Here Are the Top 5 Possible Trump Supreme Court Nominees (and 3 Dark Horses)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Five names from President Donald Trump’s list of 25 top candidates for Supreme Court nominations appear to be the strongest contenders for the nod to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
1.) Thomas Hardiman Appointed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2007 by President George W. Bush, Hardiman has drawn the ire of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal advocacy group that frequently attacks conservative and Republican federal court nominees. The group accuses Hardiman of having too broad a view of citizens’ Second Amendment rights.
Hardiman was born and raised in Massachusetts and graduated with honors from the Georgetown School Law Center in 1990. “Following graduation, Judge Hardiman joined the Washington, D.C., office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom as an associate in the litigation group. In 1992 he moved to Pittsburgh and joined the firm of Cindrich & Titus, later known as Titus & McConomy LLP, as an associate. In 1996, he was elected partner at the age of 30. In 1999, Judge Hardiman joined Reed Smith LLP as a partner in the litigation department until he took the bench on November 1, 2003,” according to The Federalist Society.
2.) Brett Kavanaugh Kavanaugh was appointed by Bush in 2006 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court often hears high-profile public policy cases, a fact that has helped raise Kavanaugh's public profile.
"Before his appointment to the court, Judge Kavanaugh served for more than five years in the White House for President George W. Bush. From July 2003 until May 2006, he was assistant to the president and staff secretary to the president. From 2001 to 2003, he was associate counsel and then senior associate counsel to the president," according to The Federalist Society.
3.) Amy Coney Barrett President Donald Trump nominated and the Senate confirmed Barrett as a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. Her confirmation process was marred by Democratic critics who claimed she was not fit for a federal judgeship because of her Catholic faith.
"Before joining the bench, she served as a professor at the Notre Dame Law School, where she specialized in constitutional law and federal courts. After receiving her J.D. from the Notre Dame Law School, she clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and for Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court," The Federalist Society said.
4.) Amul Thapar After first being appointed by Bush as a U.S. District Court judge in 2007, Thapar was elevated by Trump in 2017 to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Thapar is the first person of Southeast Asian heritage to be appointed to the federal bench.
"Before becoming a judge, Judge Thapar served as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. While U.S. attorney, Judge Thapar was appointed to the Attorney General's Advisory Committee (AGAC) and chaired the AGAC's Controlled Substances and Asset Forfeiture subcommittee. He also served on the Terrorism and National Security subcommittee, the Violent Crime subcommittee, and Child Exploitation working group," The Federalist Society reported.
5.) Raymond Kethledge Kethledge's highest profile case was his ruling against the Internal Revenue Service in the Tea Party targeting scandal, saying in a unanimous decision for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals:
"The lawyers in the Department of Justice have a long and storied tradition of defending the nation's interests and enforcing its laws — all of them, not just selective ones — in a manner worthy of the department's name. The conduct of the IRS' attorneys in the district court falls outside that tradition. We expect that the IRS will do better going forward."
Three potential dark horse candidates include the brothers Lee, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Thomas Lee of that state's supreme court. Their father, Rex Lee, was solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan. Judge Diane Sykes of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would be the Supreme Court's first former journalist if she were nominated and confirmed.
Senior editor Mark Tapscott can be reached at mark.tapscott@lifezette.com . Follow him on Twitter .
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
72 visitors
Prediction:
As I have said before the democrats will first try all the delay tactics they can then ultimately they will produce someone to discredit whomever the nominee is.
It's been the same game plan for 35 years.
Every Republican nominee is going to destroy humanity.
Correct!
Starting with the most qualified man who never got to serve on the Court
Barrett or Kavanaugh would be great. Frankly, I'm happy with any judge listed.
The complete list is full of candidates with solid credentials:
On the possibility that the president has too much very dirty linen and possibly a whole lot more of very dirty money, a jurist along the line of a Roland Freisler could protect him very well if the need arose.
So we should wait until after the Mueller investigation is over?
That was not my implication.
Allow the right to have their jurist.
This is 'the opportunity' to determine if The Constitution is worth the parchment it was written on.
I will even add this. Ginsberg is 85 years old. Allow the right to force her 'retirement.'
Correct
No forced retirement? That could be changed.
Only by constitutional amendment. That process would likely take more years than the rest of her life and more than two full Trump terms.
You seem to seek many changes in the law. First the Electoral College and now after two centuries, term limits for Supreme Court Justices. Hum...
Iv'e got a change for ya - NO DUE PROCESS RIGHTS FOR NON CITIZENS!
Hows that?
I'm guessing it will be a female judge to deflect from the "judge who will overturn Roe" thing. Not that it will help. The Dems will raise hell about something.
