One of the big achievements of Trump 1.0 was his nomination of SCOTUS justices. Yet Amy Coney Barrett just signed on to the ruling that might negatively effect Trump's ability to suspend aid payments. Why this is especially problematic is that it appears to be a clear violation of the separation of powers doctrine. The notion that SCOTUS can prevent the Executive branch from engaging in it's lawful, normal conduct is troubling to say the least.
To be fair Barret wasn't the only one who voted poorly, and Roberts has always leaned to the left more that you'd expect from someone nominated by a republican.
Fortunately, the ruling might not be as devastating as it seemed and could be worked around by rewriting the EO.
6 comments:
Barrett's been rather a disappointment. While most on most if not all of the obvious stuff she's been fine, some of these "nuanced" stuff she seems to go off track. Don't know if she's pressured or if she's just not as good as a conservative would have hoped she'd be, but it happens too often.
I would hope that Trump has people studying potential replacements for any who step down or pass away. The two best aren't spring chickens, and he needs to have at least a half dozen like them at the ready should they be needed. If Trump gets through these four years without needing to nominate another of the Supremes, he can just pass that list to the next president, which will hopefully be a conservative.
No argument about Barret. Yet it does seem that he performance does diminish one of Trump's major successes.
I suspect that every president has a list prepared. The problem is that the two most likely to retire are the two most conservative justices we have.
That's indeed a problem if he hasn't learned from his first opportunity in choosing. I'm hoping that his list has been amended to reflect the shortcomings of his first foray into nominating folks for the SCOTUS. She might have been good enough for a lower court, but SCOTUS is forever (so to speak) and requires more discernment. We've seen similar failures by previous GOP presidents, even Reagan. But there are enough constitutional scholars or those with such expertise who could advise him and even explain why their list include the necessary devotees of Constitutional ideals we need on the bench. There might be differences between lists offered by conservative advisors, but there would likely be a few which no conservative would oppose. Bottom line: I often think not enough scrutiny is employed in selecting. It's easy for the Dem presidents. They just want to know if they favor homosexual crap, abortion and hate guns and rich people. BOOM! They have their black lesbian SCOTUS Justice!
Well, given Barrett's lifetime appointment, the best that can be accomplished by "learning" is to offset Barrett's vote/
Yes, we have seen failures like this. My point was/is that to have judged Trump's SCOTUS picks as an unqualified success several years ago was clearly premature, and SCOTUS picks can only be judged over time.
It's possible that Barrett is acting this way because of fear after the Biden administration allowed protesters to terrorize and threaten SCOTUS justices.
I'd say she was a successful pick if we consider who Hillary was likely to pick. That she's not what we hoped doesn't mean she isn't good enough on some issues. She doesn't vote with the left on everything. Hillary's picks most likely would, or on far more rulings the left would prefer than not.
And again, sometimes it's not like a justice wants to see bad policy continue, but the details force the hand sometimes. This issue isn't done, I don't believe, because the precedent set by this decision means anyone can sue to have their causes funded.
I guess that's one way to make her look better. I'm not sure that comparing her against an imaginary alternative is particularly helpful.
It seems like comparing her against her answers during confirmation and her past record would be more appropriate.
No she doesn't vote straight left, yet to pretend that you (and others) would have predicted she'd vote against Trump on a separation of powers case seems disingenuous.
Which brings us back to my point. Calling any SCOTUS pick a "success" early in their term is kind of pointless.
Post a Comment