1 in every 4 circuit court judges is now a Trump appointee

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/1-...uvd?li=BBnbfcL
After three years in office, President Trump has remade the federal judiciary, ensuring a conservative tilt for decades and cementing his legacy no matter the outcome of November’s election.
© Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post President Trump in the White House Thursday.

Trump nominees make up 1 in 4 U.S. circuit court judges. Two of his picks sit on the Supreme Court. And this past week, as the House voted to impeach the president, the Republican-led Senate confirmed an additional 13 district court judges.

In total, Trump has installed 187 judges to the federal bench.
Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post
Trump’s mark on the judiciary is already having far-reaching effects on legislation and liberal priorities. Just last week, the 5th Circuit struck down a core provision of the Affordable Care Act. One of the two appellate judges who ruled against the landmark law was a Trump appointee.
The Supreme Court — where two of the nine justices are conservatives selected by Trump — could eventually hear that case.
The 13 circuit courts are the second most powerful in the nation, serving as a last stop for appeals on lower court rulings, unless the case is taken up by the Supreme Court. So far, Trump has appointed 50 judges to circuit court benches. Comparatively, by this point in President Obama’s first term, he had confirmed 25. At the end of his eight years, he had appointed 55 circuit judges.
Trump’s appointments have flipped three circuit courts to majority GOP-appointed judges, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York. The president has also selected younger conservatives for these lifetime appointments, ensuring his impact is felt for many years.
The executor of this aggressive push is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is almost singularly focused on reshaping the federal judiciary, twice ramming through Senate rule changes to speed up confirmations over Democrats’ objections.
“Leave no vacancy behind” is his mantra, McConnell has stated publicly. With a 53-to-47 Senate majority, he has been able to fill openings at breakneck speed.
That philosophy did not seem to apply in 2016, when McConnell refused to allow Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, Obama’s choice to replace the late justice Antonin Scalia, a confirmation hearing, let alone a vote.
McConnell insisted on waiting until after the 2016 election, a gamble that paid off when Trump beat Democrat Hillary Clinton. Trump appointed conservative Justice Neil M. Gorsuch for that seat.
McConnell has repeatedly described blocking Garland as one of his greatest achievements.
Before leaving town for the holidays, Senate Republicans hailed McConnell’s success.
“You didn’t think @senatemajldr would leave town without confirming more judges, did you?” the Senate Republican Communications Center tweeted Friday, with a breakdown of the number of judges confirmed since 2017. “. . . Merry Christmas, America.”
While Trump has wavered on some conservative policies during his tenure, he has reliably appointed judges in line with conservative ideology.
“I’ve always heard, actually, that when you become President, the most — single most important thing you can do is federal judges,” Trump said at a White House event in November celebrating his “federal judicial confirmation milestones.”
The three circuit courts that have flipped to Republican majorities this year have the potential to not only change policy but also benefit Trump professionally and politically.
The 2nd Circuit, with its new right-leaning majority, will decide whether to rehear a case challenging Trump’s ability to block critics on Twitter, as well as one regarding Trump’s businesses profiting while he’s in office. The 11th Circuit, which handles appeals from Georgia, Florida and Alabama, is set to take up several voting rights cases.
Trump has facetiously thanked Obama for leaving him so many judicial vacancies.
“Now, President Obama was very nice to us. He gave us 142 empty positions. That’s never happened before,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Thursday. “But, as you know, that’s said to be the most important thing that a President has.”
When Fox News host Sean Hannity made a similar remark while interviewing McConnell on his show recently, the majority leader made clear that Obama didn’t leave those vacancies intentionally.
“I’ll tell you why. I was in charge of what we did the last two years of the Obama administration,” McConnell said, laughing.
“I will give you full credit for that, and by the way, take a bow,” Hannity responded.
In April, McConnell limited debate on Trump nominees from 30 hours to two hours, which has allowed him to push through judges at warp speed. Before that, McConnell did away with “blue slips,” which allowed senators to contest judicial nominees from their home states.
Republicans say Democrats started this trend when then-Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) eliminated the filibuster for most nominees in 2013, a tool the minority party could use to block or delay a confirmation. When the Democrats lost the Senate in 2014, McConnell gained the power to stall Obama nominees, leaving Trump with plenty of vacancies.
The fast clip of judicial confirmations has no doubt shifted the courts rightward, said Russell Wheeler, a judicial branch expert at the Brookings Institution, calling it “a significant impact but not a revolutionary impact.”
At least not yet. Two-thirds of the 50 circuit court judge slots filled with Trump appointees were previously held by other Republican-appointed judges.
There is only one circuit court vacancy left for Trump to fill, but more could open up next year. And if Trump wins in November, there will certainly be vacancies in his second term. There’s also the potential for additional openings on the Supreme Court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, is 86 and has had health problems. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, another Clinton pick, is also over 80.
Chris Kang, chief counsel of Demand Justice, a group that supports liberal judicial nominees, wants Democrats to recognize just how high the stakes are for 2020.
“Republicans have been using the courts to achieve policy priorities that they couldn’t achieve through the democratically elected legislative branch of government,” Kang said. “These federal judges serve for life; that’s a point we take for granted, but not a way a lot of Americans understand it. Trump’s imprint on this country will be felt for decades through his courts.”
Democrats have long been reluctant to talk about the courts in a political way, Kang said. But, with Republicans choosing judges with far-right ideologies, liberals can’t “cling to romantic notions of our courts as impartial,” he added. “That’s not the reality and not how Republicans see it.”
The issue came up at last week’s Democratic presidential debate, when Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) was asked whether Trump’s appointees would make it harder for her as president to enact her agenda.
Though she didn’t answer that question directly, she said the next Democratic president will “have to immediately start putting judges on the bench to fill vacancies so that we can reverse the horrific nature of these Trump judges.”
Wheeler worries that the polarization of appointments will cause the judiciary to lose public trust, similar to what has happened with other institutions.
“We could be in for a situation if we have a rock-hard conservative majority on the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court overturning a lot of decisions by a [future] Democratic president and Congress — you could be in for a situation where the courts’ legitimacy is called into question,” he said.



