Joe Biden's Judicial Nominees

[MarkD]

Get ready to hear all about Biden & Schumer "ramming through extreme judges."

I want the closest thing we can find to RGB clones (ideologically of course) for every open seat. Let the republican tears flow.

Why?  Ginsberg was Center-left at best (I’d argue she was basically a moderate on such a right-wing judicial activist Court that it made her look liberal by comparison), had a tendency toward legislating from the bench, had something of a low key corporatist streak on certain issues, and bares a significant share of the blame for Amy Coney Barrett sitting on the Court.  Ginsberg’s great accomplishments were largely from before she became a judge.

We can - and should - do so much better than a bunch of Ginsberg clones. 

In this day and age which judges don't have a tendency to legislature from the bench?

The way the Supreme Court operates now, you can practically consider it a super-legislature.

No judge should aspire to legislate from the bench.  The fact that some do is a serious problem.

Perhaps, but when you have so many policies get litigated there isn't really an escape from that. Judicial review interjects the courts into legislation.

I have decided that there is a way to "escape from that," and to have much less judicial review of state and local laws in federal courts.

This sentence from the 14th Amendment, ...

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

... is the most frequently litigated part of the entire Constitution. That sentence has been invoked for over 120 years by the SCOTUS to strike down state or local laws that a majority of Justices do not like. As they "interpret" the clauses in that sentence, the Justices have decided that they must decide how much freedom and equality do people deserve to have. Indeed, at least twice in the last 30 years the SCOTUS has written, "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all." There is no objective truth about when people deserve to have a liberty that a state or local government has wished to deny to people, and as well there is no objective truth about when do people deserve to be treated equally. (The SCOTUS itself has often said, "The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same." (Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147 (1940).)) The SCOTUS has been articulating a variety of different legal standards for determining whether someone's "liberty" or "rights" are being violated, or for when people have to be treated equally with one another. The goalposts have been shifted back and forth; the Court is not consisent about applying the legal tests they articulate, and sometimes they dont' even explain at all which test they have applied. Thus they have given themselves, and to other federal judges, a lot of elbow room to legislate from the bench.

As it says in my signature, I want to adopt a constitutional amendment that rewrites that crucial sentence in the 14th Amendment -- rewrite it to make its meaning narrower and clearer. I want to enumerate which "rights" the states cannot violate, and to enumerate which kinds of discrimination are constitutionally unacceptable, and which legal standards are to be used by federal courts when addressing issues of discrimination. I have drafted exactly what I want to propose, and I have frequently asked other Atlas users, via the Forum Community board, whether they would be willing to agree to my proposal.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Get ready to hear all about Biden & Schumer "ramming through extreme judges."

I want the closest thing we can find to RGB clones (ideologically of course) for every open seat. Let the republican tears flow.

Why?  Ginsberg was Center-left at best (I’d argue she was basically a moderate on such a right-wing judicial activist Court that it made her look liberal by comparison), had a tendency toward legislating from the bench, had something of a low key corporatist streak on certain issues, and bares a significant share of the blame for Amy Coney Barrett sitting on the Court.  Ginsberg’s great accomplishments were largely from before she became a judge.

We can - and should - do so much better than a bunch of Ginsberg clones. 

In this day and age which judges don't have a tendency to legislature from the bench?

The way the Supreme Court operates now, you can practically consider it a super-legislature.

No judge should aspire to legislate from the bench.  The fact that some do is a serious problem.

Perhaps, but when you have so many policies get litigated there isn't really an escape from that. Judicial review interjects the courts into legislation.

I have decided that there is a way to "escape from that," and to have much less judicial review of state and local laws in federal courts.

This sentence from the 14th Amendment, ...

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

... is the most frequently litigated part of the entire Constitution. That sentence has been invoked for over 120 years by the SCOTUS to strike down state or local laws that a majority of Justices do not like. As they "interpret" the clauses in that sentence, the Justices have decided that they must decide how much freedom and equality do people deserve to have. Indeed, at least twice in the last 30 years the SCOTUS has written, "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all." There is no objective truth about when people deserve to have a liberty that a state or local government has wished to deny to people, and as well there is no objective truth about when do people deserve to be treated equally. (The SCOTUS itself has often said, "The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same." (Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147 (1940).)) The SCOTUS has been articulating a variety of different legal standards for determining whether someone's "liberty" or "rights" are being violated, or for when people have to be treated equally with one another. The goalposts have been shifted back and forth; the Court is not consisent about applying the legal tests they articulate, and sometimes they dont' even explain at all which test they have applied. Thus they have given themselves, and to other federal judges, a lot of elbow room to legislate from the bench.

