Difference between revisions of "Talk:Donald Trump achievements: The courts"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(2018/2019 cases to watch)
(2018/2019 cases to watch)
Line 121: Line 121:
::::::::The four liberal justices and Gorsuch struck down a law as unconstitutionally vague: [https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/449998-gorsuch-sides-with-liberal-justices-in-finding-gun-law-to-be-vague 1],[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gorsuch-sides-with-liberals-in-shooting-down-tougher-sentences-for-gun-crimes 2],[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/gorsuch-joins-supreme-court-liberals-to-end-minimum-sentences-for-gun-crimes 3],[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/24/supreme-court-invalidates-part-law-aimed-preventin/ 4] The legal reasoning may be strong, but the practical effects are worrying, at least. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:40, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
::::::::The four liberal justices and Gorsuch struck down a law as unconstitutionally vague: [https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/449998-gorsuch-sides-with-liberal-justices-in-finding-gun-law-to-be-vague 1],[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gorsuch-sides-with-liberals-in-shooting-down-tougher-sentences-for-gun-crimes 2],[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/gorsuch-joins-supreme-court-liberals-to-end-minimum-sentences-for-gun-crimes 3],[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/24/supreme-court-invalidates-part-law-aimed-preventin/ 4] The legal reasoning may be strong, but the practical effects are worrying, at least. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:40, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
::::::::Also, the SCOTUS gave businesses greater FOIA protections: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-gives-businesses-wider-protections-under-foia-11561391869 1],[https://www.apnews.com/44d921a0323448fbaa4372c150eb655e 2] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:17, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
::::::::Also, the SCOTUS gave businesses greater FOIA protections: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-gives-businesses-wider-protections-under-foia-11561391869 1],[https://www.apnews.com/44d921a0323448fbaa4372c150eb655e 2] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:17, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
:::::::::Hopefully, the SCOTUS will decide correctly in ''Kisor v. Wilkie'': [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/high-court-may-be-on-verge-of-reining-in-bureaucrats] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:50, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
== Interesting articles ==
== Interesting articles ==

Revision as of 19:50, 24 June 2019

DC "good reason" law struck down

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Washington, D.C. law requiring people seeking a concealed carry permit to give a "good reason" in order to receive a permit.[1] We'll see if this goes to the Supreme Court. If so, it will be a repeat of Peruta v. California, which the Court refused to hear. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2017 (EDT)

The Court of Appeals rejected a request to have an en banc hearing of this case, meaning that the prior ruling will stay in place.[2] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2017 (EDT)
The case could go to the Supreme Court: [3][4] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2017 (EDT)

Prayer in the U.S. House

The Federal District Court in D.C. ruled in favor of Christian prayer in the House of Representatives, blocking an atheist activist from leading the opening session of the House.[5] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2017 (EST)

Travel ban case

The Ninth Circuit Court partially reinstated Trump's third travel ban.[6][7][8][9] Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule in favor of it. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2017 (EST)

Good judicial appointments to follow

LifeSiteNews has singled out Howard C. Nielson, Jr. as a very good, socially-conservative judicial nominee appointed by the Trump Administration. Hopefully, his nomination is confirmed by the Senate.[10] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2018 (EST)

There are many good Trump judicial nominees, but I noticed that Patrick Wyrick was singled out for being very conservative, so that's one to follow: [11] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2018 (EDT) UPDATE: confirmed --1990'sguy (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2019 (EDT)
I will also try to follow Michael J. Truncale, since he seems to take a strong position against voter fraud, having experienced it himself: [12] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2018 (EDT) UPDATE: confirmed[13] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2019 (EDT)
Trump nominated three (apparently) conservative circuit court nominees for the 9th circuit in California, over the objections of the state's two leftist senators: [14] Hopefully, these nominees will be confirmed. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2018 (EDT)
There's suspense as the confirmation vote of Thomas Farr (who appears to be a great nominee) has been delayed to early December: [15] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2018 (EST)
Unfortunately, Scott has caved again -- another great nominee looks like he won't be able to achieve confirmation: [16] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2018 (EST)
Brian C. Buescher, a district Court nominee, seems like a great nominee to follow: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2018 (EST)
Michael Park, a circuit court nominee, seems conservative, having helped with the Census Bureau's citizenship question, among other work: [17] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2019 (EST) UPDATE: confirmed --1990'sguy (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2019 (EDT)

