Trump Notches His 200th Lifetime Federal Judge

“Of Trump’s 53 appeals court judges, none are Black. One is Latino.”

The male/female ratio is 79/21

32 thoughts on “Trump Notches His 200th Lifetime Federal Judge

  1. I talked about the delayed Supreme Court confirmation because playgroundpsychotic wrote in part “This is Mitch McConnell’s awful legacy. He created the backlog in appointments with his obstruction…”

    During the last two GOP administrations, when the Democrats captured the Senate, they made it very clear that they would hold a Supreme Court vacancy open in an election year. Considering, that particular vacancy would flip the ideological balance of the Court, why shouldn’t McConnell have held the seat open? Should he have confirmed Garland in the hopes that by setting a good example, the Democrats would be less obstructionist with the next GOP administration? With the Trump administration?

    I may disagree with obstruction, but if the other side is practicing it, you have no choice but to do it as well. The alternative is your opposition pays no price for their obstruction and it only encourages them to not just continue it, but escalate it. Are you going to object to the Democrats holding a seat open the next time they control the Senate in an election year with a Republican incumbent? So when someone you oppose proposes doing something, that makes that thing OK for you to do? I am not saying the Democrats are evil and the Republicans are angelic. From what I see they are equally hypocritical. The problem is that the Congress has become so hyper partisan, mainly because the U.S. is so hyper partisan, that I don’t see a way to get back to a kinder, more genteel, more cooperative Congress.

    1. Can’t agree with this.

      There is very strong evidence that nearly 100% of today’s Republicans are corrupt. There is absolutely no doubt that Trump did what he was accused of in the impeachment trial, and that what he did is absolutely impeachable (debatably treasonous, and I use that term understanding exactly what it means constitutionally), and yet every Republican senator except one voted to exonerate him, often on the flimsiest and most ridiculous of pretexts. (Collins: “He’s learned his lesson.” Sure.) They did that in spite of the fact that removing Trump would still have left their man Pence in place, able to name any VP of his choosing, guaranteed of the votes for Senate confirmation of that choice. Every one of those senators betrayed his or her oath of office. And they are not stupid people. They could see that Trump was guilty, and they could see how serious his actions had been, and yet they betrayed the American public because (I presume) they were terrified of being primaried by Trump’s adoring base. The corruption of that party is so deep that there’s no cure for it.

      Are the Democrats paragons of virtue? Nah. And they, too, are in danger of having to pander to their extreme members, but to say they are comparable to Republicans is totally false equivalence. They don’t even begin to approach the absolute rot that infests the carcass of the party of Lincoln, thanks to the Orange Roughie.

      Or as I’ve pointed out many times in a syllogism

      Republicans always lie
      Republicans say that Democrats always lie
      Therefore …

      If you remember your college philosophy classes, you can complete the syllogism.

      1. Trump is a cancer that is doing real damage to the Republican party. I just hope 4 years will be enough time to recover. But I don’t think it will be.

        1. Trump has gutted the Republican Party like a fish, exposing the rottenness within. Who is it that you think is going to forget that in 4 years? Or 14? You, perhaps?

          1. Honestly, the news cycle moves so fast these days 4 years feels like 14, if not 40 sometimes. But as I said, I hoped but doubted it would be enough time. But one thing I know for sure, no party is ever down and out forever. By 2028, Trump will almost certainly be old news.

      2. I can disprove that syllogism pretty easily.

        Republicans always lie
        I am a Republican
        I say Donald Trump is a terrible person who should not be reelected.

        Therefore…

    2. By the way, I’m perfectly OK with holding those nominations off to see if their guy could get elected. As you note, and I agree, the leaders of the Democrats, given the equivalent of McConnell’s position, would have done the same thing. He broke no laws, violated no constitutional mandates. That was just good politics. I may not like the result, but I would have done the same thing in a similar situation to get a guy I preferred. Let’s say if I controlled the Senate right now and Kavanaugh were the new Supreme Court nominee from Trump at this moment, I would absolutely do everything possible to keep the nomination off the floor until the election.

      1. “Good” politics should be good for the country. Americans have lost sight of their country.

        1. I’m sure Mitch thinks that was good for the country. God only knows why.

          And again, I think you have to separate your feelings about his tactics and the result. I know you hate the result, as I do, but I would use the same procedural maneuvers, given the comparable opportunity. It’s impossible to condemn the same tactics I would have used.

    3. Michael McChesney said “I may disagree with obstruction, but if the other side is practicing it, you have no choice but to do it as well. ”

      Wow. If you cannot see what vile morality that is, and how it is NOT the solution to the problem, then you are a sad strange little man, and you have my pity.