If Amy Barrett is the choice, the Dems will stupidly carry on, once again, about her Catholicism during the confirmation hearings, which will rankle voters of all faiths. Plus....she apparently doesn't have much of a opinion trail about the abortion issue, since she hasn't been on the 7th Circuit all that long. Same goes for Amul Thapar, I would be happy with either one of them.
Those are my two favorites.
Although a female candidate might draw less fire, I think Trump will pick Hardiman. First of all, he was a close second to Gorsuch the last time around so he’s probably still at the top of the list now. Second, he has the strong support of Trump’s sister who serves with Hardiman on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Third, he’s regarded as a down to earth kind of guy (perhaps because he supported himself through school by driving a cab). Trump may like that. Fourth, he’s fluent in Spanish, studied in Mexico, and worked for a Spanish legal aid group (so he'd be hard for democrats to paint as a racist or xenophobe). Fifth, he’s served on a federal court of appeals much longer than all of these other candidates (except Kavanaugh) so he’s got more experience at the appellate court level.
I’ll be happy with any of them.
I was kinda hoping one of the finalists would have been a conservative, black, lesbian woman. It would have been hilarious to watch liberals try to stop that nomination.
Their true colors would have surely come out.
Leave out the lesbian and they’d pull out all the stops to oppose Janice Rogers Brown, though I think she is older than what Trump is looking for now. If Justice Thomas retires while Trump is President, we will need to have someone like her but younger in position to move up.
UPDATE:
I seeded this article three months ago. Take a look at my prediction in Post # 1. My God, I hate being right all the time.
Now we have all the stalling & obstruction tactics of the left and in the end they resorted to just what I predicted. Ms Ford has been invited to speak at a hearing on Monday. However Ms Ford nor her reporter is not responding to the Committees many phone calls. Monday is her day to make her case. Yet she may not show up, for whatever reason. ( I have some guesses on that).
Should she not show up Monday, the Committee should then continue on to a vote after 3 days. (The Senate Rule).
My next prediction: democrats will have to cover for her if she dosen't show up (plus they will attempt to keep it going) - they will demand that the hearing needs to include not just Ford & Kavanaugh but the only other witness to the alleged event.
have to cover for her if she dosen't show up
I think she'll show, but won't allow any questions, or something very close to it.
She will give a very dramatic retelling (Spartacus will cry!), leave, and then Kavanaugh will be put to the rack.
I firmly believe that.
She will give a very dramatic retelling (Spartacus will cry!), leave, and then Kavanaugh will be put to the rack.
I'm sure. I've heard that Republicans may have a woman ask the questions for them. I think that is a good idea, if she shows up.
Btw, Feinstein is already claiming that Grassley didn't actually call Ford, but instead used e-mails, which Ford probably missed. They really think everyone is stupid. They'll say anything to get away with anything.
Silence from my friends on the left?
It looks like I was right once again. Now they want investigations of 36 year old events and bringing in another witness. How about Ford facing the man she accused. Isn't that what the Constitution calls for?
What the fuck are you talking about? When a woman accuses a man of attempted rape, the first thing that happens is there is an investigation. Once there has been an investigation, and we have as much light as possible on the alleged event and the character of BOTH parties, then we can have a more meaningful and thorough hearing about it. If Kavanaugh is such a choir boy, he would be demanding an investigation to clear his name. Interesting that she wants one and he doesn't.
Nope, not by an organization that dosen't have jurisdiction and not before the woman details what happened.
As for Kavanaugh, he is innocent until proven otherwise.
I know comprehension can be hard but he is talking about the comment he made 3 fucking months ago that the demorats would come out with a last minute witness to try to stop the SCOTUS proceedings.
Sounds like you want to put the victim on trial. Go back and take a look at the Anita Hill hearings and see if you want to replay that scenario in 2018 after a year of MeToo. You sound as if you think Ford is lying and that is that, am I wrong? Why are they not asking for more witnesses and an investigation, especially a witness supposedly in the damn room! She passed a lie detector test. What are republicans afraid of?
You take a look at it. That was investigated and there were NO CONCLUSIONS TO BE DRAWN, which left it as a hearing without evidence.
You sound as if you think Ford is lying and that is that, am I wrong?
You are correct, but I think she should have her hearing - I think that will tell the American people a lot
Why are they not asking for more witnesses and an investigation, especially a witness supposedly in the damn room!
The only witness denies it ever happened and he dosent want to be there, just like Ford didn't want to be there -after she said she would and -before she said she would-with conditions...See what I mean?
She passed a lie detector test.
Given by whom? When? What questions were asked? How were they asked?
What are republicans afraid of?
They have been more generous than I would have been. We know what democrats are afraid of - A Court that supports the Constitution.