so you are ok with Judges making policy…thats not a smart move.
Given Roberts opinion on gay marriage the odds it could go away are increased
The end of Chevron deference means that Executive Agencies will not be the final arbitrators of their own powers. It is the realm of the courts to ensure that executive agencies remain within the confines of federal statute. Chevron deference was an abdication by the courts of their responsibility to check executive agencies.
Personally out of those three. Raymond Kethledge hands down.
Down to earth, hunter, outdoors men, Conservative leaning libertarian, gun nut like us.
Grow the hell up.
Nice, single shot shotgun so the boy and learn to shoot.
Chevron means they can make policy when The Executive and legislative branches fail to do their duty or cover what is needed.
The executive isnt the final arbitrators, We have seen numerous times courts strike down “laws or executive orders”, but thats not the really the job to reign in The executive. Thats the legislative. Presidents have used this power because congress has allowed it.
lol…let me know when you start
I read up on him while back. I think he will be excellent pick.
One of my favorites out of entire list.
Agreed. The over the top hysteria from many on the left is funny.
I think Kethledge is the best choice out of all the men. He also worked at odd jobs to put himself through law school. He’s someone relatable to the average person.
Plus it would be nice to have someone from the heartland, and a grad from a different law school. I mentioned this is another thread. If there is anyone who would be interested in picking someone outside the box I would think it would be Trump. And a nice nod to the rust belt who put him in the WH.
Plus, it would be fun to see Debbie Stabenow voting against someone from her own state. And she’s up for reelection this year (don’t think she will lose but you never know)
And of course he’s very qualified.
If Trump is going to pick a man he’d be a far more interesting choice than Kavanaugh.
Yeah, he’d be the first.
Agreed. Sounds like we are hoping for the same guy. Assuming the nominee is a guy of course.
How do you figure?
As to the bolded:
- When did be being “relatable to the average person” become a criterion for the SC? He’s not running for office.
- The “heart” does not reside on a specific patch of American dirt.
- Why does the president need to “nod to the rust belt?” Again, the SC justice is not running for public office.
- What does Stabenow’s state have to do with anything?
- SC justices don’t need to be “interesting.”
You are talking as if trump is choosing a vice president.
Damn you for making me get so close to your opinion again! To be honest I’d be perfectly okay with a gun nut than someone who is inclined to tell someone what they can do with their own body. Dumb people do stupid things with guns that is established, but the weapon doesn’t fire itself. People who seek to tell people what they have to do with their physical being because of their personal beliefs represent a greater concern to me that the latter. I’d readily vote for someone who is strong on stare decisis both for the 2nd and the 14th as it pertains to to the 14th and Casey. Leave things the way they are and ill have zero issues with the pick in fact I’ll even give Trump some credit.
Thomas Hardiman is also a serious candidate. He was the runner-up last time around and he’s close friends with Trump’s sister.
He’s a Georgetown (JD) and Notre Dame (BA) alumni.
He’s served on the U.S court of appeals since 2007.
Wikipedia lists notable court cases.
It’s perfectly clear that all four of the front runners are eminently qualified from a judicial point of view, so Joanne is looking at other factors that may make them interesting for Americans - someone they can feel is more like them and someone believable.
She literally used the word “interesting”.
Why does it bother you? Is it somehow WRONG for Americans to not only respect their SCOTUS but also relate more to them? Does that not help to foster faith in the SCOTUS?
Why indeed is it important to have blacks and women on the SCOTUS if NOT to be more relatable to Americans?