152 Judges appointed by Trump in three years

Acujeff

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Messages
932
Likes
397
Location
Boston
152 Ways Trump Is Changing America
Tony Perkins · Sep. 14, 2019
152 Ways Trump Is Changing America

They call the Senate the “deliberative body” — and it’s been deliberate all right. This week, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had the honor of presiding over President Trump’s 150th (and 151st and 152nd) judicial confirmation hitting the milestone at record speed — and cementing this administration’s place as one of the most influential court-shapers in history.

It’s not a story the media will want to tell, but the impact that Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell have had on the courts is one of the greatest stories of the 45th presidency. The mark, which puts this administration ahead of Obama's by more than 50 at this point, is astounding. It means, experts say, that by the end of his term, President Trump may have shaped as much as 30 percent of the bench — a historic legacy that will reverberate through America for generations to come.

McConnell, who has quietly plowed through the nominations at break-neck speed, is most proud of the kind of people Republicans have played a part in elevating. “[The judges] we’ve been nominating believe in the simple, quaint notion that maybe the judges ought to follow the law. I’m amazed that that’s controversial…” he said on Fox News. “We are making an important difference for the country that will last for a very long time and my motto for this Congress is: ‘leave no vacancy behind.’”

Thursday, on “Washington Watch,” Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) had nothing but praise for the president — not just for keeping his promise on the courts, but well surpassing it.

“It’s an amazing number. One hundred and fifty judges in just three years — less than three years. It’s really, really extraordinary. It’s a testament to this administration. President Trump took a pledge. He said, ‘I’m going to nominate conservative, pro-Constitution, pro-life judges to the bench. And he’s done exactly that… And given the history of what the courts have been used for by the Left… this is so significant. And it has generational impact.”

Still, Hawley said, there’s no reason to stop now. “There’s still a lot of work to do. There are still almost 100 open seats on the federal courts at all levels. That’s a bunch of seats. That’s a bunch of judges. We need to fill those with pro-Constitution men and women.” He believes, and we agree, that this is something that will matter for America and for our country — not just for the next two or three years, “but for the next 30 and 40 and 50.” President Trump is going to have the chance to appoint something like a quarter or a third of the entire federal judiciary.

“And… look, [the] judges in our country are extremely powerful. I mean, if you look around the world, we’re kind of an anomaly. Judges in the country have more power for better or for worse than in a lot of other places. So who sits on the bench for those lifetime appointments? Who makes decisions about what our Constitution means and how to interpret it?”

Someday, very soon, Americans will find out for themselves just how significant the president’s investment in the courts has been. Until then, we agree with Senator Hawley: keep it up!
 

SFC13557

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
386
Likes
295
Location
Central Ma.
It's driving the left crazy because they depend on activist judges to pass their anti-America, anti-Constitution agenda. This is why Trumps election so infuriates them, he upended their plans for domination and total control of us. The Peons fought back and won and they will never except it and loathe us for beating them. Just watch the debates or MSNBC/CNN to see the hatred in their eyes, never mind what spills from their mouths.
 

Acujeff

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Messages
932
Likes
397
Location
Boston
While a notable and great milestone, the one which is of more interest is when RBG's replacement is named.
I don't disagree but keep in mind, the Supreme Court only hears a fraction of the cases handled by the lower Federal courts. Most are handled and determined by these lower courts.

The Supreme court has been so important to the RKBA is because the lower courts were packed with anti-2A judges ignoring the 2A as a protected primary right. Very few, and very infrequently, of these 2A cases ever reach the Supreme Court. The front line, the lower courts, are the best place to knock out more gun control laws then the last resort, the Supreme Court.

Thus, increasing the amount of conservative judges in the lower courts to enforce and protect the 2A is so important, long neglected, and being rectified by Trump and current Republican leadership.
 

doxdsgn

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
302
Likes
126
I don't disagree but keep in mind, the Supreme Court only hears a fraction of the cases handled by the lower Federal courts. Most are handled and determined by these lower courts.

The Supreme court has been so important to the RKBA is because the lower courts were packed with anti-2A judges ignoring the 2A as a protected primary right. Very few, and very infrequently, of these 2A cases ever reach the Supreme Court. The front line, the lower courts, are the best place to knock out more gun control laws then the last resort, the Supreme Court.

Thus, increasing the amount of conservative judges in the lower courts to enforce and protect the 2A is so important, long neglected, and being rectified by Trump and current Republican leadership.

While my comment was tongue in cheek, as long RBG is on SCOTUS, she will be waiting to piss on any 2-A cases that makes it there from the lower courts. She believes Heller was wrongly decided and that the 2-A does not support an individual RKBA. She is only one vote, but Kagan and Sotomayor vote with her 90+% of the time. The anti 2-A crowd, in spite of losing at the lower levels will never accept those rulings, will simply judge shop till they get the ruling they want or go all the way to SCOTUS.
 