As it says in my signature, I want to adopt a constitutional amendment that rewrites that crucial sentence in the 14th Amendment -- rewrite it to make its meaning narrower and clearer. I want to enumerate which "rights" the states cannot violate, and to enumerate which kinds of discrimination are constitutionally unacceptable, and which legal standards are to be used by federal courts when addressing issues of discrimination. I have drafted exactly what I want to propose, and I have frequently asked other Atlas users, via the Forum Community board, whether they would be willing to agree to my proposal.

Apparently Brandeis thought one of the most important ways to avoid judicial overreach was resepcting jurisdictional limits - e.g. not adjudicating on a question not raised in the lower court. A biographer of his tells the story of Justice Stone's first opinion, over which he laboured for some time, being effectively sabotaged by Brandeis popping in at the end to say that the SCOTUS didn't have jurisdiction.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Biden already moving faster than Obama or Trump. And releasing a slate of 11 at once is a great "shock and awe" move.

Naming 11 lower-court picks at once also mirrors W.'s 1st judicial announcement, but that didn't even occur 'til May 2001.

High energy President.

[President Johnson]

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1404498947805270018

Her nomination cleared an initial procedural hurdle on Thursday to advance in the Senate with a vote of 52-46 and three Republican senators -- Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska -- voting with Democrats.

[Sestak]

Jackson confirmed, 53-44.

Collins, Graham, Murkowski the Republican ayes.

[😥]

https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1404834532906389505?s=20

https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1404838659317194755?s=20

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

McConnell and McCarthy are measuring the drapes too early, they insinuating that voters have made up their minds already and  this  is 2010 again and Rs are gonna assume power, wrong

[R.P. McM]

Get ready to hear all about Biden & Schumer "ramming through extreme judges."

I want the closest thing we can find to RGB clones (ideologically of course) for every open seat. Let the republican tears flow.

Ginsburg was an absolute godsend to Republicans. She spent her entire tenure as a member of the minority, and then surrendered her seat to ACB. In my view, RBG was one of the worst SCOTUS appointments in modern American history. If Breyer doesn't prove equally disastrous, Biden should eschew any nominees over the age of 50. The younger the better. Not simply due to actuarial concerns, but because older Democrats seem abjectly incapable of recognizing the threat the GOP poses to liberal democracy.

[Pedocon Theory is not a theory]

It took THREE MONTHS to start getting this slate through the Senate? Gimme a break, what kind of vetting does someone like Ketanji Brown Jackson even need? The process should be a two-minute frikken interview with Judiciary and straight to the 51-50 vote. Stop wasting time on "the process" and wrap it up so they can get onto doing something else. The only qualification any of these people need is being nominated, that's the Trump standard after all.

[ibagli]

It took THREE MONTHS to start getting this slate through the Senate? Gimme a break, what kind of vetting does someone like Ketanji Brown Jackson even need?

Agree. There shouldn't be a floor process at all for 99% of nominees. Put a stack of sign-up sheets in the cloakroom, like they're having a potluck, and confirmation occurs when the 51st signature is appended.

[Sestak]

It took THREE MONTHS to start getting this slate through the Senate? Gimme a break, what kind of vetting does someone like Ketanji Brown Jackson even need? The process should be a two-minute frikken interview with Judiciary and straight to the 51-50 vote. Stop wasting time on "the process" and wrap it up so they can get onto doing something else. The only qualification any of these people need is being nominated, that's the Trump standard after all.

To be completely fair here, Trump only got his first circuit judge confirmed in late May, and didn’t get a second until July (a mark which Biden should beat). He also got his first district judges in late June (not counting a pair of reappointed Obama nominees who were earlier).

That being said, Judiciary specifically needs to pick up the pace. There are still noninations from the original first slate in March which they have yet to send to the full Senate.

[Mr.Phips]

Get ready to hear all about Biden & Schumer "ramming through extreme judges."

I want the closest thing we can find to RGB clones (ideologically of course) for every open seat. Let the republican tears flow.