Bad judicial appointments

Apparently, one of Trump's nominees for the 9th Circuit Court, Mark Jeremy Bennett, holds left-wing positions on a number of issues -- hopefully, this nomination will fail: [18] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2018 (EDT)

He was confirmed today, with 27 Republicans voting against him: [19] On the Trump Administration's defense, he was probably the best nominee possible for that specific court seat without causing another "blue slip" confirmation fight. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2018 (EDT)
Trump nominated an activist "LGBT" judge, Mary Rowland, to a district court in Illinois: [20] She is a member of the "Lesbian & Gay Bar Association of Chicago", and she did pro bono work for the left-wing Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund. It's true that Trump had to make compromises for nominating judges in blue states, so we can't be too critical (and some of the other nominees in Illinois seem decent), but it's still worrying to have a judge like this. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2018 (EDT)
Trump appointed another homosexual to be a judge -- this time a circuit court judge: 1,2 Fortunately, this nominee appears to be an actual conservative, though I can't say whether his rulings on LGBT matters will align with the Constitution or not. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2018 (EDT)
Michael Bogren, nominee for Michigan's western district, appears like a bad nominee considering his views on religious freedom issues: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2019 (EDT) UPDATE: Bogren withdrew: [21] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2019 (EDT)
Trump nominated Halil Suleyman Ozerden to the fifth circuit -- this is worrisome, since he seems like a very establishment judge: 1,2,3,4,5,6 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2019 (EDT)

Worrisome developments

The new White House Counsel appears to be caving to Democrats on judges, pulling three conservative appeals nominees for CA and possibly nominating more liberal judges: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2019 (EST)

These fears appear to have been averted, as the White House just renominated two of the three judges and nominated another one who seems conservative -- also the judge it didn't renominate is now nominated for a district court position: [22],3 --1990'sguy (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2019 (EST)

Unfortunate withdrawals

Ryan Bounds, a very conservative nominee to the Ninth Circuit, was withdrawn literally right when he was about to be confirmed: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 This is especially unfortunate because his nomination had progressed so far (this was the day he was supposed to be finally confirmed after about 10 months). It failed thanks to hypersensitive Republicans and deranged Democrats. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2018 (EDT)

SCOTUS lets Mississippi religious freedom law stand

The court chose not to hear a case over a Mississippi law protecting the religious liberty of Christians, effectively letting it stand: [23][24][25][26] I probably won't add this because the court is reviewing a very similar case right now about a Colorado Christian baker, and the outcome of that case might determine this law. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2018 (EST)

Scaling back the administrative state

The SCOTUS has agreed to hear two cases, one on the 5th Amendment and another on the Nondelegation Doctrine, that, if decided correctly, will reduce the power of the modern administrative state: [27] We should watch these cases. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2018 (EST)

Other 2018 cases to watch

There will be several interesting 2018 SCOTUS cases, such as gerrymandering and religious liberty. It will also hear a case on detaining criminal illegals[28] as well as free speech for pro-life pregnancy clinics.[29] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

The SCOTUS rejected a case that could have weakened the administrative state: [30] Oh well. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
The SCOTUS also rejected a case that instituted a gag order on undercover videos showing the truth of the abortion industry: [31] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
The Supreme Court's pace is unusually slow right now, and it's difficult making a decision: [32] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2018 (EDT)
The case on SEC judges is interesting: [33] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
Interesting article on the upcoming SCOTUS decisions in the coming month: [34] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2018 (EDT)
Another good article: [35] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2018 (EDT)

These two actions by the DOJ on challenging ObamaCare and DACA, are interesting, and we should watch to see what comes out of these cases: [36] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2018 (EDT)

We should also watch whether the Supreme Court will take up a religious liberty case regarding a Christian florist, a case that will be even more important than the "cake" one that was just decided: [37] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2018 (EDT)

