U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Who Would Donald Trump Appoint to the Supreme Court?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 14, 2016
Author: Frank Cannon
Post Date: 2016-02-14 20:15:17 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 6249
Comments: 39
Who Would Donald Trump Appoint to the Supreme Court? By Frank Cannon – 12.23.15 Donald Trump says a lot of things. We’ve become all too used to that now. Some of these things should probably be taken with a grain of salt — “Only Rosie O’Donnell” comes to mind — but some deserve to be analyzed more closely. Here’s an example. Remember Trump’s discussion about Supreme Court Justices back in August with Bloomberg Politics? Mark Halperin asked Trump, “Is there someone out there today who isn’t on the [Supreme Court], but say, this is the kind of person I would consider for the court? How about your sister? Think she’d be a good Supreme Court Justice?” Trump responded, “Well, I don’t want to mention names, I think it’s inappropriate to mention names, certainly at this stage so early when we have a long way to go. Oh, my sister’s great. I have a sister who’s on the Court of Appeals and she's fantastic. I think she would be phenomenal. I think she would be one of the best. But frankly, uh, I think she — we’ll have to rule that out now, at least temporarily. But I do have a sister who’s very smart and a very good person.” Trump has generally been coy about Supreme Court justices, avoiding specifics and certainly not giving any insight into his personal litmus test or whether he even has one. He has praised Justice Clarence Thomas as “strong and consistent,” while calling Chief Justice John Roberts “disgraceful.” He recently criticized Justice Antonin Scalia for his comments opposing affirmative action during a Supreme Court hearing. But outside vague statements of support or opposition, he has said very little about case law. Would he appoint justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade? Does he believe the Obergefell v. Hodges case’s radical finding of a constitutional right to gay marriage was based on sound jurisprudence? What about Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, or NFIB v. Sebelius? Honestly, we have no idea. So let’s go off of what we know — he loves his sister and thinks she would be a “phenomenal” Supreme Court Justice. Let’s take a look at Judge Maryanne Trump Barry of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Barry was appointed to the Third Circuit in 1999 by President Bill Clinton, even though she identified as a Republican. She was unanimously confirmed by the U.S Senate later that year. She has been involved in hundreds of cases, but one of the first cases in her tenure sticks out the most: Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, which was argued in late 1999 and filed in July 2000.The Third Circuit struck down the New Jersey Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, and Barry wrote in her majority opinion that the law “places an undue burden on a woman's constitutional right to obtain an abortion.” Barry didn’t stop there. She continued by giving a full-throated defense for legalizing infanticide: “The Legislature's argument that Roe and Casey are inapplicable to ‘partial-birth” abortion procedures because such procedures are infanticide rather than abortion is based on semantic machinations, irrational line-drawing, and an obvious attempt to inflame public opinion instead of logic or medical evidence,” Barry wrote. “…In what can only be described as a desperate attempt to circumvent over twenty- five years of abortion jurisprudence, the Legislature would draw a line based upon the location in the woman’s body where the fetus expires,” Barry continued. “Establishing the cervix as the demarcation line between abortion and infanticide is nonsensical on its face as well as inaccurate because that line may be crossed in any number of abortion procedures which the Legislature concedes are constitutionally protected.… The Legislature’s attempt to label the Act a birth, instead of an abortion, regulation is nothing more than an effort to cloud the issues and avoid clear precedent.” Wow — all that coming from a “Republican” judge! Barry’s argument was essentially a legal defense of a birth not being a birth unless the person giving birth desires it to be a birth. According to Judge Barry, there should be no other considerations — and none whatsoever for the living, breathing child itself. And this is who Donald Trump thinks of first for a Supreme Court Justice nominee? Clarity is sorely needed. Donald Trump is the Republican frontrunner, and Iowa is a little more than a month away. Is Maryanne Trump Barry the type of Supreme Court justice he plans on appointing? Someone who will hand down constitutional rulings to protect infanticide — the literal murder of living, breathing children outside the womb? This is very important. The Republican Party has had a rough history with appointing Supreme Court Justices. While Democratic Presidents have done a good job at appointing sure votes for liberal causes, Republican Presidents have had mixed results — Anthony Kennedy (Reagan) has always been a shaky vote, and John Roberts (George W. Bush) helped make Obamacare the law of the land. We would do well, if we get a Republican President in 2017, to nominate justices that will defend life, respect religious liberty, and adhere to the constitutional principles that helped make America so great. Donald Trump may very well be that nominee. But will he appoint Supreme Court Justices in the same vein as his sister, who has defended abortion as a judge up to the moment of birth and beyond? Or will he appoint a more conservative voice like Justice Thomas, who Trump has gone out of his way to praise repeatedly? We don’t know. And we need to know. The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes. Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved. Source URL: spectator.org/articles/65...uld-donald-trump-appoint- supreme-court
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 33.
