Image 01 Image 03

Trump heard the conservative media outcry, nominates three judges for 9th Circuit

Trump heard the conservative media outcry, nominates three judges for 9th Circuit

Someone was listening.

There was a huge outcry in conservative media over the past couple of days regarding a deal allegedly being worked out with liberal Democrat Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, as to nominees to fill vacancies.

We covered the issue in Trump has opportunity to flip the 9th Circuit, so why isn’t he?  Rush Limbaugh covered it today, linking to our post.

Someone was listening.

Tonight, Trump announced he was nominating three judges to the 9th Circuit, including two who had been previously nominated.

The Washington Examiner reports:

The White House on Wednesday announced a trio of nominees to fill vacancies on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a move that comes after conservatives warned that the White House Counsel’s Office was attempting to cut a deal with California’s Democratic senators over picks to the court.

President Trump intends to nominate Daniel Bress, Daniel Collins, and Kenneth Lee to the San Francisco-based appeals court, considered to be the country’s most liberal, the White House announced.

Collins and Lee were tapped to fill vacancies on the 9th Circuit last year, but their nominations were returned at the end of the last Congress. Bress, meanwhile, was on the White House’s initial list of candidates for the appeals court.

The president also plans to nominate four others to federal district courts in California, including Patrick Bumatay, whom Trump nominated to the 9th Circuit last year, the White House said.

Conservatives seem satisfied:

“We are relieved to see that the White House has decided to move forward with a list of extraordinarily qualified nominees,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the conservative Judicial Crisis Network.

Feinstein and Harris were upset with the 9th Circuit nominees, though their press release suggests they struck a deal on District Court nominees:

With 51 other judges recently renominated, it’s time for Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell to get to work.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Good. Duh Donald was pushed to do the nominally right thing.

    maxmillion in reply to Ragspierre. | January 31, 2019 at 12:23 am

    Raghead never tires of beclowning himself.

      Milhouse in reply to maxmillion. | January 31, 2019 at 1:01 am

      Do you disagree? Do you think this would have happened without the pressure? Why was it needed?

        Barry in reply to Milhouse. | January 31, 2019 at 1:27 am

        I’m fine with the pressure, never hurts.

        2 of the 3 were the previous nominee’s, there is no way to tell if the “pressure” had anything to do with it or not.

        One thing certain, deranged neverTrumpers will always claim the credit lies elsewhere.

          Milhouse in reply to Barry. | January 31, 2019 at 4:40 am

          There’s definitely a way to tell: Trump sent the senate his list of renominations a few weeks ago, and none of the three previous nominees were on it. If he’d intended to renominate them why would he have left them off the list?

          And he did give the Dems a victory by not demoting Bumatay’s nomination to a district court. Bumatay was targeted for the same reason as Miguel Estrada was; the Dems want to deny a future Rep president the chance to nominate a member of a minority group, especially a “first” of that group, to the Supreme Court.

          (Estrada wouldn’t really have been the first Hispanic on the Court, just as Sotomayor wasn’t, but for some reason Cardozo doesn’t count. Well, we know the reason, but we can’t say it out loud.)

          Barry in reply to Barry. | January 31, 2019 at 1:08 pm

          If your definition of “definite” is maybe, then OK.

          Two years + into the Trump presidency, and even Mark Levin agrees that Trump is, in line with my prediction that Trump would be the most conservative president in the last 50 years, and we still have people trying to prove that when President Trump does anything considered conservative, it’s because he was forced to.

          It’s absurd.

        MattMusson in reply to Milhouse. | January 31, 2019 at 12:46 pm

        Anybody else ever wonder if MillHouse and Rags are the same guy?

      Rags has a good point despite the reflexive down votes

    I am sure your gal Hillary would have had great picks.

Elections have consequences.

Still a broken record:

– Not Hillary
– Judges
– all else is gravy

Or could it be…. that ” conservative media” had a little fit , not knowing the President had these nominations ready to issue, but he’s had other things to do. He did meet with Chinese folks today, no? Good grief. Since the man constantly spoke of the need for new judges throughout his campaign, I find it a tad tiresome to see the reluctant Trump supporters fret that maybe he needs prodding to come through.

He’s only had a workable majority in the Senate for 3 weeks. But, whatever.

    Milhouse in reply to RobM. | January 31, 2019 at 9:45 am

    He had these nominations ready to issue, but he’s had other things to do?! He submitted his list of renomination a few weeks ago? Why weren’t last year’s three nominees for the 9th circuit on it? The only plausible reason is that he’d decided to pull them and make a deal with the Dems, and only after pressure from the right did he change his mind.

      tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | January 31, 2019 at 9:54 am

      Why weren’t last year’s three nominees for the 9th circuit on it?