2018/2019 cases to watch

The SCOTUS has agreed to hear a case on whether international organizations are actually above U.S. law: [38] This will be a big case that could have massive implications. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2018 (EDT)

This ObamaCare lawsuit, which conservatives successfully won in a lower court, might be one to watch: [39] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
This civil asset forfeiture case should be something to watch: [40] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2018 (EDT)
The SCOTUS may decide the constitutionality of the CFPB soon: [41] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2018 (EDT)
This case related to U.S. immigration law might be one to watch: [42] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2018 (EDT)
Another potential case that could roll back the administrative state: [43] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2018 (EDT)
The SCOTUS will look at a case on the constitutionality of a war memorial on public land shaped like a cross: [44] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2018 (EDT)
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS will not hear cases that would defund PP if successful -- unforunately, Kavanaugh was the key vote in rejecting this, and hopefully, it's not a predictor of his overall tenure: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 --1990'sguy (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2018 (EST)
The Third Circuit made a terrible ruling against the 2nd Amendment: [45] Hopefully, the SCOTUS will take this case. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2018 (EST)
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS will not take up a case challenging the constitutionality of the CFPB: [46] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2019 (EST)
The refusal to take up the case is understandable considering that Kavanaugh had to recuse himself, but there are two cases in the 5th circuit that could still go to the SCOTUS: [47] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2019 (EST)
The Court (at least temporarily) suspended oral arguments for the 2020 Census question: [48] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2019 (EST)
The SCOTUS will take up what appears to be a major gun rights case: 1,2,3,4,5,6 --1990'sguy (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2019 (EST)
The SCOTUS (at least temporarily) blocked a pro-life Louisiana bill, with Roberts voting with the four liberal judges: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2019 (EST)
The 9th Circuit will take another look at a pro-Second Amendment ruling made by a panel of three circuit judges: [49] Not good news, so hopefully, it will go to the Supreme Court. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2019 (EST)
Roberts refused to issue an injunction of Trump's "bump-stock" ban: [50] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2019 (EDT)
The Court heard a case that could challenge the Chevron doctrine, though overall, it seems skeptical: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 --1990'sguy (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2019 (EDT)
The Court in its entirety also refused to stop the ban: 1,2,3,4,5,6 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2019 (EDT)
The SCOTUS again rejected a challenge to the "bump stocks" policy: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2019 (EDT)
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court rejected hearing a religious freedom case -- a bad choise: [51] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2019 (EDT)
Also, the SCOTUS has again refused to expedite the DACA case: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2019 (EDT)
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS chose not to hear a case that would have given the chance to strike down gun silencer laws: 1,2,3 Fortunately, the SCOTUS also rejected a case on whether "In God We Trust" on currency violated the Establishment Clause: 1,2,3,4,5,6 --1990'sguy (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2019 (EDT)
This case seems like one that, if decided correctly, will preserve and increase school choice: [52] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2019 (EDT)

Right now, there are no "blockbuster" cases that the Supreme Court will hear: [53] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2018 (EDT)

More articles on the upcoming term: 1,2,3,4,5,6 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2018 (EDT)
The five top cases to watch for 2019, according to The Hill: [54] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2018 (EST)
More cases to watch, which the Supreme Court may or may not take (we'll find out): 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2018 (EST)
The SCOTUS is looking at a question related to state sovereignty: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2019 (EST)
Interesting case that, if decided correctly, could reduce the amount of power Congress can delegate to the executive branch: [55] --1990'sguy (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2019 (EDT)

Good news -- the SCOTUS may overrule the Auer doctrine, which is described as the "younger brother" of Chevron and expanded regulatory powers: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2018 (EST)

Not good news, the SCOTUS refused to stay a jail sentence on a Christian man who helped a mother and child escape a lesbian "mother" (unrelated to the child) that a court ordered the child to be in custody under: [56] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2019 (EST)
The SCOTUS ruled that dead judges cannot take part in rulings: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2019 (EST)

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS refused to hear a case that resulted in a Christian imprisoned for helping a woman and child escape from a lesbian "mother" who is actually unrelated: [57] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2019 (EDT)

