Dems hope to draw blood from potential Trump SCOTUS pick
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
When the conservative lawyer Neomi Rao appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, she’ll be interviewing for a job on the country’s second most powerful court.
But both her allies and enemies will be watching with something even bigger in mind: her viability as a future Supreme Court nominee.
Growing buzz on the right about Rao, a legal scholar and Trump administration regulatory official, has raised the stakes of her Tuesday confirmation hearing to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Republicans expect Democrats to contest Rao’s nomination with particular energy given what White House allies call the prospect that the 45-year-old former law professor could be on deck for a Supreme Court seat. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial said the left is intent on publicly “destroying” her.
White House aides and outside conservatives close to the president have been quietly helping Rao prepare for her confirmation hearing for weeks. Working with White House lawyers and communications staffers, Rao has been practicing her testimony and preparing answers to sharp questions about her experience and her record shaping regulations on behalf of the president.
While there is no current vacancy on the Supreme Court, the recent health issues of 85-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have the White House and its allies starting to prepare for a another potential high court nomination battle just months after Kavanaugh’s bitter October confirmation ordeal.
Some liberals hope to undermine Rao’s credentials even before she can assume a seat on the federal bench, sending a warning shot to the White House that it had better think twice before nominating her to the high court.
In a Jan. 31 letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a top official with the liberal People for the American Way blasted Rao for holding “a dangerously reactionary view of the Constitution” and “inflammatory statements and writings on a wide variety of civil rights and other issues.” The letter noted that Trump is “apparently considering her for the Supreme Court should there be a vacancy.”
Conservatives are discouraging talk of Rao as a future justice, recognizing that it will only draw more scrutiny of her record, which has recently been criticized over controversial positions like her defense of dwarf-tossing and past skepticism of date rape claims.
“It’s not in the interest of people trying to get her confirmed to cast her as a future Supreme Court contender, but that is how she will be treated by the Democrats,” said a Republican familiar with the process who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly about her confirmation process. There’s “no question [Democrats] will seek to tarnish her and weaken her prospects as much as they can,” this person added.
Rao is not currently on a list of Supreme Court contenders Trump first released as a candidate and then updated in November 2017, after consultations with two conservative groups, the Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation. In an interview with the Daily Caller published Wednesday, Trump said it was “highly likely” that he would choose his next high court nominee from that list.
But the White House is weighing adding new names as early as this spring, according to two people familiar with the matter, and influential conservatives are pushing for Rao to be among them — despite her lack of experience on the federal bench.
Rao is a conservative legal community star who founded the Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University’s law school — a hothouse of ideas about limiting the federal government’s authority and size.
Earlier in her career, Rao clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, worked for then-Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on the Judiciary Committee and served in President George W. Bush’s White House. She went on to oversee Trump’s efforts to roll back Obama-era regulations as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an obscure arm of the White House that wields substantial influence over every regulation imposed by the federal government. If confirmed, she would be the first Indian-American woman to serve on the D.C. Circuit.
Adam Kissel, a former Trump deputy assistant secretary in the Department of Education who knows Rao, said she “knows the whole administrative state from the inside.”
“If you want a judge or justice who understands the issues of Executive Branch power and core principles like separation of powers, you should be excited about Neomi Rao,” he added.
For now, White House aides and influential conservative legal scholars are wary of positioning Rao as a serious candidate for the high court, and are still nursing battle scars from Kavanaugh’s calamitous Supreme Court confirmation.
But they understand that another confirmation battle could be around the corner. Ginsburg underwent surgery in December to remove two cancerous nodules from her left lung, causing her to miss oral arguments earlier this month for the first time in her career on the bench.
Democrats are praying that Trump won’t be able to replace one of the court’s most liberal justices with another conservative, moving the court further to the right than it has been in decades. They are vowing to fight another Trump nominee with all their power.