      1. Well I may be sad and strange but I’m even less little now than I was before the pandemic. At least if you measure me horizontally. If criticism is self deprecating, can it also be ad hominem? Anyway, I stand by my position because the alternative is the equivalent of unilateral disarmament. Roger, if you disagree, I would love to hear your alternative strategy. The Democrats had begun unprecedented levels of obstruction of George W. Bush’s judicial nominees. During the last two GOP administrations, with the Senate in control of the Democrats, the then chairmen of the Judiciary committee had each said they would not move on a Supreme Court nominee in an election year. Assuming that judicial philosophies and thus judicial nominations are important to you (as they are to the GOP base) what strategy would you advise?

    4. “During the last two GOP administrations, when the Democrats captured the Senate, they made it very clear that they would hold a Supreme Court vacancy open in an election year. ”

      The Biden Rule doesn’t exist. This is a lie created by the GOP in order to avoid doing the duty.

      If it was such a concern holding onto the Supreme Court maybe they should’ve made Scalia take better care of himself.

      1. The Biden rule was never a rule adopted by the Senate. It was just what Joe Biden (then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) said in 1992 that the Democrats should do if there was a vacancy in an election year with George H W Bush as president. Chuck Schumer then advocated the same strategy in 2008 with George W. Bush as president. It wasn’t a rule. But do you really think Biden or Schumer wouldn’t have done exactly what they said they would do if there had been a vacancy?

        1. That is kind of like calling murder “pre-emptive self-defense”, McM. But if I recall correctly, that is a concept the Republicans were OK with when they felt like invading Iraq.

          1. Every homicide found to be justifiable self defense is preemptive. Very few people successfully defend themselves after they’ve been murdered. Well maybe some mortally wounded people have defended themselves. But I don’t see what the Senate Republicans did as the equivalent of self defense. It’s really just playing by the same rules as the opposition. I’m a NY Mets fan and as a National League fan as you might expect, I do not like the designated hitter rule. But that rule will be in effect for this coming season. There is no rule that a team MUST play with a DH. Mets ownership could decide that it is wrong for pitchers not to hit and Mets pitchers will still hit this season. But I wouldn’t want them to do that. As much as I hate the rule, if the other team uses it you have to use it if you want to be competitive. I think that’s a better analogy. But I’ll ask again. What strategy would you have advised?

          2. “Michael McChesney said: “Every homicide found to be justifiable self defense is preemptive.”++

            Wow. Michael, the way it works is, if you kill someone who A) has attacked you first and B) is trying to kill you, that is regular old self-defense. PRE-EMPTIVE self defense is when you kill someone who has made no actual attack on you, because you think he might. See the difference? One is a legitimate moral and legal concept, and the other is a rationalization for ending someone’s life because of what they might do. It might be justifiable sometimes, but it is not recognized as a right the way regular self-defense is.

            The Bush Administration claimed its invasion of Iraq was an act of pre-emptive national defense because of the WMDs Saddam Hussein did not have. I think Germany justified its invasion of Belgium in 1914 the same way, with equal morality.

            I am startled that I have to explain this. George Orwell once remarked how the British aristocracy had to make themselves stupid so that retaining their unjust privileges would not bother them. I think many Republicans have gone down the same road.

            As for the Federal judges matter, playgroundpsychotic has replied much better than I could have.

          3. Roger at this point we are only quibbling over semantics. Self defense is preemptive in the sense that you are using force, sometimes deadly force, to prevent yourself from being harmed. Whether that self defense will be found to be legal or not will depend on whether or not the threat you faced was imminent. If you say that preemptive self defense is using force before a threat presents itself, I agree that’s illegal. But as I said, I don’t think self defense is the appropriate analogy. I think my DH/playing by the same rules analogy is a better one. McConnell didn’t hold the Garland nomination open to prevent a future Democrat controlled Senate from holding open a future GOP nomination. Really his actions all but assures that if the situation is ever reversed the Democrats will do the same thing. But what he did was to play by the same rules the Democrats said they intended to play by.

            If the Democrats could have used that tactic to have kept Brett Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court would you have approved? If someone had written a comment defending the tactic would you have called them “a sad little man” practicing “vile morality”? Let’s say it wasn’t Kavanaugh but a man never accused of sexual misconduct but who had demonstrated the same judicial philosophy. Would that be any different?

        2. Wikipedia:
          “They cited a 1992 speech by then-senator Joe Biden, in which Biden argued that President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer or should appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate, as a precedent. Republicans later began to refer to this originally little-noticed idea as the “Biden rule”. Biden responded that his position was and remained that the president and Congress should “work together to overcome partisan differences” regarding judicial nominations.”

          That’s not what McConnell (and Grassley) did. Biden suggested bi-partisan negotiation. McConnell took the court hostage.

          Fuck Schumer. He was not senate leader and is pretty dopey in general.

          Just because the GOP is usually shitty and the Dems are sometimes shitty does not mean that the Dems will act like the GOP. A bullshit defense like that means you’re embarrassed by what your side did.

          The GOP willfully held up the judicial system and therefore the constitutional rights of all Americans. They should ashamed of themselves for doing it and you should be ashamed of yourself for defending them.