The SCOTUS ruled in favor of an American Indian tribe in a case regarding a treaty: [58] This seems like a relatively notable case, but I'm not sure it's significant enough to add, or if it's clearly a bad decision. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2019 (EDT)
Another pro-American Indian decision, decided by Gorsuch and the four leftist judges: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2019 (EDT)

The SCOTUS will rule on whether LGBT people are included in a federal law against "sex" discrimination: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 --1990'sguy (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2019 (EDT)

Good article on the most important 2019 cases: [59] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2019 (EDT)

It looks like the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the census citizenship question, though we can't be too sure: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2019 (EDT)
Five important SCOTUS cases to watch in the coming months: [60] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2019 (EDT)

The SCOTUS ruled against Apple, stating that an antitrust case against it could go forward -- this seems good in the sense that it challenges the power of Big Tech companies, but I'm not convinced it's entirely good considering that Kavanaugh joined the four liberal judges, with the four other conservative/originalist judges in the minority: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2019 (EDT)

The SCOTUS paused some lower court cases that had ordered Ohio and Michigan to immediately begin redrawing their electoral maps: 1,2,3,4,5,6 This seems good, but this is only a temporary action, and the court will actually make a ruling on two gerrymandering cases in the coming month, which might be significant decisions -- thus, I probably won't add this temporary pause to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2019 (EDT)
While the SCOTUS allowed Indiana to continue enforcing a law giving burial/cremation to aborted babies (this wasn't a formal ruling but rather simply throwing out a lower court opinion), it allowed another pro-abortion decision to stand, as well as a pro-transgender decision: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25 In the meantime the Court announced it would hear a case on whether foreigners who never lived in the country can sue Border Patrol agents: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 --1990'sguy (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2019 (EDT)
Nieves v. Bartlett is another potentially problematic case: [61] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2019 (EDT)
The Court ruled that the federal government, not the states, controls the outer continental shelf: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2019 (EDT)
The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia's GOP-held House did not have standing to challenge court-drawn electoral maps that favored Democrats: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
The Court also sent another homosexual wedding cake case back to the lower courts -- the original lower court ruling opposed the Christian owners, so it's good that they have another chance, though the Court really should rule once-and-for-all in their favor: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
The Court also upheld the current doctrine on double jeoprady claims, which allows a state to file an identical prosecution as the federal government under the separate sovereigns doctrine: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
The Court upheld a ban on uranium mining by Virginia: 1,2
Overview of the opinions and the Justices' votes: [62]
The Court ruled that the First Amendment doesn't apply to a public-access TV station because it's not a "state actor": 1,2
With the possible exception of the double jeoprady case, none of these cases seems significant enough to add since they were narrow rulings and because originalist justices fell on both sides of these cases. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2019 (EDT)
Some leftists believe that the Supreme Court decision on the nondelegation clause could signal a stronger enforcement of it despite the decision being in the opposite direction: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2019 (EDT)
The SCOTUS ruled against what it considered racial bias in jury selection (1,2,3,4), and it ruled that people who are members of groups banned from owning guns must know they were banned before they can be prosecuted: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2019 (EDT)
The four liberal justices and Gorsuch struck down a law as unconstitutionally vague: 1,2,3,4 The legal reasoning may be strong, but the practical effects are worrying, at least. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
Also, the SCOTUS gave businesses greater FOIA protections: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2019 (EDT)
Hopefully, the SCOTUS will decide correctly in Kisor v. Wilkie: [63] --1990'sguy (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2019 (EDT)

Interesting articles

I think this Reuters article paints the federal courts as being more pro-Trump than they actually are, but it is still interesting to read: [64] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