#1. To: tpaine (#0)
Hello! Anyone home?
Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one here that gives a shit.. How bout you, Pete?
How bout you, Pete? I'm getting so burned out from dealing with Party People from both branches of the ruling party for so many years,I'm not even sure I care anymore. It seems to me the majority of the politically concerned and active people in this country only care about "party" anymore,and place party ahead of country. The voters who vote based on who has the best hair or the hottest wife aren't even that aware. Nobody seems to care about America anymore. It's all about "ME" and "MY TEAM WON!"
The phony 'party people' bug me the most.. Right now we see some socialistic types here at LF supposedly supporting Trump, -- when their real purpose is just more shit disturbing agitprop.
Yes,and at least one of them is a site owner that attacks posters,says he doesn't want a response from them,and then deletes their responses and threatens to ban them again if they even respond to his PM attacks. Anybody know of anybody like that?
Wanna piss off Pebbles to no end? Put him on your Bozo List. That's something war did. Then he'll ban you for sure.
Stone doesn't want to hear from anyone that's not Ready for Hillary, like The Donald and Bill Kristol. Ohio governor, Ready for Hillary
I hope youse guys are old enough to remember this: “Trump Meets the Honeymooners” http://www.facebook.com/gorillap...e/videos/893084667456000/ Enjoy!
BTW,back on topic,sort of,who else thinks he might appoint Lawyer Calhoun from the old Amos and Andy teebee show? He IS the right color,and unlike Hillary he must have passed a bar exam. Then again,I doubt any SC nominee has to actually pass a DC bar exam,so anyone think he might nominate her to get her to step down once it's obvious she's not going to win?
"You is asking me to aid and abet you in a dastardly deed like that? Do youthink that me, I, Algonquin J. Calhoun is weak enough to pull a double- cross on one of my dearest friends? Do you think that I is low enough to stoop to a shady piece of chicanery like that? Do you think that I is spineless enough.....that I is spineless enough.....that I ...is...spineless...enough? Well.......just call me jellyfish.
That's the man! And the truth of the matter is,we could do worse,and have.
I'd never seen the show before, it is pretty funny. The SJW's probably do not approve, but it is funny. I love the malaprops and mispronunciations like radiumactive. Seems to be a standard plot where the Kingfish character swindles the Andy character.
#34. To: nativist nationalist (#33)
It really is. It was never missed in my house when I was a kid,and it was right up there with The Honeymooners and I Love Lucy in the ratings. Lucy always made my head hurt,and I kept waiting for Ricky to kill her in her sleep. The Honeymooners never even made me smile. The stark black and white set and the pathetic lives they lived where they spent each show screaming at each other in anger with no hope of ever doing better made it seem more like a tragedy than a comedy. Amos and Andy were hilarious,though,and most of the main characters had dreams of bettering themselves in life. I love the malaprops and mispronunciations like radiumactive. Seems to be a standard plot where the Kingfish character swindles the Andy character. Yeah,it started as a radio show before TV came out,and all the characters were actually white. They used black "voices" and slang to appeal to the black audience back then (seriously) so they would know they had a radio program geared to them even if it was as funny to the whites as it was the blacks. Remember,back then blacks didn't see themselves as victims back then. They saw themselves as Americans and were dreaming of working hard and becoming successful. Plus,there were entire black communities back then where there were thriving businesses with black owners that were role models to inspire the younger blacks. Education was important to them,and so was family. Almost all black children were born to married women with husbands living in the homes with them and supporting the families. When Amos and Andy transitioned to television,they had to find black actors to fill the roles,so it was the first tv show with an almost entirely black cast. Really enjoyable show to watch with none of that "gotcha" humor you see today. I have seen the whole series for sale on DVD's in the past. BTW,what are SJW's?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: sneakypete (#1)
#6. To: tpaine (#2)
Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one here that gives a shit..
#13. To: sneakypete, y'all, ---, misterwhite, roscoe (#6)
I'm getting so burned out from dealing with Party People from both branches of the ruling party for so many years,I'm not even sure I care anymore.
#16. To: tpaine (#13)
Right now we see some socialistic types here at LF supposedly supporting Trump,
#17. To: sneakypete (#16)
Anybody know of anybody like that?
#21. To: Fred Mertz, sneakypete (#17)
he'll ban you for sure.
#22. To: hondo68, tpaine, sneakypete, TooConservative (#21)
#25. To: Fred Mertz (#22)
(Edited)
#31. To: sneakypete (#25)
BTW,back on topic,sort of,who else thinks he might appoint Lawyer Calhoun from the old Amos and Andy teebee show?
#32. To: nativist nationalist (#31)
#33. To: sneakypete (#32)
That's the man!
Replies to Comment # 33. I'd never seen the show before, it is pretty funny. The SJW's probably do not approve, but it is funny.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 33.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]