Noting that “[t]he left is afraid she might someday be a Supreme Court nominee,” The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board warned last week that Rao could get “Kavanaughed.” It pointed to a recent BuzzFeed story detailing some of her collegiate writings, including an op-ed on date rape arguing that if a woman “drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was part of her choice.”
Democrats deny they’re treating Rao differently than any other nominee to serve on an influential court like the D.C. Circuit. “Regardless of whether conservatives are floating her as a potential Supreme Court nominee, she was always going to be controversial and get a lot of scrutiny,” a Senate Democratic aide said.
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have been digging into Rao’s background and are planning to pummel her with questions about her lack of experience practicing law, her central role in Trump’s efforts to roll back regulations, her previous writings that the president has the authority to remove top officials at independent federal agencies and her college op-eds, according to aides.
As for the Journal’s criticism of the focus on her college writing, the aide said it’s important to determine whether she still holds those perspectives. “To my mind, that’s what makes them at least still relevant,” the aide said. “It’s not clear whether these are just things she wrote as a young person or if they’re things she still believes today.”
“A controversial record coupled with no relevant experience raises serious questions about her fitness for the bench — especially to a court that is widely considered to be the second-highest court in the country,” a second Senate Democratic aide said.
The White House is already reaching out to conservative groups to prepare for Ginsburg’s possible death or departure from the court. People close to the White House said Rao is among several contenders to replace her.
But whether Rao is ultimately picked will likely depend on the timing of a potential opening. Because Rao has no prior experience as a judge, conservative activists think she’d need to spend at least a year on the D.C. Circuit before she’d be seen as a top contender for the Supreme Court.
“The idea that she would just leapfrog onto the court without a jurisprudential record is fanciful,” a prominent conservative legal figure said.
There are other factors that could count against her as well. The Supreme Court already has several alumni of the D.C. Circuit, including Kavanaugh, Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts. Trump may want to choose a justice from outside the Washington bubble. And several conservatives said privately that they are unsure of where Rao might fall on social issues since she’s spent much of her career focused on deregulation and administrative power.
“She’s seen as hard-line in terms of the administrative state,” said the Republican closely tracking Rao’s nomination. “But there’s a large question mark on social issues and the legal doctrines that would address them."
By ANDREW RESTUCCIA , GABBY ORR and ANITA KUMAR
02/04/2019 05:07 AM EST
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
65 visitors
Tomorrow (Tuesday) is the confirmation hearing and the nastiness begins
The Dems are still pissed about their loss regarding Kavanaugh and the SCOTUS. They will surely be out for blood this time around, if only put of sheer spite. As usual, they could care less how qualified she may be. Plain simple fact is that she just has the wrong political affiliation.
They act like the Court is theirs, or somehow it's unfair to have anymore Conservative appointments. Such audacity!
OK - when she was two years old, she "kissed" her boy cousin - against his wishes.
Frankly, I don't know how you can defend banning it. If she has the courage to come out in defense of individual liberty, then she can't be all bad.
Individual choice I guess.
Neomi Rao. Stands proudly against marriage equality. Is in the mold of 'Scalia Thought' on governmental regulations, social issues and limited government power.
She is highly qualified for the position and for conservatives is an excellent pick.
Of course there are many who will not agree with her perspectives. Which is their right. However, it is likely she will be confirmed. And, places her on the 'outside step' of the SCOTUS.
Fortunately they can’t do to her what they did to Miguel Estrada about 15 years ago. Thank you Harry Reid!
They did that because they didn't want a Republican to appoint the first Hispanic. They got to keep pandering to Hispanic voters, don't you know
per The senates biggest POS, dick durbin, we know that Estrada was especially dangerous, because he’s Latino.
Update:
Not the First Minority Nominee Democrats Have Fought
Rao is not the first minority judicial nominee Democrats have been working hard to destroy. Back in October 2018, President Trump nominated Patrick Bumatay of California to serve as a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Bumatay is a well-qualified candidate. He is a textualist, believing in the original meaning of the Constitution. He got his bachelor’s degree from Yale and his law degree from Harvard University. He clerked for Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Court, and for Judge Sandra L. Townes of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Bumatay currently serves as an assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California.