This is a somewhat interesting analysis of the term that just ended and Justice Kennedy's retirement: [65] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2018 (EDT)
Some interesting articles on the potential effect of the Janus decision and some analyses on it: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2018 (EDT)
This is an interesting article about Don McGahn: [66] Despite the title, it doesn't go into much detail about how he's actually reshaped the courts, so it may not be something to add (or maybe it still is?). --1990'sguy (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2018 (EDT)
According to Gallup, the Supreme Court has its highest approval rating since 2009: [67][68] Americans approve of the increasingly conservative court, and the last time the approval rating was so high was just after the court acknowledged that Second Amendment rights actually exist. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2018 (EDT)
Here's a good article illustrating the impact of Trump's conservative judicial confirmations on the Fifth Circuit Court: [69] There's still an anti-Second Amendment majority on the court, but that majority is very narrow now (and the originalists could soon become the majority), and the Trump-appointed judges made some very strong dissents. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2018 (EDT)
It will be interesting to see if this dispute, related to Janus, goes to the Supreme Court: [70] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2018 (EDT)
This article is interesting, listing several recent SCOTUS decisions that could be used to help end college campus censorship: [71] Also, an interesting op-ed on the Janus decision: [72] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
Some litigants are accusing labor unions of not abiding by the Janus decision: [73] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
Some attorneys are trying to take advantage of the Jaus decision by arguing that they shouldn't be reqired to pay bar dues: [74] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2019 (EDT)
Interesting lawsuit filed today on this matter -- hopefully, it will succeed: [75] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2019 (EDT)
The Trump Administration will apparently try to get the Supreme Court to stop lower courts from creating nation-wide inunctions: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 In the meantime, here's a somewhat interesting (but older) article on the potential on the court with Kavanaugh to side with Trump on more issues than under the liberal-dominated district courts: [76] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2019 (EDT)
More on the Janus decision: [77] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2019 (EDT)

Interesting op-ed on how the Left has relied on the courts for 80 years to enact their agenda: [78] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2018 (EDT)

Another interesting op-ed, discussing how the lower courts might be more important to fill than the Supreme Court: [79] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2018 (EDT)
Interesting article on an opinion by James Ho, one of the best Trump-appointed judges: [80] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2018 (EDT)
Great article refuting several left-wing narratives and showing that Trump (unlike Obama) listens to the courts and that his nominees are not nominated just to defend him: [81] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2018 (EST)
Kavanagh could have a big influence on the outcomes of these decisions in a divided court: [82] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2018 (EST)
This article discusses the Trump Administration and SCOTUS's overall judicial agenda for 2019: [83] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2018 (EST)
Interesting article on how the Ninth Circuit could cease being a left-wing stronghold: [84] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2019 (EST)
Interesting article on how Chief Justice Roberts now lies at the ideological center of the court: [85] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2019 (EST)
According to this article, Roberts (unsurprisingly, IMO) has been voting a lot with the Court's left-wing (on minor issues, though), undermining the narrative of a major conservative shift on the court: [86] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2019 (EST)
Another article on Roberts, skeptical that he will be any help to judicial originalism: [87] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2019 (EST)
Yet another article on Roberts, stating that he'll likely continue to vote with the conservatives on substantive issues: [88] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2019 (EST)
Interesting article on how Trump's two SCOTUS appointees -- Gorsuch and Kavanaugh -- ruled differently on two different cases: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2019 (EDT)
Two interesting articles on Kavanaugh's concurrence in the immigration decision I added to this article: 1,2 His opinion is, at the same time, good but has some worrisome aspects to it. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2019 (EDT)
Another article on Roberts/Kavanaugh and the delayed (at least) "conservative" shift in the court: [89] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2019 (EDT)
Interesting article comparing Kavanaugh and Gorsuch: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2019 (EDT)
Another article on this topic: [90] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2019 (EDT)
This article dicusses some of the divides between the SCOTUS judges and suggests that several subsequent cases will be decided on 5-4 votes: [91] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2019 (EDT)
Excellent podcast/analysis by Daniel Horowitz, explaining why we're nowhere near to achieving a conservative/originalist "revolution" in the courts: [92] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2019 (EDT)

The Senate will continue to confirm Trump-appointed judges, as they will have a majority in the next congress: [93] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2018 (EST)