LOL - DPST's are complaining that a conservative judiciary - committed to strict Constitutional construction - is illegitimate when faced with DPST unConstitutional "feelings" legislation.

If the Courts were packed with liberals legislating from the bench - they would be jumping for joy - I would prefer off a cliff like lemmings, but the point is made.
Poor, hypocritical DPST's!!
There may be hope for the Union against the DPST onslaught of idiocy yet.

So you are celebrating that Trump’s secret army’s will be legislating from the bench? What a fuckeds up government. It at least you have the freedoms to throw these Neanderthals out, eh?

Thank you - YR-Hoe - the "Triggering"at this news is sure sign trump is doing the right thing to preserve the Constitution of America.

Not that a faux Canuck knows anything about our Constitution.

LOLLING you, oebsy. I’m not YR-Hoe. But you are.

And, for a change, you won’t address the contentions is made in my post. Just name callings and scatologies.

Not that’s a failed Cankee knows anything about anything but the Great White South.

And Trump ain't done yet! He's got the old hag + 1 to replace ... and if HE doesn't get it done, Pence can finish IT UP between 2025 and 2032.

Chris Kang, chief counsel of Demand Justice, a group that supports liberal judicial nominees, wants Democrats to recognize just how high the stakes are for 2020.
“Republicans have been using the courts to achieve policy priorities that they couldn’t achieve through the democratically elected legislative branch of government,” Kang said. “These federal judges serve for life; that’s a point we take for granted, but not a way a lot of Americans understand it. Trump’s imprint on this country will be felt for decades through his courts.”

The effects will be long lasting. No argument. When they interpret the law, it doesn't matter how the people feel. The Judiciary is not on your side. The high court will not care.

This is the evil madness of the POTUS. He is a pawn and doesn't even know it.

We can have a competent executive who is bound by the Constitution to uphold the law, but, as much as he or she disagrees with how it is interpreted, there is no recourse.

The Executive Branch needs to work with the Legislative Branch to redirect the Judicial Branch. On a mass grassroots level. Not an easy task by any means. Nor will it be in a generation or two. It starts with this election. Ginsburg's seat not withstanding.

So you are celebrating that Trump’s secret army’s will be legislating from the bench? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider (Don'tBeDaft!)

Damn right mi amigo!

The effects will be long lasting. No argument. When they interpret the law, it doesn't matter how the people feel. The Judiciary is not on your side. The high court will not care.

This is the evil madness of the POTUS. He is a pawn and doesn't even know it.