Ginsburg was an absolute godsend to Republicans. She spent her entire tenure as a member of the minority, and then surrendered her seat to ACB. In my view, RBG was one of the worst SCOTUS appointments in modern American history. If Breyer doesn't prove equally disastrous, Biden should eschew any nominees over the age of 50. The younger the better. Not simply due to actuarial concerns, but because older Democrats seem abjectly incapable of recognizing the threat the GOP poses to liberal democracy.

She was too old when first appointed by Clinton.  Any Democratic President should appoint someone in their early 50s at the oldest.

[R.P. McM]

Get ready to hear all about Biden & Schumer "ramming through extreme judges."

I want the closest thing we can find to RGB clones (ideologically of course) for every open seat. Let the republican tears flow.

Ginsburg was an absolute godsend to Republicans. She spent her entire tenure as a member of the minority, and then surrendered her seat to ACB. In my view, RBG was one of the worst SCOTUS appointments in modern American history. If Breyer doesn't prove equally disastrous, Biden should eschew any nominees over the age of 50. The younger the better. Not simply due to actuarial concerns, but because older Democrats seem abjectly incapable of recognizing the threat the GOP poses to liberal democracy.

She was too old when first appointed by Clinton.  Any Democratic President should appoint someone in their early 50s at the oldest.

Agreed. But it's pathetic that both John Paul Stevens and David Souter (GOP appointees) were capable of recognizing the threat, but RBG was not. And Breyer is currently hinting he might repeat Ginsburg's disastrous mistake. Honestly, I don't ever want to hear her mentioned alongside Stevens, to say nothing of William Brennan. She will be personally responsible for every egregious 5-4 decision moving forward. RBG fans need to accept that for the next ~20 years ("we can't expand the Court!"), her reputation is going to be dragged. And when it's over, there won't be anything left.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Get ready to hear all about Biden & Schumer "ramming through extreme judges."

I want the closest thing we can find to RGB clones (ideologically of course) for every open seat. Let the republican tears flow.

Ginsburg was an absolute godsend to Republicans. She spent her entire tenure as a member of the minority, and then surrendered her seat to ACB. In my view, RBG was one of the worst SCOTUS appointments in modern American history. If Breyer doesn't prove equally disastrous, Biden should eschew any nominees over the age of 50. The younger the better. Not simply due to actuarial concerns, but because older Democrats seem abjectly incapable of recognizing the threat the GOP poses to liberal democracy.

She was too old when first appointed by Clinton.  Any Democratic President should appoint someone in their early 50s at the oldest.

She was 60 when appointed, Clarence Thomas was only 43 when appointed.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Get ready to hear all about Biden & Schumer "ramming through extreme judges."

I want the closest thing we can find to RGB clones (ideologically of course) for every open seat. Let the republican tears flow.

Ginsburg was an absolute godsend to Republicans. She spent her entire tenure as a member of the minority, and then surrendered her seat to ACB. In my view, RBG was one of the worst SCOTUS appointments in modern American history. If Breyer doesn't prove equally disastrous, Biden should eschew any nominees over the age of 50. The younger the better. Not simply due to actuarial concerns, but because older Democrats seem abjectly incapable of recognizing the threat the GOP poses to liberal democracy.

She was too old when first appointed by Clinton.  Any Democratic President should appoint someone in their early 50s at the oldest.

She was 60 when appointed, Clarence Thomas was only 43 when appointed.

Guess whom was Chairperson of the Judiciary committee when Thomas was appointed, Biden whom voted no on final passage but put him on the floor ANYWAYS

Biden is a mediocre Prez, he is unfortunately in a Covid Environment that never seems to end, that's why Trump had such a hard time, the country is polarized by S v N depending on the Party occupying the WH, each region disapproval of the the opposition Prez based on Covid

He was so critical of Trump not resolving Covid, now shoe is on the other foot and Biden still can't solve it, we are still in mask and Biden promised to Eradicate Covid

[lfromnj]

https://vettingroom.org/2021/05/20/judge-david-estudillo/

WTF is the Washington Delegation doing?

The under-staffed Western District of Washington is, in many ways, a casualty of the nominations fight between Washington’s U.S. Senators and the Trump Administration.  Had the fight not happened, Estudillo, with ties to the local Republican Party, and fairly conservative rulings, but having been appointed by the Democratic Governor, could have been a consensus candidate that the Administration and Senators could have agreed to.  It is a bit more unusual for a Democratic Administration that seemingly has an unlimited supply of liberal lawyers to choose from to select Estudillo.