Here's an article on Trump's effort to reshape the 9th circuit: [94] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2018 (EST)
Some more interesting articles on Trump and the courts: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2018 (EST)
This is a left-wing article opposing Trump's court nominations, and it's too biased and with too little useful information to add, but it shows Trump's judges are having a good impact: [95] This article is an interesting interview with an official of Senator Grassley, who helped with judicial confirmations: [96] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2019 (EDT)

Interesting "judicial tracker" by the Heritage Foundation: [97] I probably won't add it, since it constantly updates and might be "reset" when a new president takes office, but it's still interesting to look at. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2019 (EDT)

The Left is preparing to a surge in judicial confirmations under a Democrat president: 1,2 This is one of several reasons why it's imperative that Trump wins in 2020. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2019 (EDT)

Parking spot

More articles on Senate confirmations that might possibly be useful: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2018 (EDT)

Sources on Kavanaugh's first day: 1,2,3,4,5 I don't think this is necessary to add, as I already cited his swearing-in, though I'll leave these sources here just in case. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2018 (EDT)
Some more articles on Senate confirmations that might be useful: 1,2,3,4,5,6 --1990'sguy (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2018 (EDT)
First confirmation in two months -- disappointing, considering what McConnell caused us to expect: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2018 (EST)
Yes, Trump's judicial agenda had a bad couple months during the lame-duck session: [98] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2019 (EST)
For the record, Kobes's confirmation was the first one that happened with the VP casting a tie-breaking vote: [99] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2019 (EST)
The first judge of 2019 was just confirmed: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2019 (EST)
These HuffPo articles about Trump's impact on the judiciary are obviously biased against the Trump Administration (which is why I'm not adding them to the article), but they are interesting to read: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2019 (EST)
More articles on this general topic: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2019 (EST)
Trump-appointed judge Mark Bennett was one of the 9th Circuit judges to rule against the Steinle family and for "sanctuary" cities (though considering his Senate hearings, this isn't particularly surprising): [100] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2019 (EDT)
The first CA circuit judge nominee was confirmed: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2019 (EDT)
More articles on the administration's and the Senate's judicial work: [101] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2019 (EDT)

Questionable SCOTUS decisions

By "questionable", I mean cases that I'm not sure count as a clear judicial achievement. The Supreme Court's decision to strike down a law effectively banning online video gambling seems to be one of them: 1,2,3,4 I like the fact that it appears to give more power to the states, and the case seems to be related to the 10th Amendment, but the case doesn't appear to have been decided on clear 10th Amendment grounds (the court said that the government can still ban video gaming if it wants) and it might pave the way for other court decisions such as on immigration. Also, the decision ruling against police searching of rental cars similar: [102] Of course, neither of these decisions necessarily has to be added to this article, though the first one seems to be a landmark case. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2018 (EDT)

This decision limiting police searches seems like a good decision (based on the little I know of 4th Amendment constitutional law), though it might be too insignificant to add either way: [103] --1990'sguy (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2018 (EDT)
The Supreme Court sent a case, involving a proposed penalty for two Chinese company, back to the lower courts because the lower courts were too deferential to the Chinese government's arguments: 1,2,3,4 This is good news, though I'm not sure if it is significant enough to add to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2018 (EDT)
The Court refused to rule against partisian gerrymandering, but its decision didn't address the actual issue of whether states can gerrymander: 1,2,3,4,5,6 Because of this, it's probably best to leave this out. Nothing good (or bad, I guess) came out of this. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2018 (EDT)
The American Express anti-trust case that was handed out today is probably too insignificant to add to the article, though it's hard to tell if it's a victory or setback for conservatism: 1,2,3,4,5 --1990'sguy (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2018 (EDT)
Also, the case Pereira v. Sessions seems interesting, though it's probably not significant enough to add to the article: 1,2 Unfortunately, it seems that the Left is happy with the decision: [104] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2018 (EDT)
The case Sause v. Bauer had a very good outcome, with the Court throwing out a lower court decision and sending it back to the lower courts to settle other questions, along with apparently (or, at least, implicitly) holding that people can pray in their homes (1,2,3,4,5,6,7). However, it apparently wasn't a particularly significant decision, since it just clarified the law and sent it back, so it may not be appropriate to add. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2018 (EDT)