We can have a competent executive who is bound by the Constitution to uphold the law, but, as much as he or she disagrees with how it is interpreted, there is no recourse.

The Executive Branch needs to work with the Legislative Branch to redirect the Judicial Branch. On a mass grassroots level. Not an easy task by any means. Nor will it be in a generation or two. It starts with this election. Ginsburg's seat not withstanding. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

It would be nice if Ginsburg dies soon so Trump can replace her with another like Kavanaugh.

It would be nice if Ginsburg dies soon so Trump can replace her with another like Kavanaugh. Originally Posted by friendly fred

Your kind candor at the speedy anticipated death of a liberal justice is enlightening and unsettling . With the refined sense of gallows humor, I smirked like Lenny Bruce.


By staying alive, she is not being nice. With every breath she takes, she is sticking it to the reactionary right. I saw a recent interview where it was stated conservatives are usually inactive. The nature of a conservative. But a reactionary conservative is taking action.

I wish I could better state what I witnessed. But essentially, the battle between left and right requires action. Pretty soon the conservatives will just sit pretty knowing the storm has passed. Letting reformers keep making radical movements.

First the first (half) black President. Next the first woman President. It should have come sooner before the toxic reactive election of an imbecilic puppet of power and money hungry leaders.

Finally, a workers movement. Or middleclass movement. Wishfull thinking?

This country has to finally progress to the point of electing a woman to a position of more power. Not just third in succession. Biden is too weak. Sanders is too progressive.

Sorry to go off on a rant but, massive change is needed. I wonder how long Mayor Pete will be a force to be reckoned with. Is a homosexual in a position of power just too much for a Puritan country to take?

What about a fag Justice?

What about a fag Justice? Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

we already have some in the judiciary. one of them was instrumental in striking down CA's ban on gay marriage proposition. It was revealed after he retired that he was homo,.

we already have some in the judiciary. one of them was instrumental in striking down CA's ban on gay marriage proposition. It was revealed after he retired that he was homo,. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Only after they retire from public scrutiny do some reveal who they are.



https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...achment-trial/

There's no good excuse for Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Pat Roberts of Kansas, or Mike Enzi of Wyoming. Not that there is for all the rest of them.


These are the three Republican senators who are retiring next year. These are the three guys who don’t even have anything theoretical to lose. If they were to band together as a block and vote, say, to hear from John Bolton, and Mick Mulvaney, and Mike Pompeo, all you would need is two more from the ranks of the Willards, the scaredy-cats, and the perennially insufferable.

Only after they retire from public scrutiny do some reveal who they are.

Three Retiring Republican Senators Can Demand a Fair Impeachment Trial. Why Won't They?

https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...achment-trial/
Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Aww another jaded puff piece about those big old meanie Senators not bowing down and continuing the folly and farce of the House. Poor old Dems just crying when they don't get their way.


But back to the OP. You go Trump in filling the Judicial System with Conscientious Constitutional Conservatives.

Didn’t Trump just flip the 9th Circuit?

Didn’t Trump just flip the 9th Circuit? Originally Posted by bambino

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...-trump-report/

According to Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), the transition to a conservative majority court could have devastating consequences for liberal initiatives — including health care reform.

“The 9th Circuit is a very important circuit, and the presence of more conservative judges puts in peril all of American health care reform,” the state attorney general explained.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...s-court-088833

Daniel Goldberg, legal director of the liberal judicial advocacy group Alliance for Justice, stressed that beyond the numbers, Trump has appointed nominees with strong ideological views. That was the case with VanDyke, who was confirmed in a 51-44 vote on Dec. 11 after drawing criticism for past writings and opinions on same-sex marriage, abortion, labor and immigration.

So you are celebrating that Trump’s secret army’s will be legislating from the bench? What a fuckeds up government. It at least you have the freedoms to throw these Neanderthals out, eh? Originally Posted by HoeHummer

Well now Hoe Hummer,

You seem to have things backward. The term "legislating from the bench" is used when a judge does not make a decision based on law, but what he wants the law to be: that is not his job. This is what has been happening with liberal judges.

The problem is that liberal judges have gone beyond the job assigned to them by the constitution. Congress should write the laws. The judicial system makes sure that the laws are written correctly.

The big push that helped Donald win, was promise he made to appoint conservative judges: he as done so.

Appointing judges who would follow the law, and the constitution is a big part of how President Trump is MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.