Acujeff

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Messages
932
Likes
397
Location
Boston
Constitution Revitalized by Trump's Record Judicial Appointments
It has become an underappreciated theme of Trump's presidency.
Nate Jackson · Nov. 7, 2019


According to a White House report issued Wednesday, “As of this afternoon, President Donald J. Trump has appointed — and gotten confirmed — 158 life-tenured federal judges who will defend our Constitution, personal freedoms, and the rule of law.” That includes “two Supreme Court justices, 44 Circuit Court judges, and 112 District Court judges.” The White House also says, “[His] historic pace is only accelerating: The President is set to have more judges confirmed this year alone than in all of 2017 and 2018 combined.” Three more are expected by week’s end, and dozens more are in the wings this year.

The White House has other highlights: “President Trump’s nominees alone fill one-quarter of the seats on our nation’s Circuit Courts of Appeals.” And, “He has seen more Circuit Court judges confirmed by this point in his presidency than any past president in United States history.”

Trump promised as a candidate to nominate solid conservative judges and he’s followed through. But a lot of credit goes to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He’s come a long way from the days when we criticized him and then-House Speaker John Boehner for weak leadership. On the judiciary, McConnell made the most gutsy move of his career by refusing to hold confirmation hearings on Merrick Garland, Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the venerable Antonin Scalia’s seat. He decided with good reason that to allow Obama, in the last year of his presidency, to totally swing the Supreme Court with a leftist in the seat of a constitutionalist was unacceptable. McConnell held firm, Trump beat all odds and won, and we now have Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.

McConnell’s stewardship is even more laudable given Democrat resistance. According to The Daily Signal, “Democrats forced cloture votes on 118 of the president’s judicial nominees, a delaying tactic to extend debate. For the previous five presidents combined, the Senate held only seven cloture votes.”

As Trump put it in a speech yesterday, “When judges write policy instead of applying the law, they impose sweeping changes on millions of Americans without the benefit of legislative debate, public rulemaking, or the consent of the governed. As a result, these highly political rulings inflict painful damage on our security, society, and economy — imposing unworkable edicts on businesses, workers, families, and law enforcement. I will do everything in my power to halt judicial activism, and to ensure the law is upheld equally, fairly, and without political prejudice for all of our citizens.” On the subject of judicial nominations, Trump is most definitely earning an “A” grade.
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
72   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
18,043
Likes
2,557
Location
Stoughton
District and Circuit judge appointments are crucial. First, because that's where most SCOTUS nominations come from. Second, because originalist judges can short stop a lot of these suits that end up a SCOTUS.

More than anything else, this will be Trump's legacy. He changed the federal judiciary for a generation. He's been very good at appointing originalist judges to liberal circuits like the 9th.
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
2,738
Likes
2,503
Location
western mass
While my comment was tongue in cheek, as long RBG is on SCOTUS, she will be waiting to piss on any 2-A cases that makes it there from the lower courts. She believes Heller was wrongly decided and that the 2-A does not support an individual RKBA. She is only one vote, but Kagan and Sotomayor vote with her 90+% of the time. The anti 2-A crowd, in spite of losing at the lower levels will never accept those rulings, will simply judge shop till they get the ruling they want or go all the way to SCOTUS.
I disagree. The NYS Pistol & Rifle case has the gun grabbers seriously spooked, especially since SCOTUS is holding on to a large number of 2A cases as we speak. The new calculus of the gun grabbers is going to be a patchwork of complex, convoluted and incomprehensible laws versus risking a scotus showdown.
 

doxdsgn

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
302
Likes
126
I disagree. The NYS Pistol & Rifle case has the gun grabbers seriously spooked, especially since SCOTUS is holding on to a large number of 2A cases as we speak. The new calculus of the gun grabbers is going to be a patchwork of complex, convoluted and incomprehensible laws versus risking a scotus showdown.
The gun grabbers might not want to risk a SCOTUS showdown, but it's not entirely in their control. They desperately tried to avoid SCOTUS taking NYSPR and failed. Agree, the NYSPR case does have them very spooked. It had them so spooked that NY rewrote their laws in a hurry to try to moot the case. Fortunately, SCOTUS didn't bite. They still could moot it or do nothing since, in their opinion, NY is no longer infringing. End of the case, done. Would hate for that to happen.

Unless SCOTUS delivers a smack down by telling the lower courts to stop dissing their rulings in Heller + McDonald, stop playing games with which "scrutiny" applies and just making it up as they go, we can more or less expect the same crap. It's really no lose for the gun grabbers. The various state legislatures will follow the crazy requests of the gun grabbers, laws will get passed, cases claiming infringement or other Constitutional violations will be filed taking years to make their way through the hierarchy of the courts. This gives the gun grabbers a victory of sorts, because the crazy law will be enforced until overturned, and then, only maybe.