Bumatay is also young. At the time of his nomination, he was only 40 years old. Besides his many career accomplishments, Bumatay should have been any intersectionalist’s dream judicial candidate. He is a Filipino-American and openly gay. He is a member of the National Filipino American Lawyers Association (NFALA), the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, the Tom Homann LGBT Law Association, and the Federal Bar Association.
Bumatay is the second openly gay judge nominated by President Trump. If confirmed , Bumatay would be the first Filipino American to serve as a federal appellate judge and the second openly gay judge on a federal appeals court, after Todd Hughes, a judge nominated by President Obama and now sitting on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Who opposed Bumatay’s nomination? Wait for it: Democrat senators from California Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris . Both demanded President Trump withdraw Bumatay’s nomination and complained that the White House didn’t consult them before it was extended, even though White House Counsel Donald McGahn detailed dozens of meetings with Feinstein’s office regarding the White House’s list of potential Ninth Circuit judges since Trump took office. Harris’ office, according to McGahn, simply “refused” to “engage with the White House at any level, whatsoever on the issue.”
On January 3, 2019, Bumatay’s nomination was returned to President Trump. It seemed President Trump caved to the anti-gay and anti-minority Democrats. According to the Wall Street Journal , Butmatay’s name was excluded from a new judicial nomination list that the president submitted to the Senate.
Yep, as I said above. Pure spite on the part of certain progressive liberal Democrats, nothing else....
You are aware, are you not, that more minority federal judges have been appointed under democrat then republican presidents starting with Truman. In fact Obama appointed more minorities to the federal bench than any other president.
He also appointed the first Native American, Diane Humetewa (Hopi) to the federal bench.
And you are aware that when minorities are appointed by Republicans, it's based on merit. For democrats it's all optics!
Yyyyeah...Michael Steele immediately comes to mind.
So you're saying that democratic appointees aren't qualified...How conservative of you and of course it's BS but carry on with the nonsense.
That's a generalization on your part. Some may be qualified, most may be qualified, but that's not why democrats pick them. The sad part is that there would be such a perception.
That's not what he's saying at all.
What he is saying, and I agree with, judicial qualifications only get you in the door on the democrat side, what is most important is how they look to their constituencies. Meaning after being legally qualified, the most important things are race, gender, religion, politics. where on the republican side they are still in the dark ages where after legal qualifications, politics is the only other consideration.....
The fact that O'Connor was the first woman on the court wasn't that important to republicans, but it is a trophy the Democrats can never claim....
So it seems that since IYO after qualifications is how they look to their constituencies. Then I would guess that they same applies to the republicans since they choose mostly white appointees they are seeing what their constituencies are looking for...
Thanks for confirming it.
Some may be qualified, most may be qualified...That's nice to know that some may be qualified and or most, but it's only your opinion which it seems to be fairly one sided.
Nice try Vic, no cigar.
Leave it to you to turn all republicans into bigots.....
Nice try but no cigar NWM. You seem to think that your comments re dems and the people that they appointed are only based on color. I simply pointed out to you that republicans do the same.
Oh, leave it to you to try and BS your way through your bias comment.
Really? I see a lot more than color in that statement, (sorry I forgot about the Gays & Environmentalists there, those dems have so many different constituencies it's easy to forget a few)
You chose to make it singularly about color.... (since your the one that first mentions a skin color)
I'll leave it to you to BS your way through your clear demonstration of bigotry....
LMAO, more BS from you NWM...
Go peddle you BS somewhere else, you do seem to be an expert at it, lot's of practice I guess.
I didn't expect that from you.... (not that I haven't seen it before) Just that I expected better......
Must be right, you refuse to refute the plain facts.... (and yeah, you being the first to raise color as the issue IS an undeniable fact)
If you have seen it before why are you surprised or why did you expect better? I expected nothing less from you than the nonsense you're trying to pass off as fact..
