Image 01 Image 03

Dem base not yet woke to approaching Tsunami of Trump lower court nominations

Dem base not yet woke to approaching Tsunami of Trump lower court nominations

Republicans don’t need to go nuclear on lower federal court nominations — the Democrats already did that.

Donald Trump moved fairly quickly in the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to fill the Scalia Seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The hearings have moved more slowly than many of us would have liked, but Mitch McConnell is promising an up or down vote by April 7, regardless of any attempts by Democrats to filibuster. Whether Republicans will exercise the Nuclear Option is a current media obsession.

Yet there is another aspect of the federal judiciary on which Trump can have a lasting legacy, the lower federal courts (appeals and district courts).

As previously mentioned, there are currently over 100 vacancies, and many more are likely to open up, Liberal nightmare: Trump could appoint half federal judiciary.

In mid-February The NY Times noted Trump’s opportunity, though the reaction from the Democratic base has been somewhat muted on that, perhaps because they are fixated on Gorsuch:

In the weeks since taking office, President Trump has derided court decisions as “ridiculous” and “disgraceful,” called the legitimacy of federal judges into question and encouraged people to blame the courts in the event of another terrorist attack.

But Mr. Trump could soon find himself responsible for appointing a greater share of federal court judges than any first-term president in 40 years, in large part because of a growing number of older judges and a stack of vacancies on the federal courts.

The lower courts matter tremendously, as was evidenced in the decisions freezing Trump’s immigration executive orders. The Times noted the stats:

While the lower courts attract a fraction of the public’s attention, they represent most of the federal docket. Only 15 percent of cases ever move past a district court judge to the circuit courts. Of these, only a tiny fraction make their way to the Supreme Court.

Even the Times scare-mongering about the role of the Federalist Society in helping Trump select nominees does not seem to have awakened the Democratic base:

Most Americans have probably never heard of Leonard A. Leo, who has long served as executive vice president of the Federalist Society, an organization of conservatives and libertarians who “place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values and the rule of law.” But as Mr. Trump begins the process of filling what could be the most federal court vacancies left to any president in nearly a half-century, Mr. Leo is playing a critical role in reshaping the judiciary.

He sits at the nexus of an immensely influential but largely unseen network of conservative organizations, donors and lawyers who all share a common goal: Fill the federal courts with scores of judges who are committed to the narrow interpretation of the Constitution that they believe the founders intended.

Democrats having removed the filibuster in 2013 for lower court nominations opened the door for Trump to fill these seats quickly, Dems’ Nuclear Option will allow Trump to fill over 100 court vacancies quickly.

Will Trump move quickly to fill these vacancies?

There were reports in February that candidates were being vetted for 5th Circuit openings.

Politico Playbook reports Trump currently is vetting candidates, particularly younger candidates:

The White House Counsel’s office is interviewing lawyers in their late 30s and early 40s for federal judgeships, sources familiar with the matter told us. It is a departure from the Obama administration, which mostly stuck to older, experienced legal professionals for judgeships. Republican presidents historically pick younger lawyers for judgeships compared to Democratic presidents. Placing younger candidates on the bench would ensure Trump’s influence on the federal court system for decades.

One veteran Republican lawyer familiar with the White House counsel’s efforts said that more younger people than usual are being considered for these jobs. Some are not “seasoned litigators,” but they are “very well qualified.” Another Republican legal-world source said the interview pool has included conservative law professors and U.S. attorneys in their late 30s. The White House declined to comment.

For Democrats, this is a matter of what goes around, comes around. Republicans don’t need to go nuclear on lower federal court nominations — the Democrats already did that.

There is nothing other than the Senate calendar and a few possibly recalcitrant Republican Senators standing between Trump and the judiciary of his choice.

When will the Dem base become woke? The day after Gorsuch is confirmed, when they realize the folly of Harry Reid’s ways.

And at that point, it’s going to be like election night and Inauguration day combined.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


This is not really a boon for conservatives, or a problem for the left.

Where oh where would Trump find 100+ conservatives to appoint to the federal bench, given how the legal profession skews left?

Judges, both Supreme Court and lower courts were the primary reason for my vote for President Trump. When the Washington judge prevented the President’s immigration delay for NO good reason, my thought was, good, this will give President Trump great motivation to attempt to insure great picks for the lower courts. They matter a lot, and that example may loom large in his mind. Democrat presidents have been laying these leftist judge bombs throughout the system for years. Time for a correction!

I am certain that we’ve dodged a fatal bullet when we sent Hellary Clinton out to pasture. Trump may be a beginner in Washington,
but, judging by the hysterical reaction to him by the Elite, they sense their time has come and gone.

CaptScientist | March 29, 2017 at 5:45 pm

I never tire of the above clip…..suck it up madcow

Well, it’s a good thing Trump’s not a true conservative.

If he was, I’d probably plotz.

Massinsanity | March 29, 2017 at 6:26 pm

Even if he simply nominates moderate judges (and I believe he will do better than that) its still a huge win relative to what we would have gotten had HRC won.

Any time a liberal is gloating over Trump’s latest foot in mouth moment just bring up the courts and see how quickly they pipe down.

I wonder if the Professor would accept an appointment to one of these courts?

I think the circuit courts have to be realigned. I even called my Senators & Rep and included that point in my list of “ideas”.

Another point was to start reviewing the Census process since 2020 will be arriving all too soon. I specifically mentioned that only citizens should be counted, not people living in an area.

Point of order. It’s America’s seat, not Scalia’s.

And I wish Scalia nothing but the best.

Ginsberg sits in the Not-America seat.