The ability of the gun grabbers to "judge shop" is being curtailed with all the Trump appointments, especially in the 9th Circuit, but it will continue to be done. The gun grabbers can still count on three solid votes in SCOTUS against the individual RTKBA via the the 2-A.
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
2,738
Likes
2,503
Location
western mass
The gun grabbers might not want to risk a SCOTUS showdown, but it's not entirely in their control. They desperately tried to avoid SCOTUS taking NYSPR and failed. Agree, the NYSPR case does have them very spooked. It had them so spooked that NY rewrote their laws in a hurry to try to moot the case. Fortunately, SCOTUS didn't bite. They still could moot it or do nothing since, in their opinion, NY is no longer infringing. End of the case, done. Would hate for that to happen.

Unless SCOTUS delivers a smack down by telling the lower courts to stop dissing their rulings in Heller + McDonald, stop playing games with which "scrutiny" applies and just making it up as they go, we can more or less expect the same crap. It's really no lose for the gun grabbers. The various state legislatures will follow the crazy requests of the gun grabbers, laws will get passed, cases claiming infringement or other Constitutional violations will be filed taking years to make their way through the hierarchy of the courts. This gives the gun grabbers a victory of sorts, because the crazy law will be enforced until overturned, and then, only maybe.

The ability of the gun grabbers to "judge shop" is being curtailed with all the Trump appointments, especially in the 9th Circuit, but it will continue to be done. The gun grabbers can still count on three solid votes in SCOTUS against the individual RTKBA via the the 2-A.
The New York case to me illustrates perfectly how the left will operate. I think their future strategy was played out right in front of our eyes in the NYS case. I call it a minuscule acquiescence. Some state like NY passes red flag laws for instance. Some day some completely innocent person having no relation to a red flag scenario gets swept into a legal quagmire for no good reason by governmental over reach. The person wants their name and reputation restored, so they sue. Instead of leap frogging from court to court, they isolate the issue to a specific locale by tweaking a law, making an accommodation, or altering it slightly just like the New York state people tried to do. I don't think that gun grabbers are going to continue to go all the way to scotus regardless of what is written in Heller or McDonald. Hell the left operates as though those decisions don't even exist. What makes you think that one more ruling from scotus will change their MO? Where the the NYS gun grabbers failed is they tried to change the law too late. Going forward they are going to change it long before it hits the courts making the issue moot. This way the original legal concept remains in place but some small adjustment to made to avoid situation A ever happening again. The bear minimum. "What is the absolute bare minimum I need to do to law A to avoid another court challenge and yet keep the law in place?". They can adjust and adjust like this for generations until lots of people are long dead and gone and the meaning of the law is lost and then society wakes up and realizes that some century old legal scheme is hopelessly broken. Then they can keep gun control in place for as long as needed with a patchwork of laws that even the best Kentucky lawyer couldn't figure out.
 

doxdsgn

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
302
Likes
126
There are tactics available to both sides to delay or avoid a formal/final decision. With NYSPR, the gun grabbers were not able to stop it from going to SCOTUS even by pulling every trick in the book. Neither the good guys, nor the gun grabbers are able to ALWAYS control the path a case takes. Neither side is going to change their MO. What do we disagree on?
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
2,738
Likes
2,503
Location
western mass
I think we are going to see less 2A cases making it to scotus in the future because the gun grabbers will be using some advanced calculus to figure out how to keep legal problems localized.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
13,725
Likes
7,311
I think we are going to see less 2A cases making it to scotus in the future because the gun grabbers will be using some advanced calculus to figure out how to keep legal problems localized.
I'm hoping there will be fewer cases in future because SCOTUS is going to slap the living shit out of leftists on the NYS case as well as an AWB/Mag capacity/Red Flag/Due Process issues and put this shit to bed once and for all
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
33   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
10,297
Likes
3,009
Location
Ma.
I'd like to believe that these appointments will eventually lead to a restoration of our rights but their corruption and lust for power has led to disappointment in the past and the multi-millions/billions of dollars from our enemies have had and will have a detrimental effect on our rights. None of them that I'm aware of in the past or present seem to understand what the words "Shall not be infringed" means and as long as they don't suffer any consequences for their actions they will continue to violate our rights.
 

Prepper

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
18,506
Likes
6,535
Location
NH
How many judges in total are there?

Also, can the next president after Trump just reappoint left judges again?
 

doxdsgn

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
302
Likes
126
From Wikipedia : There are currently 870 authorized Article III judgeships: nine on the Supreme Court, 179 on the courts of appeals, 673 for the district courts and nine on the Court of International Trade.

Yes, the next president gets to appoint judges to vacancies with the consent of the Senate.
 
Top Bottom