4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory

Liberal Reporter Admits Trump’s Judicial Appointments More Qualified Than Obama’s
National P.J. Gladnick Dec 26, 2019 | 10:34AM Washington, DC

Although Vox senior correspondent Ian Millhiser spent much of his December 19 article (“What Trump has done to the courts, explained”) worrying that “No president in recent memory has done more to change the judiciary than Donald Trump,” he also granted the surprising concession that the judicial appointments have been highly qualified. Indeed, more qualified than the federal court picks of his predecessor, Barack Obama.

Millhiser’s worried about the number of federal court appointments right from the start but even amidst the angst one can detect him admitting that his picks have been some of the “smartest” men and women.

In less than three years as president, President Trump has done nearly as much to shape the courts as President Obama did in eight years.

Trump hasn’t simply given lots of lifetime appointments to lots of lawyers. He’s filled the bench with some of the smartest, and some of the most ideologically reliable, men and women to be found in the conservative movement. Long after Trump leaves office, these judges will shape American law — pushing it further and further to the right even if the v**ers soundly reject Trumpism in 2020.

After several paragraphs of expected alarm over the number of judicial appointments by Trump, Millhiser becomes even more forthright in admitting the high qualifications of the picks:

It’s tempting to assume that Trump’s judicial appointees share the goonish incompetence of the man who placed them on the bench, but this assumption could not be more wrong. His picks include leading academics, Supreme Court litigators, and already prominent judges who now enjoy even more power within the judiciary.

Before he became president, Trump promised to delegate the judicial se******n process to the Federalist Society, a powerful group of conservative lawyers that counts at least four Supreme Court justices among its members. “We’re going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society,” Trump told a radio show hosted by the right-wing site Breitbart while he was still a candidate.


The Federalist Society spent decades preparing for this moment, and they’ve helped Trump identify many of the most talented conservative stalwarts in the entire legal profession to place on the bench.

As icing on the cake, Millhiser even admitted that Trump’s judicial picks have been more qualified than those chosen by Obama:

There’s no completely objective way to measure legal ability, but a common metric used by legal employers to identify the most gifted lawyers is whether those lawyers secured a federal clerkship, including the most prestigious clerkships at the Supreme Court. Approximately 40 percent of Trump’s appellate nominees clerked for a Supreme Court justice, and about 80 percent clerked on a federal court of appeals. That compares to less than a quarter of Obama’s nominees who clerked on the Supreme Court, and less than half with a federal appellate clerkship.

In other words, based solely on objective legal credentials, the average Trump appointee has a far more impressive résumé than any past president’s nominees.

This Vox article should be bookmarked in case anyone casts aspersions upon the legal credentials of Trump’s appointments to the federal courts. Vox’s senior correspondent gives them a definite thumbs up in that department.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

And their average age is young enough that they will be around for many years. If for no other reason, this is the one big reason I support Trump.

Beargle

Let’s just say the CEO of a company was accused of insider trading. The Board of Directors would need to look over the evidence and HR would be there to make sure it is fair. But evidence and witnesses have to be called. Well that is where we are now. CEO Donald Trump has been accused but he doesn’t want to show evidence to CLEAR his name and then blame the board because they have no evidence, which he won’t supply. He got a pass with not having authorities there at the Trump Tower meeting.
YOU GOT TO ACQUIT IF THE EVIDENCE DON’T FIT

Oh. He won’t give up the evidence.

Liberty Tree

Ever hear if innocent until proven guilty? It is not up to the defendant to prove himself innocent. It is up to the prosecution to prove him guilty.

Seth

The only "evidence" that is necessary to know the validity of the impeachment fiasco are the telephone call transcript and what the president of Ukraine says about the call.

Both of these indicate that nothing of an "impeachable" nature occurred during the phone conversation.

The entire affair is about the Democrats getting Trump out of the way because they know they can't beat him next year.

Radiance3

===============
Granting this is a corporate setting.
As Chief Executive, no evidence of crime was committed. Therefore, there was nothing to present. That said, the Board could not enforce the president to appear and justify a crime that was not committed.

The president as the Chief Executive of the Board, has executive rights and constitutional rights, to deny demands from Board of Directors.
A Reason to Doubt: The Suppression of Evidence
and the Inference of Innocence.

The only way to enforce their demands is by Court Order. None of that exist.

No crime committed. The innocence of the president and CEO must be upheld.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

You sound like a broken record!! You wrote the same under my topic!! Give it up,Bear President Trump ain't going anywhere for at least 5 years or maybe more!!!

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

A company's BoD doesn't need a reason to fire a CEO. Then again, CEOs are not elected officials. They serve at the pleasure of the Board, just as most appointees in the Executive Branch serve at the pleasure of the President. He retains the Constitutional right to decide who will serve at his pleasure, and who can be fired or asked to resign, such as Comey.

Due process is not yet in place for Trump to make a necessary defense. Only accusations have been leveled. It is up to the house Democrats to prove Trump is guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors. This is not a criminal procedure. It is political. He is not in a court of law where both sides have to disclose what they have in the way of evidence before a trial begins. There is no discovery period that both sides must abide by.

"Oh. He won’t give up the evidence.[/quote]" How do you know?

What other fairy tales do you have to share with us, Mother Goose?

Auntie Dee

Auntie Dee

Perfectly logical explanation to a stupid comparison!

Auntie Dee

American Vet

President Trump's judicial appointments are not "pushing it (the judicial system) further and further to the right", but rather bringing it back to a more central position from the extreme left where it has been.

4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory

Innocent until proven guilty is something these l*****t have no understanding of !

4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory

Yep Spot On

Seth

To l*****ts, anyone who embraces the Bill of Rights as the framers of the Constitution intended and/or exhibits any symptoms of American patriotism is a "right wing extremist."

Today, the left-controlled Democrats are politicizing every last facet of American life, invading every nook and cranny, no matter how picayune, personal or otherwise and finding ways to disrupt every last norm, turning everything into a racial, f*****tic or "phobic" issue, and they will lie, c***t, slander, threaten or anything else it takes to force their ultimately totalitarian dogmas on those of us who don't want anything to do with them.

They are eroding our society from within, as Khrushchev said they would nearly six decades ago.