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

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Interesting articles)
(Bad judicial appointments)
Line 24: Line 24:
 
:He was confirmed today, with 27 Republicans voting against him: [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/10/27-republicans-vote-against-trumps-judge-9th-circu/] 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. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:25, 10 July 2018 (EDT)
 
:He was confirmed today, with 27 Republicans voting against him: [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/10/27-republicans-vote-against-trumps-judge-9th-circu/] 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. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:25, 10 July 2018 (EDT)
 
::Trump nominated an activist "LGBT" judge, Mary Rowland, to a district court in Illinois: [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trump-nominates-lesbian-judge-tied-to-lgbt-groups-for-federal-bench] 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. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:38, 28 August 2018 (EDT)
 
::Trump nominated an activist "LGBT" judge, Mary Rowland, to a district court in Illinois: [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trump-nominates-lesbian-judge-tied-to-lgbt-groups-for-federal-bench] 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. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:38, 28 August 2018 (EDT)
 +
:::Trump appointed another homosexual to be a judge -- this time a circuit court judge: [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trump-picks-member-of-lgbt-law-group-for-liberal-ninth-circuit-court] 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. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 01:10, 14 October 2018 (EDT)
  
 
===Unfortunate withdrawals===
 
===Unfortunate withdrawals===

Revision as of 00:10, 14 October 2018

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)
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)
Trump nominated three (apparently) conservative circuit court nominees for the 9th circuit in California, over the objections of the state's two leftist senators: [13] Hopefully, these nominees will be confirmed. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2018 (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: [14] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2018 (EDT)

He was confirmed today, with 27 Republicans voting against him: [15] 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: [16] 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: [17] 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)

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: [18][19][20][21] 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: [22] 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[23] as well as free speech for pro-life pregnancy clinics.[24] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

The SCOTUS rejected a case that could have weakened the administrative state: [25] 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: [26] --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: [27] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2018 (EDT)
The case on SEC judges is interesting: [28] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
Interesting article on the upcoming SCOTUS decisions in the coming month: [29] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2018 (EDT)
Another good article: [30] --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: [31] --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: [32] --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: [33] 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: [34] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
This civil asset forfeiture case should be something to watch: [35] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2018 (EDT)
The SCOTUS may decide the constitutionality of the CFPB soon: [36] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2018 (EDT)
This case related to U.S. immigration law might be one to watch: [37] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2018 (EDT)

Right now, there are no "blockbuster" cases that the Supreme Court will hear: [38] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2018 (EDT)

More articles on the upcoming term: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2018 (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: [39] --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: [40] --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: [41] 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: [42][43] 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: [44] 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: [45] --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: [46] Also, an interesting op-ed on the Janus decision: [47] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
Some litigants are accusing labor unions of not abiding by the Janus decision: [48] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

Interesting op-ed on how the Left has relied on the courts for 80 years to enact their agenda: [49] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2018 (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)

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: [50][51][52][53] 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: [54] 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: [55] --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: [56][57][58][59] 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: [60][61][62][63][64][65] 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: [66][67][68][69][70] --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: [71][72] Unfortunately, it seems that the Left is happy with the decision: [73] --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)