Ginsburg had criticized Trump in interviews last summer with The Associated Press and other news organizations, saying she did not want to consider the possibility that Trump could be elected. She apologized for her remarks soon thereafter.

The Justice said she hoped for a different outcome in last week’s election, but she made plain Monday that she accepts that Donald Trump will fill the Supreme Court’s 9-month-old vacancy. The 83-year-old justice said the most immediate impact on the court of Trump’s election would be to fill the seat that Justice Antonin Scalia occupied until his death in February. “President Trump will fill it,” Ginsburg said.

Judicial independence

Judicial independence is the concept that the judiciary needs to be kept away from the other branches of government. That is, courts should not be subject to improper influence from the other branches of government, or from private or partisan interests. Judicial Independence is vital and important to the idea of separation of powers.

Different countries deal with the idea of judicial independence through different means of judicial selection, or choosing judges. One way to promote judicial independence is by granting life tenure or long tenure for judges, which ideally frees them to decide cases and make rulings according to the rule of law and judicial discretion, even if those decisions are politically unpopular or opposed by powerful interests. This concept can be traced back to 18th century England.

In some countries, the ability of the judiciary to check the legislature is enhanced by the power of judicial review. This power can be used, for example, by mandating certain action when the judiciary perceives that a branch of government is refusing to perform a constitutional duty, or by declaring laws passed by the legislature unconstitutional.

The separation of powers, often imprecisely and metonymically used interchangeably with the trias politica principle,[1] is a model for the governance of a state (or who controls the state). Under this model, the state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with the powers associated with the other branches. The typical division of branches is into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. It can be contrasted with the fusion of powers in some parliamentary systems where the executive and legislature (and sometimes parts of the judiciary) are unified.

Separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.

Britain's judges continue to defy democracy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8885648/Britains-judges-continue-to-defy-democracy.html


###United States of America - Federal courts

Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the federal courts as part of the federal government.

The Constitution provides that federal judges, including judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, are appointed by the President "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." Once appointed, federal judges:

...both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Federal judges vacate office only upon death, resignation, or impeachment and removal from office by Congress; only 13 federal judges have ever been impeached. The phrase "during good behavior" predates the Declaration of Independence. John Adams equated it with quamdiu se bene gesserint in a letter to the Boston Gazette published on 11 January 1773,[25] a phrase that first appeared in section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1701 in England.

The President is free to appoint any person to the federal bench, yet typically he consults with the American Bar Association, whose Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rates each nominee "Well Qualified," "Qualified" or "Not Qualified."
State courts

State courts deal with independence of the judiciary in many ways, and several forms of judicial selection are used for both trial courts and appellate courts (including state supreme courts), varying between states and sometimes within states. In some states, judges are elected (sometime on a partisan ballot, other times on a nonpartisan one), while in others they are appointed by the governor or state legislature.

The 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, in which a majority of the Supreme Court, including some appointees of President George H. W. Bush, overruled challenges to the election of the George W. Bush then pending in the Florida Supreme Court, whose members had all been appointed by Democratic governors, is seen by many as reinforcing the need for judicial independence, both with regard to the Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court. This case has focused increased attention on judicial outcomes as opposed to the traditional focus on judicial qualifications.

WHO and WHAT is behind it all ? : >

Commentary:

We do not have a democracy any more,when high court judges can overrule the PM or President elected by the people.

The slandering and bad-mouthing of President Trump continues through a press and TV commanded by the global elite. Unlimited funds are spent causing world-wide demonstrations of a great variety against Trump as a person and a president. Unsuspecting people are brainwashed to stand against Trump and any action he takes,as promised the electorate during the election campaign.

Administrator
HUMAN SYNTHESIS