          1. I’m not ashamed to say I would do the exact same thing in the same position of power. Let’s pretend I am the House Majority Leader in a world where Democrats control the Senate. Trump nominates Judge Kavanaugh with five months to go before the election. There’s no way I’m letting that buffoon get a confirmation hearing before the election if there is any way I can avoid it. I will use any weapon in my procedural or political arsenal.

            So I can’t really cast the first stone at the Turtle. He did what I would have done.

          2. Sad…very sad. There’s no comparison between Garland and Kavanaugh who’s a party hack.

          3. But that’s not the point. The point is that I would use the same procedure to defend my territory that he used to defend his. You may disagree with his politics or his judgment, but his tactics were the same tactics any of us would have used in the exact opposite situation. In other words, I think people condemn his tactics hypocritically. To me this is comparable to the hypocrisy of every States Rights argument.

            (Well, certainly I personally can’t condemn the tactics, given that I’d do the same if I had a chance. That notwithstanding, I don’t like the result. He was tactically savvy in service of a bad cause. He’s the Erwin Rommel of senators.)

          4. There’s two procedures:
            Committee Hearing
            Confirmation Vote

            You don’t like a SCOTUS pick? You have two ways to stop him or her. You didn’t like Garland? Go ahead. Give him the full Bork.

            Democratic institutions exist for a reason and they should be respected. You do enough fuckery and people stop giving a fuck about government

            Furthermore I do not think the Dems would do the same thing. Robert Bork was heavily opposed by the Dems. Did they exaggerate his record negatively? Probably but he still got a vote.

          5. “Furthermore I do not think the Dems would do the same thing.”

            If you are correct, it would be one good reason why the GOP pushes them around. I hope they would. I certainly would if I were in charge.

            As for the process, that is merely tradition, not a legal or constitutional mandate. Nothing in the Constitution demands that the Senate “advise and consent” with a hearing, and nothing specifies how soon the procedure must happen, nor how long it will last. While most people believe that the Senate should promptly consider and vote on every presidential judicial nominee, there is no basis to declare that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to do so. The Senate, by failing to hold a hearing, is withholding consent in one manner, as is its constitutional prerogative.

            You may despise the result, but there is nothing illegal or extra-Constitutional about the process, even though it was a break from tradition. It was unprecedented, but that’s not the same as improper.

            I do agree with you that the result was undesirable.

  2. I’ll have to respectfully disagree with the prevailing sentiment here. In my opinion, his judicial appointments are just about the only really good thing he’s done. But the credit really belongs to Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid.

    Yes, Mitch McConnell held open Scalia’s seat for almost a year. But he only did what Joe Biden said should be done if a Supreme Court vacancy happened in the 4th year of Bush 41’s term and Chuck Schumer said should be done if a vacancy happened in the 8th year of Bush 43’s presidency. Also, during 43’s presidency, Harry Reid began filibustering Court of Appeals nominees, something that had rarely if ever happened in the past. The Republicans actually filibustered fewer of Obama’s nominees, but Harry Reid decided to eliminate the filibuster for all nominations except the Supreme Court, though everyone knew that the only reason it was excepted was because there were no Supreme Court vacancies. When Chuck Schumer decided to support a Gorsuch filibuster, he knew that the Republicans would eliminate it for such nominees as well. The result is that the Democrats have little ability left to stop (or even slow down) a nominee to whom they object. Hello Justice Kavanaugh.

    Of course, despite Trump nominating two conservatives to the Supreme Court, the Court has still issued some rulings recently with which I strongly disagree. But I am still very happy it was Trump making those nominations and not Hillary. I just hope he gets a bunch more confirmed before he vacates the White House early next year. I just hope the GOP holds on to the Senate.

    1. A) Wow. It’s true that elephants never forget.

      B) If we are talking about Trump’s hundreds of appointments to the Federal bench, why are you talking about delayed Supreme Court confirmations? What is the relevance?

      C) So when someone you oppose proposes doing something, that makes that thing OK for you to do? It would be wrong, but because your enemy thought about doing it, it’s OK? Well, all right. I like justifying anything I want to do too, so I can hardly throw the first stone.

  3. The smartest thing the Democrats can do if they take control of the government is to immediately double the size of the Federal district and appellate courts. They can neutralize the power of these right wing judges, address the backlog of federal court dockets, and it is not as easily branded as attacking the right wing judges.

    So of course the Democrats won’t do anything like this.

    1. Actually, I don’t think the backlog of cases is too bad right now. Trump has managed to fill almost every current vacancy. Of course the issue isn’t a case backlog. Regardless, I think a court packing plan is a mistake. If the democrats double the judges, they will end up doubled again as soon as the GOP regains control. I really don’t want it to come to that.

  4. This is Trump’s awful legacy, which will haunt the US long after he is gone and dead.

    1. Correction:
      This is Mitch McConnell’s awful legacy. He created the backlog in appointments with his obstruction but as soon as a GOP Potus jumps in? He has a seemingly endless supply of Federalist Society approved judges waiting to be confirmed.

Comments are closed.