But feel free to excuse your own bias and continue to try to paint it on others (me)....
You can have the last word since your ego seems to need it.
Ego? I'm well beyond such trifles....
My bias is against liberals and their divide and dominate tactics, I've made no bones about that.
Nonsense in the typed words you put on the screen, you did that I didn't. No painting anyone from me.....
And I know you may not like it, but the words you typed are actually on the screen, the fact that you typed them is a fact, their meaning in the context you used them is a fact.
The only painting here is you trying to paint them over as my BS being passed off as fact........
But then you have always viewed Republicans as racist bigots. (as long as I've been on the board) Nothing new there, why try to paint it as an accusation now?
Is that all you've got?
Of course you have proof of your comment or should we just chalk it up to your imagination.
I'm sick and tired of you indirectly and directly maligning my character. You have done this on several other posts and I've let it slide. Unless you can back up your comment I'm categorizing that comment and others like it as a bald faced lie and slandering me as a person.
Your comments show a lot of bias.
Not at all.
As does yours.
That was your statement
I'm well aware that it is my statement. Is it not true?
You should review your own comments and recognize the bias in them.
True? You aren't simply making an observation. You are saying that the reason for mostly white appointees is either identity politics or racism, are you not?
I didn't make any racist statements like you did.
Now your going on the offensive as deflection from that plain fact....
Maligning your character? you did that sufficiently for yourself....
The proof is in your direct posting right here..... @ 6.1.5
Quoted: " Then I would guess that they same applies to the republicans since they choose mostly white appointees they are seeing what their constituencies are looking for ..."
If that isn't calling all republicans racists I don't know what would be.
I didn't put words in your mouth or malign your character, YOU typed that I didn't....
Isn't a lie when the truth is right in front of your face.
You got called on it and don't like it, Tough.....
YOU SAID IT, YOU WEAR IT!
As you pointed out with dems playing identity politics I pointed out the same from the republican side.
Identity Politics IS the key element of the democratic strategy. Democrats admit that. Some like Stacey Abrams defend it. That is a racial policy.
The fact that any party would have more white candidates or appointees proves nothing. Whites are the majority in America's population.
Of course they are, but the dems appoint more minorities than do republicans...You would think that the republicans would appoint addition minorities since they are qualified to be appointed. Why don't they Vic?
I just explained why, didn't I? Identity politics (All against the white man).
You would think that the republicans would appoint addition minorities since they are qualified to be appointed.
I think the Republicans have done a fair job with that. They are pushing for Ms Rao to the DC Court and the dems are fighting it. In the last Presidential primary, the Republicans had 2 Hispanics (I originally wanted either one), an African American and a woman. All were well qualified (2 were Senators) and they reflected the population.
Wow, all against the white man...Amazing. I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of white folks in the democratic party.
Vic, what is the make up of the house and Senate....by party.
There is your answer, the republicans don't seem to want to really court the minority vote as can be seen by the make up of both houses and the make up of the parties. Please don't tell me that it's the mysterious ''free stuff'''....If that's true I sure as hell missed that free stuff delivery.
You didn't answer my question re appointments...
There are a lot of white liberals who consider themselves the "good whites", but there is no doubt they run against the "deplorables' and "clingers". They are churning racial animosity to get votes. The whites are the oppressors of everyone, right? That has been the formula for over a decade. However, the game may be over. The rest of the country is tired of being called names and being used.
You didn't answer my question re appointments...
I did...You didn't like the answer.
I don't know about the rest of the country but it seems that with the number of minorities, I include women in this group they represent the largest number in the history of congress...So it would seem that the ''game is over'' isn't accurate.
If this is your answer, '' Identity politics (All against the white man).'' I find that kind of ridiculous but in keeping with the rest of your comments.
Ahhhh.....so you admit, that what I am saying is true!
If this is your answer
My answer was that Republican appoint based on merit. What was wrong with the Estrada appointment?