      They’re not on it now. Two of three isn’t three of three. I have no idea why it isn’t three of three. So far as is apparent, neither does anyone else (at least anyone who’s talking).

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | February 1, 2019 at 11:30 am

      “The only plausible reason…”

      You have a high opinion of your intellect. And yet, you can only find one “plausible reason”?

      Closed minds generally miss the mark.

#NeverTrumpers really need to kill themselves. I’m sorry but there’s no forgiveness.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to BillyHW. | January 31, 2019 at 10:49 am

    Maybe the should subjected to retroactive abortions?

    MarkS in reply to BillyHW. | January 31, 2019 at 3:40 pm

    Lou Dobbs reported the other night that there are more Nevers working in the White House than supporters

      SDN in reply to MarkS. | January 31, 2019 at 6:44 pm

      Why is anyone surprised? The same FBI that openly perjured itself for Clinton and Obama, and against Trump, is the FBI doing the background checks. Muslim Brotherhood operatives like ValJar and Huma? No problemo. Actual conservatives? Problemo.

        Milhouse in reply to SDN. | February 1, 2019 at 1:53 am

        Huma is Brotherhood, but what possible connection do you see between ValJar and the Brotherhood? How could you possibly think she has anything to do with it? She’s not even Moslem.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | February 1, 2019 at 11:33 am

          “She’s not even Moslem.”

          She’s an anti-American, dedicated to the destruction of freedom and liberty. Close enough, she’ll support any group trying to destroy the USA.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | January 30, 2019 at 11:34 pm

Now remember. The conservative msm must bring it.

Bring extreme pressure on the Dems and even more on the Traitor RINOS.

Gee, if only DiFi and Harris had been *ready* for Trump’s offer, they might have been able to get a nominee to him while the offer was open.

Too bad. You snooze, you lose. Next time ladies, act instead of taking time to pose and posture, and you might get some of what you want.

(Now I can’t help but think of Trump with a laser pointer and the Dems in the media and congress as cats…)

I don’t care about anything in the next two years but loading up the courts with as many conservative judges as possible. Since the left has forced us to use the courts when they attempt to infringe upon our rights, we need them stacked in our favor.

So maybe the forces of evil managed to keep Bumatay off the 9th Circuit.

A few more of those, and Feinstein & Harris will lose like Stalin at Yalta.

This episode goes down as a demonstration of how Trump seriously and in good faith carefully considers requests coming from the opposition before rejecting them.

DouglasJBender | January 31, 2019 at 12:41 am

Surely my commenting here had an impact.

Why would the WH care about placating Harris/Feinstein?

Neither will ever support Trump. Ever.

He knows that. Right?

I was deeply disappointed by the behavior of Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Harris during the last SCOTUS nomination hearing.

There should be consequences.

Also, how is it that mere competence is now equated with the word “conservative”? The 9th Circuit is where judges issue opinions that don’t even cite the relevant statute, and that fail to rely on the language of an order, preferring to get their quotes from newspapers. “Liberal” is not supposed to mean “inept.”

    venril in reply to Valerie. | January 31, 2019 at 8:08 am

    “Liberal” is not supposed to mean “inept.”

    There’s an old adage – don’t ascribe malice to something that could just be explained by incompetence.

    Lately, however, the best bet has been malice.

Why does Trump even bother consulting Feinstein and Harris? They have nothing constructive to add to the process. Nominate judges and ignore Feinstein and Harris.

Conservative Inc. never seems to stop outdoing itself. So we are to believe that Trump did this because someone wrote a blog post? Do you even understand the amount of time required to vet just one judge? Nope, Trump rushed out overnight in order to appease a right wing blogger. Geesh. Conservative Inc is just as bad as the MSM.

    Edward in reply to Mark. | January 31, 2019 at 6:27 am

    Two of the three Circuit Court nominees were re-nominations from the last Congress and one was on the list of judicial nominees the President has had for about two years now. The District Court Judge nominee was a Circuit Court nominee last Congress and was on the list for about two years.

    Do you think the administration doesn’t bother to order a Special Background Investigation for those on the nominee list until they decide it is time to nominate one? Or do you want to reconsider this:

    “Do you even understand the amount of time required to vet just one judge? Nope, Trump rushed out overnight in order to appease a right wing blogger.”

    tom_swift in reply to Mark. | January 31, 2019 at 9:29 am

    The fact that the nominee list is not a rubber-stamp reissue of the previous list is a yuuge clue that factors apparently unknown to the Blogoverse determined those names.

    But that’s still a long way from MSMesque levels of silliness.

