Trump unveils list of 11 potential Supreme Court justices
Source: Associated Press
Trump unveils list of 11 potential Supreme Court justices
By JILL COLVIN | May. 18, 2016 2:09 PM EDT
JERSEY CITY, N.J. (AP) Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has released a list of 11 potential Supreme Court justices he plans to vet to fill the seat of late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Trump's picks include Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado and Raymond Gruender of Missouri.
Also on the list are: Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas.
Trump said in March he planned to release the list of potential nominees to ease concerns about his conservative credentials in the Republican primary. ... He said then the list would include judges "that everybody respects, likes and totally admires" and "great conservative judges, great intellects, the people that you want."
Read more: http://elections.ap.org/content/trump-unveils-list-11-potential-supreme-court-justices
My original link went to the Washington Times: Trump unveils list of 11 potential Supreme Court justices
The Washington Times has a notoriously buggy, pop-up ridden website. It has only gotten worse with time. I couldn't find another U.S. print source for the story, though. If you don't like it, you are free not to click on it. I wish I hadn't, as my computer locked up on all the advertising.
Edit: Never mind. I found the story at the Associated Press.
ck4829
(35,077 posts)And if Trump has a problem with it, he should take it up with McConnell.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,504 posts)they have this autoplay video. Between the pop-up ads and the autoplay videos, I don't know which is worse.
Thanks for the link anyway.
ETA: Okay, it's on Bloomberg now too. There will be links for everyone soon enough.
CurtEastPoint
(18,652 posts)PatSeg
(47,509 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Supreme Court nominations are not supposed to be politicized like this.
toddwv
(2,830 posts)yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)You forgot the
Seriously you are correct of course, but since when have Republicans worried about that?
bucolic_frolic
(43,192 posts)Obama's pick can't be considered
but Trump floats his own
He's acting like, in British history, The Old Pretender
TipTok
(2,474 posts)kairos12
(12,862 posts)and if it's Drump again wait another 4 years.
Democat
(11,617 posts)No matter when the next Republican is elected, even if it's eight years from now, Democrats should block all of his court nominees for a year at least.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)cave and approve all his appointments and call it "bipartisanship" and "pragmatism".
BlueMTexpat
(15,370 posts)I didn't see Palin's name on the list.
I know that she is not qualified by any earthly measure, but in Trump Fanstasyland, anything goes.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)Bristol for the Supreme Court.
BlueMTexpat
(15,370 posts)Trump likes to keep the younger ones close. Sarah's a bit too long in the tooth for his ego.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Associate independent counsel, Whitewater investigation, 1995-1996
Steven Colloton
The third name on Heritages list of possible Supreme Court nominees is Judge Steven Colloton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, after previous service for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and as a U.S. attorney.
Colloton has been at the forefront of a number of troubling Eighth Circuit rulings, including writing decisions that reversed an $8.1 million award to whistleblowers who helped bring a defective pricing and kickback claim against a large corporation and a nearly $19 million class action judgment against Tyson Foods for violating the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. He also joined a ruling making the Eighth Circuit the only appellate court in the country that found that the Obama administrations efforts to accommodate religious universities and other religious nonprofit objectors to the provision of contraceptive coverage under the ACA was insufficient, an issue now being considered by the Supreme Court.
Even more troubling, Colloton has dissented from a number of Eighth Circuit rulings that have upheld the rights of employees, consumers and others against big business and government agencies. He dissented from a decision giving African-American shoppers the opportunity to prove discrimination claims against a large department store, and then saw his view prevail by one vote when the full Eighth Circuit reheard the case. In another case, he dissented from a decision finding that a city had violated the Voting Rights Act by improperly diluting the voting strength of Native Americans.
Colloton dissented from rulings that gave individuals a chance to prove claims of use of excessive force and, in one case, that a citys policy to use police dogs to bite and hold suspects without any warning was unconstitutional. In three separate cases, he dissented from decisions that employees should at least get the chance to prove in court that their employers retaliated against them for filing sex harassment, age discrimination, or other discrimination claims. In two more decisions, he argued in dissent that public employees should not have the opportunity to prove that they were retaliated against for speaking out in violation of their First Amendment rights. Yet he also claimed in a dissent that the First Amendment rights of a candidate for state supreme court justice were violated by a state judicial code of conduct restricting solicitation and other campaign activity in order to promote judicial impartiality and ethical conduct by judges. Even the conservative Roberts Court that decided the Citizens United case has agreed that these concerns justify solicitation restrictions in state supreme court elections.
Anti women's rights, pro-corporate rights, Stevve Collorton would be another Scallia.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)47of74
(18,470 posts)... Franz Gürtner, Otto Georg Thierack, Roland Freisler, Josef Altstötter, Vasiliy Ulrikh, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork, Andrey Vyshinsky, Stephen Johnson Field, Roger Taney, and James Clark McReynolds.
Javaman
(62,531 posts)Trump Asked About Giving Cruz Supreme Court Nomination. Here's His Response.
Some have suggested that Donald Trump could go a long way in healing the divide in the Republican Party by agreeing to nominate Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court. When asked by the Daily Mail about the move on Monday, Trump wouldn't give a hard answer, but clearly signaled he wasn't a big fan of the idea. The reason: Cruz's "tough temperament."
Trump has announced that he will be providing a list of a dozen or more potential Supreme Court judges to replace deceased Justice Antonin Scalia, names he's turned to the Heritage Foundation for help in selecting. With Trump getting closer to locking up his presidential bid, some have offered Cruz as a wise and potentially unifying selection. Trump is clearly not convinced.
"I don't know, I'd have to think about it," Trump said when asked about choosing Cruz.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/5395/trump-asked-about-giving-cruz-supreme-court-james-barrett
---------------------------------------------
I guess he didn't think long about it. LOL
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)If Donnie was half the politician he's been proclaimed to be, Cruz would have been the only person on his list.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)jmowreader
(50,560 posts)All of them are extremely conservative - if one got on the Supreme Court he or she would immediately be the Court's most conservative member...considering the competition, that takes some doing.
BiminiTwisted
(102 posts)secondwind
(16,903 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)No trump train. This is hilarious.
TomCADem
(17,390 posts)nt
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/don-willett-donald-trump-tweets