Not at all Vic. It would seem that the American people want some diversity in our congress and that is what is happening. Sorry that you see that as a strike against America, but it's reality.
And according to you the democratic appointment aren't...Of course you're entitled to your opinion but it would seem that many in America disagree with your assessment. I don't believe I said anything was wrong with the Estrada appointment. What is wrong with the Diane Humetewa appointment?
No, you didn't, nor did you understand the question. I'll give you the answer. The democrats denied Miguel Estrada a place on the Supreme Court because they wanted to deny a Republican President the chance at appointing the first Hispanic to the Court!
It would seem that the American people want some diversity in our congress and that is what is happening.
That is not what is happening. It's called identity politics and is going to backfire on the democrats.
but it's reality.
Only to you and those who vote their color
Is that anything like what the republicans did to Garland?
It's not what's happening!!!! So the minorities that are appointed or elected aren't qualified!!!! LOL, now that really is a bogus comment.
Now you've topped your prior comment. You have no idea who I vote for. You don't know if they are republican, democrat, independent, green, red, brown, black, yellow or white...Please stop with the assumptions. You know that saying don't you.
It is far more vicious. The denial of a competent Hispanic justice, simply to control the Hispanic vote is evil.
So the minorities that are appointed or elected aren't qualified!!!! LOL, now that really is a bogus comment.
It is your comment, not mine.
Now you've topped your prior comment. You have no idea who I vote for.
I never indicated who you voted for.
So you're assuming that Hispanics don't have the were with all to make a choice on their own...Wow, talk about being condescending.
Actually it is your's Vic..If they are chosen by identity politics that would make those appointed somewhat less than their white counterparts...
Again, actually you did. You said, 'Only to you and those who vote their color''. Since you were speaking to me I am the ''Only to you''....So you're telling me that I only vote for a person of color.
To the contrary, I have complete confidence in them. It's the dems who think they can be manipulated.
BTW:
Actually it is your's Vic..If they are chosen by identity politics that would make those appointed somewhat less than their white counterparts...
That is your conclusion. I only pointed out why they were chosen.
Again, actually you did. You said, 'Only to you and those who vote their color''. Since you were speaking to me I am the ''Only to you''....So you're telling me that I only vote for a person of color.
I can't improve on the English language. How is this: It is reality to you (based on you view) and those who vote their color. The two things are not necessarily inclusive.
I thought that polls were nonsense and not to be trusted according to some conservatives on NT...Never the less it does show an increase in Hispanic support but a decline in white and black support. A overall rating of 39...not so good.
I suppose that you could invent another conclusion, but the options are limited.
Sadly Vic, once again you are making an assumption that you know who/how/why I vote.
Assumption doesn't do you any good in your position.
I know. That's part of why I used it. It had negatives as well, but most important it shows that Hispanics who happen to be comprised of many people from many places, some are Americans over generations. They have divergent views and their vote dosen't belong to any one party.
I suppose that you could invent another conclusion, but the options are limited.
You have tried repeatedly to use minorities as a defense of progressives. My issues are with progressives & the democratic party.
Sadly Vic, once again you are making an assumption that you know who/how/why I vote.
Your stated views are not an assumption, they are there for all to see.
I don't believe that any group is 100% for any one party. And of course Hispanics have divergent views. Just found a poll that said that 58% of Hispanics would not vote for Trump in 2020. So who is right?
I'm not a progressive so why in the world would I use minorities as a defense of progressives?
Yes they are and no where will you find that I said that I vote based on color or party...So again you assumptions are incorrect.
If you look at election results you will see certain groups voting for one party in the 90% range.
Just found a poll that said that 58% of Hispanics would not vote for Trump in 2020. So who is right?
I guess we will have to wait and see, wont we?
I'm not a progressive
If you say so.
Yes they are
Thank you. Nice talk.
Both NWM and Kavika knock this off now. I will not address this again. You are not to speak to each other for the rest of this evening......Got it? And no smart comments back to me either.