They block any idea at compromising with Trump for 4 years unlike CA in order for a 1 for 1 deal but now they have the Senate/Presidency they nominate a moderate/conservative with ties to the local GOP?

WTF?
The WA court had some serious issues  but if Democrats really wanted Estudillo they could have offered a compromise with a Trump and Mitch to also get 1 liberal.

[Sestak]

https://vettingroom.org/2021/05/20/judge-david-estudillo/

WTF is the Washington Delegation doing?

The under-staffed Western District of Washington is, in many ways, a casualty of the nominations fight between Washington’s U.S. Senators and the Trump Administration.  Had the fight not happened, Estudillo, with ties to the local Republican Party, and fairly conservative rulings, but having been appointed by the Democratic Governor, could have been a consensus candidate that the Administration and Senators could have agreed to.  It is a bit more unusual for a Democratic Administration that seemingly has an unlimited supply of liberal lawyers to choose from to select Estudillo.

They block any idea at compromising with Trump for 4 years unlike CA in order for a 1 for 1 deal but now they have the Senate/Presidency they nominate a moderate/conservative with ties to the local GOP?

WTF?
The WA court had some serious issues  but if Democrats really wanted Estudillo they could have offered a compromise with a Trump and Mitch to also get 1 liberal.

They could have tried behind the scenes and been unable to get any deal they liked enough. Tough to say what exactly the details are on stuff like this.

[lfromnj]

https://vettingroom.org/2021/05/20/judge-david-estudillo/

WTF is the Washington Delegation doing?

The under-staffed Western District of Washington is, in many ways, a casualty of the nominations fight between Washington’s U.S. Senators and the Trump Administration.  Had the fight not happened, Estudillo, with ties to the local Republican Party, and fairly conservative rulings, but having been appointed by the Democratic Governor, could have been a consensus candidate that the Administration and Senators could have agreed to.  It is a bit more unusual for a Democratic Administration that seemingly has an unlimited supply of liberal lawyers to choose from to select Estudillo.

They block any idea at compromising with Trump for 4 years unlike CA in order for a 1 for 1 deal but now they have the Senate/Presidency they nominate a moderate/conservative with ties to the local GOP?

WTF?
The WA court had some serious issues  but if Democrats really wanted Estudillo they could have offered a compromise with a Trump and Mitch to also get 1 liberal.

They could have tried behind the scenes and been unable to get any deal they liked enough. Tough to say what exactly the details are on stuff like this.

 I mean California made deals so it shows the Trump administration was willing to make a deal. If the WA Ds are fine with this dude then whats the issue ?
The only guess I have is Democrats didnt want Trump to appoint diverse picks so they keep their attacks ?

[Storr]

https://vettingroom.org/2021/05/20/judge-david-estudillo/

WTF is the Washington Delegation doing?

The under-staffed Western District of Washington is, in many ways, a casualty of the nominations fight between Washington’s U.S. Senators and the Trump Administration.  Had the fight not happened, Estudillo, with ties to the local Republican Party, and fairly conservative rulings, but having been appointed by the Democratic Governor, could have been a consensus candidate that the Administration and Senators could have agreed to.  It is a bit more unusual for a Democratic Administration that seemingly has an unlimited supply of liberal lawyers to choose from to select Estudillo.

They block any idea at compromising with Trump for 4 years unlike CA in order for a 1 for 1 deal but now they have the Senate/Presidency they nominate a moderate/conservative with ties to the local GOP?

WTF?
The WA court had some serious issues  but if Democrats really wanted Estudillo they could have offered a compromise with a Trump and Mitch to also get 1 liberal.

They could have tried behind the scenes and been unable to get any deal they liked enough. Tough to say what exactly the details are on stuff like this.

 I mean California made deals so it shows the Trump administration was willing to make a deal. If the WA Ds are fine with this dude then whats the issue ?
The only guess I have is Democrats didnt want Trump to appoint diverse picks so they keep their attacks ?

Whatever the reason, having 5 of 7 (3 since early 2016) judgeships vacant is incredibly irresponsible.

Edit: Estudillo is being nominated to replace Ronald Leighton, a George W. Bush nominee who retired in 2019, so I can see why Dems are now okay with Estudillo (two of the three 2016 vacancies were Clinton nominees) where they weren't before.