US News
New York Times
USA Today
Politico
Image: Politico
On Friday, President Trump added five candidates to his list for a possible Supreme Court vacancy, including two state judges, two federal appeals court judges, and a veteran federal judge. Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel who compiled the list, claimed that the new picks “were committed conservative judges in the mold of Justice Scalia,” according to the New York Times. Similarly, the White House announced that “these additions...were selected with input from respected conservative leaders” -- specifically, from the conservative groups the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society.
While campaigning for the 2016 election, Trump had originally drafted a list of 20 judges that he promised to consider for the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia, should he be elected. Earlier this year, Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy, swinging the Supreme Court to the right with five conservatives and four liberals.
Although a vacancy currently does not exist on the Court, three Supreme Court justices are nearing or in their 80s, adding credence to the possibility that Trump will fill a Supreme Court vacancy in the next three years. Should Trump have the opportunity, he would likely be shaping the political composition of the Supreme Court for the next few decades. As for the timing of these additions, the White House claims that this was simply routine to keep the list up-to-date. However, given his cooperation with conservative groups in drafting the list, it’s likely that Trump is motivated by his desire to demonstrate to conservative leaders that he is still able to “deliver on his promise to nominate conservative justices...amid ongoing confirmation battles over his lower court nominees,” according to USA Today.
Discussion Questions:
What are your thoughts on Trump’s updates to his list of possible Supreme Court nominations? Additionally, to what degree do you believe that Trump will have influence over the political leanings of the Supreme Court in the long-term?
7 comments:
I don't think this event is controversial, as it seems normal for presidents to keep updating their list of possible justices. I know Ruth Bader Ginsburg is getting older, and she may retire soon. The Supreme Court is interesting because the justices serve for lifetime, so 50-year-old Gorsuch will be there for at least 25 years. If there is a vacancy within the next few years, Trump will definitely swing the court to be indefinitely conservative. I've thought of the SCOTUS as being more progressive than Congress in some decades. For example, Brown v. Board sparked action from the national government on segregation before Congress and the president. It just concerns me that a 6-3 conservative court can overturn landmark cases, like Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges. That possibility is unlikely, but still worrisome.
Trump's nominees all seem credible and valid, and have the qualifications for the job. I'm curious about which of the cited "Republican leaders" weighed in on the decision, and how much of their influence led to the current nominees. I am concerned that a political imbalance in the Supreme Court will lead to the overturning of certain landmark cases of contentious issues, such as Roe v. Wade. To the best of my knowledge, the overwhelming political majority in the Supreme Court would be unprecedented, except for maybe its earliest years (when Federalists dominated). Recently, judges have cast their votes in line with their party affiliations, rather than differing or making decisions independent of such leanings, such as Justice Kennedy (who is known to side with both party platforms). Either way, Trump's nomination has already shaped the Supreme Court's decisions for several decades to come, as Neil Gorsuch is a young Justice (in his fifties, I believe).
To connect back to AP Government, we studied Federalist #10, in which Hamilton wrote about the need to monitor factions and prevent one group from controlling the government. With a growing Republican majority in the House and the Senate and the White House and (potentially) the Supreme Court, do you think this conflicts with Hamilton's stance? What can be done to prevent factions from controlling government? Is the party majority even an issue worth discussing? Perhaps that's the way government was meant to be?
President Trump was an unorthodox candidate during his election, usually going by the agenda he feels is right rather than the agenda of the Republican Party. Although some voters do admire the way he will always run the country as Trump, uninfluenced by others, I believe it is good that there is some decisions the president has to make with his party leaders. As President Trump has added some candidates for a Supreme Court justice in accordance with some major Republican leaders, it seems he's at least trying for some unity with party. As for his influence over the Supreme Court's political leanings, he cannot have any direct influence besides choosing a justice. By the makings of the Constitution, Supreme Court justices ideally have no connection or ties with the President after election, because they generally serve on the court for life. Therefore, the only real way Trump affects the Court's political leanings is in choosing a justice. However, as Juliet pointed out, recently Justices have cast votes in line with their political affiliations with some exceptions. The Supreme Court would likely be swayed to the right, but not necessarily in accordance with the President's agenda.
I agree with the people above that it is normal for President Trump to create a list of possible replacements for the Supreme Court, especially because there are older justices. Some might argue that he is acting responsibly in his anticipation of needing to come up with good candidates. Democrats lost the election, so it is natural for the winning party to assume that they should promote their own candidates who share their values. The Democrats need to ensure that they participate fully in the confirmation process to challenge the nominee about landmark cases to see if they would overturn or narrow their impact. For example, when Chief Justice Roberts was going through the confirmation process, he was challenged about his understanding of Roe v. Wade, and he said that legalizing abortion is not something he would change. The Democrats now need to focus on getting control of Congress by winning in 2018 to block Trump's nominees.
Trump has made many outlandish and crazy nominees in the past (unrelated to the SC) such as the head of Breitbart, but I agree that updating the list for supreme court nominees is a reasonable action for any president. It is not his obligation to appoint liberal justices. It is however his responsibility to appoint justices that he deems fit (I don't think Trump would mess around with that) and maybe because Trump is more conservative, the people he deems capable would be more in alignment with his ideals. I doubt that several landmark cases (Roe) would be overturned yet I do think that maybe future cases would have more conservative outcomes. Trump does have some say in indirectly affecting the SCOTUS, but I don't think a judge from either extreme would be added. These 3 years are definitely unique in the sense that Trump can shift the balance of judges, but other than that, the decisions are ruled on by judges.
I agree with the above comments. Due to the longevity of the Supreme Court terms, if, god forbid, someone does die or retire, Trump must appoint a new justice. If it is a conservative, there wouldn't be a huge difference, but if a democrat, the majority would be 6 to 4 which would swing the votes 100% conservative. Trump would definitely want to sway the court to a conservative stance. IF trump does have to appoint a new judge, or a couple new judges, he Most likely will not choose an old person, which means they will serve quite a while.
I feel so bad for the Supreme Court Justices. Everyone is taking bets on when they are gonna croak. I can just see Justice Ginsburg hanging on until Trump is out of office out of sheer spite. The idea of Trump having multiple Supreme Court appointments is not an idea that I relish in, but it is likely that if he does have to nominate anyone, he (probably not she knowing Trump) will almost certainly be confirmed because of the Republican majorities in both houses of government. Hopefully no one will die or get sick (not just because I don't want Trump to have another appointment, but because I don't want people to get sick or die)
Post a Comment