    MarkS in reply to Mark. | January 31, 2019 at 3:43 pm

    Rush was on his case about this

DouglasJBender | January 31, 2019 at 6:41 am


You forgot a comma. And I wasn’t planning to call you. And my name is not, “Shirley”.

Ah don’t know nothing about these nominees, But if the ho and the crow are angry about them, I suspect they’re all right. It’s nice to think we have an actual job to do here, directing DJT’s inner NY democrat back into its cage.

You did good, Professor. Many people (including me) didn’t know that Trump hadn’t nominated anyone for the 9th Circus. Thanks for bringing this to light.

I don’t think mr. Trump has a solid back round in civics or the Constitution and strictly goes by popularity and polls.

Obama , the “constitutional scholar “, has Kenya civics, not American
I’ll take Trumps r f d to h

    Milhouse in reply to gonzotx. | January 31, 2019 at 9:54 am

    Where could he possibly have picked up Kenyan civics? He never set foot in the country until he was well into adulthood, and was raised entirely in America, except for his two years in Indonesia. Nor had anybody who raised him ever been to Kenya. The civics he learned from his mother and grandparents were pure American communist.

I think it would have happened either way. You have no evidence to prove the pressure is the reason for the nominations. They are timely, of course, but Trump’s motive with offering the nominations may have been a negotiation tactic to get the democrats to say they do have a price for budging on the wall.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to healthguyfsu. | January 31, 2019 at 11:15 am

    In order to produce the nomination the next day, they had to already been in the hopper. Trump is pretty sharp and he has an excellent work ethic. It seems to me that he is doing very well, especially when one considers he is bucking the swamp.

Some more of them need to be replaced as the court is still leaning towards P.C. instead of actual law.

Juanito_Ibanez | February 1, 2019 at 5:02 am

Re: Restructuring the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

I strongly suggest the 9th Circuit should be split into THREE separate circuits, utilizing the existing federal judicial districts in the restructuring; with the “new” 9th Circuit comprising the Southern District of California, the District of Guam, the District of Hawaii, and the District of the Northern Mariana Islands.

The new 12th Circuit should be comprised of the District of Alaska, the Central District of California, the Eastern District of California, the Northern District of California, the District of Oregon, and the Western District of Washington.

The new 13th Circuit should be the remainder of the “old” 9th — to-wit: the District of Arizona, the District of Idaho, the District of Montana, the District of Nevada, and the Eastern District of Washington.

Reduce the number of judges in the “new” 9th to eighteen: thirteen in the CONUS district and five “riding circuit” in the Guam and Northern Mariana Islands districts — being based from Hawaii. All the Liberal judges would be assigned to the 9th – which would maintain the “Liberal Leanings” of the “old” 9th: the Circuit with the 2nd most overturned decisions in Supreme Court history.

The remaining eleven judges would be split between the two new Circuits, with a significant number of new seats being created to properly staff the new Circuits.

Include in this legislation a provision which makes all federal judges subject to the same ten-year appointment as those appointed to the district courts in the Guam and Northern Mariana Islands districts — the exception being the justices of the Supreme Court, who would have their terms set at eighteen years — with a Senate review at the end of the terms to see if the judge or justice has complied with the Constitution’s Article III, Section 1 requirement of “hold[ing] their Offices during good Behaviour.” If the Senate finds they have lived up to that constitutional requirement, they would be subject to another ten- or eighteen-year appointment; otherwise their replacement would be nominated by the then-sitting President of the United States and subject to the same “Advice and Consent of the Senate” (Article II, Section 2).

With this major “revamping” of the entire federal judiciary, the Congress and President Trump would then be “fundamentally transforming¹” the federal judiciary — which should stand to the next millennium.


1. © Barack HUSSEIN Obama the 2nd, Columbia, Missouri campaign stop, 2008

Ref: 28 U.S. Code, Chapter 3 — Courts of Appeals §§41-49


Consider using the “Recess Appointment” provision of Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

“The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

Here’s the 2019 Senate “recess” schedule:

2019 Legislative Schedule
116th Congress, 1st Session

Jan 21–Jan 25, Feb 18–Feb 22, Mar 18–Mar 22, Apr 15–Apr 26, May 27–May 31, Jul 1–Jul 5, Aug 5–Sep 6, Sep 30–Oct 14, Nov 11, Nov 25–Nov 29, Dec 16–Dec 31

Since the 116th Session has just begun, the ‘Warrants of Appointment’ for the judges – as well as any other fillings of vacancies you feel the Democrats will attempt to “stonewall” during the confirmation process – will be constitutionally valid until 3 January 2021.