Kennedy Retires: We need a new SCOTUS. How about This Guy?

Napolitano is a fantastic choice. In fact I mentioned him in another thread. I do not care about his age. He is 68 BTW. And he wouldn't be the first 68 year old appointed to the Supreme Court.

This is what I posted in the other thread when someone brought up his age:

" "Harlan F. Stone (1941-1946) was 68 years old when he took his oath of office."

Supremecourt.gov

I wouldn't want anyone nominated who is over the age of 60, simply because I would want them to be there for the next 30-40 years.

I expect that Trump will make another solid selection off his list of 25. My guess is that it will be Brett Kavanaugh, who was reportedly one of the frontrunners last time around, but Amy Coney Barrett's name seems to be popping up in the rumor mill more and more often as well.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: skynet2015


Judge Andrew Napolitano would make a fine choice but I think Judge Jeanine Pirro is even better!



Jeanine Pirro for SCOTUS!

YAAAAAASSS!!

I like Napolitano but man oh man Jeanine is a straight PITBULL in heels. Love this woman.

originally posted by: CharlesT
The way I see it, Trump will probably try to pick someone that will remain on the Supreme court for as long as possible and Napolitano is 67 years old. Napolitano could be there 13 years, maybe? I do think he would be an excellent choice but his age may be a contributing factor in Trump's selection.

I'm banking on you being right.

My bet is Trump picks the youngest nominee he can find that will pledge to overturn Roe v. Wade.

originally posted by: vor78
...Amy Coney Barrett's name seems to be popping up in the rumor mill more and more often as well.

I've heard her name bandied around a lot lately, but my gut feels that Trump doesn't want to risk nominating a woman (who I'd suspect he'd have concerns over her wavering on the Roe v. Wade issue) when he's got a chance to abolish Roe v. Wade if he picks a hardliner male.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Actually, she might have the opposite problem. She might not get past Collins or Murkowski due to being so strongly anti abortion.

For my part, the only thing that concerns me is that she doesn't have a verifiable track record on 2A. She can say she's pro 2A, but I'd need to see some real evidence backing it before I could support her.

Fox news guy though. Do we really need any more TV pundits? I say no. I'd feel the same way if he was a propaganda agent for the MSNBC instead of FOX News.

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Wayfarer

Actually, she might have the opposite problem. She might not get past Collins or Murkowski due to being so strongly anti abortion.

For my part, the only thing that concerns me is that she doesn't have a verifiable track record on 2A. She can say she's pro 2A, but I'd need to see some real evidence backing it before I could support her.

Murkowski already has said she has no issue with a judge espousing directives to overturn Roe v. Wade: here, so its only Collins she'd have to worry about. But, like I said above, I don't think Trump is of the mindset to trust a woman on this woman's issue.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Murkowski already has said she has no issue with a judge espousing directives to overturn Roe v. Wade:

Not exactly.

Here is what she Collins said:

Just hours after Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, Republican Sen. Susan Collins said that she sees Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that legalized abortion across the U.S., as "settled law."

"I view Roe v. Wade as being settled law," she said. "It's clearly precedent. I always look for judges who respect precedent."

She Murkowski said:

I always look at judicial temperament, qualifications, experience, the ABA [American Bar Association] rating and their respect for the rule of law and the constitution," Collins said. "Those are exactly the same criteria that I will apply to whomever the president nominates.

So it would seem that, in her eyes, someone who opposes Roe v Wade would not be respecting the rule of law. Of course, you don't think any nominee is going to say that they oppose Roe v. Wade, do you?

www.cbsnews.com...


BTW, the title of this thread is somewhat concerning. Just because one Justice retires, it doesn't mean we need a new Supreme Court.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Yeah, I saw that on Murkowsi earlier and to be honest, I think it's highly likely that the GOP will stay unified on any Trump nominee unless that nominee causes serious division in the base. Myself, I think it will be Kavanaugh, who seems to be a safe pick for the GOP with a proven track record on a number of important issues.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wayfarer

Murkowski already has said she has no issue with a judge espousing directives to overturn Roe v. Wade:

Not exactly.

Here is what she said:

Just hours after Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, Republican Sen. Susan Collins said that she sees Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that legalized abortion across the U.S., as "settled law."

"I view Roe v. Wade as being settled law," she said. "It's clearly precedent. I always look for judges who respect precedent."

She went on to say:

I always look at judicial temperament, qualifications, experience, the ABA [American Bar Association] rating and their respect for the rule of law and the constitution," Collins said. "Those are exactly the same criteria that I will apply to whomever the president nominates.

So it would seem that, in her eyes, someone who opposes Roe v Wade would not be respecting the rule of law. Of course, you don't think any nominee is going to say that they oppose Roe v. Wade, do you?

www.cbsnews.com...

 

BTW, the title of this thread is somewhat concerning. Just because one Justice retires, it doesn't mean we need a new Supreme Court.

Oh I read it but the impression I got (reading between the lines) is it was a way for Murkowski to show she was on board with the Republican conglomerate on this while at the same time sounding like she was still independent in her critical assessment of a candidate. Of course, as you mention before, just like with Gorsuch its unlikely a smart candidate would deny/affirm such a question in their hearings.

a reply to: skynet2015

Of the true constitutionalists the only other pick
I would put ahead of him is Ed Viera. As the Dr is
probably too busy doing Paul Revere's job for maybe
the last 25 years about money games, I think the shortlist is topped off.

And lastly Edwin's too educated and conservative to even
dream of foisting upon the purple gang: four Harvard
degrees including a J.D. "He actually KNOWS the Constitution
AND the law. No F'n way!" Maybe Harriet Miers could try again...

With what is going on with Kavanaugh, perhaps Trump can withdraw the nomination and give it to Andrew Napolitano now.

Naploitano made Trumps short list for the supreme court. Maybe Trump knew this would happen with Kavanaugh,or whoever else he nominated, and wanted to throw someone in to let the "other side" play themselves out first. Then he can withdraw Kavanaugh and then nominate Naploitano. No resistance then and Napolitano would be a shoo-in.