Trump - Supreme Court Watch

[SB Shock]

Trump Supreme Court pick is looking like is Gorusch or Hardiman and will be announced tonight. I figured this is big enough event that it should have it own thread.

[ShockerPrez]

Did he even consider John Higgins, Jansen or Ed Hightower?

[jdshock]

My money is on Gorsuch, but I also predicted the election wrong, so... who knows.

Gorsuch teaches an antitrust law class at Colorado University on Tuesdays, and last I saw it hadn't been canceled yet. What a strange situation. If it had been canceled early, there would've been a legitimate possibility that his students would've been some of the first people in the country to know the nominee.

[John Higgins]

You will find out tonight, but just a hint, you better get used to addressing me as Mr. Chief Justice.

[ShockingButTrue]

Did he even consider John Higgins, Jansen or Ed Hightower?

:bball_spin: Whoever he "hires" I'm just glad we've -ahem- "diversified" our political talking points beyond Trump. That thread was becoming a little glutted.

After all the shenanigans going on this week it seems Hardiman would be the logical one to fill the designate seat. It probably was not accidental.

[SB Shock]

My money is on Gorsuch, but I also predicted the election wrong, so... who knows.

Gorsuch teaches an antitrust law class at Colorado University on Tuesdays, and last I saw it hadn't been canceled yet. What a strange situation. If it had been canceled early, there would've been a legitimate possibility that his students would've been some of the first people in the country to know the nominee.

I will be interested in a full "scouting" report from you on whoever is chosen.

[Kung Wu]

Regardless which he picks, he will have a fight initially. If he picks Gorsuch, the liberals will scream bloody murder. If he chooses Hardiman, the Republicans AND the liberals will be cry babies. So if he wants Hardiman, the correct move is to:

Choose Gorsuch.

This will placate the conservatives who would NOT have rallied around Hardiman like they would around Gorsuch (again, Hardiman isn't terrible, but he's no Scalia). The liberals will scream bloody murder either way. So then, when the heat is on Gorsuch, Trump can "cave" and make a more conciliatory next pick in Hardiman (remember: this is Trump's sister's peer). When he does that he will actually have the Republicans rallying around Hardiman more so than if he were to select him initially, since they just got beat over the head with the Gorsuch pick.

In this gambit, the liberals claim victory in blocking Gorsuch, but Trump gets the guy he really wants in Hardiman and gets the Republicans to buy in. The only problem with the gambit is, Gorsuch may actually stick if the Democrat filibuster fails to materialize or if the GOP goes nuclear. Trump could then pick Hardiman, however, as his next choice when the next Supreme Court judge steps down.

The alternative is to pick Hardiman first. In that scenario, the liberals scream bloody murder, and the Republicans aren't as excited as they otherwise could be and probably wouldn't go nuclear. If he had to cave on Hardiman, it will be tough to go _more_ conservative unless the GOP is willing to go nuclear.

So really the correct choice is: Gorsuch. But expect Hardiman to take the seat, unless the GOP has the balls to go nuclear.

On the otherhand, I just have 10 minutes to kill and that's why I am typing this nonsense, because I actually haven't a clue what I am talking about.

[jdshock]

I will be interested in a full "scouting" report from you on whoever is chosen.

LOL

I will say one of the things I'm very interested in seeing is the religion of the nominees (it may already be public. I admittedly haven't looked). Since 2010, the Court has been entirely Catholic or Jewish, which is such a strange occurrence considering the general lack of Catholics or Jews in the White House. It will be interesting to see if a Protestant makes it back onto the Court. I know Hardiman went to Georgetown and Notre Dame, so I think it's more likely than not that he is Catholic, but I really have no idea.

[jdshock]

Regardless which he picks, he will have a fight initially. If he picks Gorsuch, the liberals will scream bloody murder. If he chooses Hardiman, the Republicans AND the liberals will be cry babies. So if he wants Hardiman, the correct move is to:

Choose Gorsuch.

This will placate the conservatives who would NOT have rallied around Hardiman like they would around Gorsuch (again, Hardiman isn't terrible, but he's no Scalia). The liberals will scream bloody murder either way. So then, when the heat is on Gorsuch, Trump can "cave" and make a more conciliatory next pick in Hardiman (remember: this is Trump's sister's peer). When he does that he will actually have the Republicans rallying around Hardiman more so than if he were to select him initially, since they just got beat over the head with the Gorsuch pick.

In this gambit, the liberals claim victory in blocking Gorsuch, but Trump gets the guy he really wants in Hardiman and gets the Republicans to buy in. The only problem with the gambit is, Gorsuch may actually stick if the Democrat filibuster fails to materialize or if the GOP goes nuclear. Trump could then pick Hardman, however, as his next choice when the next Supreme Court judge steps down.

The alternative is to pick Hardiman first. In that scenario, the liberals scream bloody murder, and the Republicans aren't as excited as they otherwise could be and probably wouldn't go nuclear. If he had to cave on Hardiman, it will be tough to go _more_ conservative unless the GOP is willing to go nuclear.

So really the correct choice is: Gorsuch. But expect Hardiman to take the seat, unless the GOP has the balls to go nuclear.

On the otherhand, I just have 10 minutes to kill and that's why I am typing this nonsense, because I actually haven't a clue what I am talking about.

That makes more sense than it had any right to

[ShockerPrez]

Regardless which he picks, he will have a fight initially. If he picks Gorsuch, the liberals will scream bloody murder. If he chooses Hardiman, the Republicans AND the liberals will be cry babies. So if he wants Hardiman, the correct move is to:

Choose Gorsuch.

This will placate the conservatives who would NOT have rallied around Hardiman like they would around Gorsuch (again, Hardiman isn't terrible, but he's no Scalia). The liberals will scream bloody murder either way. So then, when the heat is on Gorsuch, Trump can "cave" and make a more conciliatory next pick in Hardiman (remember: this is Trump's sister's peer). When he does that he will actually have the Republicans rallying around Hardiman more so than if he were to select him initially, since they just got beat over the head with the Gorsuch pick.

In this gambit, the liberals claim victory in blocking Gorsuch, but Trump gets the guy he really wants in Hardiman and gets the Republicans to buy in. The only problem with the gambit is, Gorsuch may actually stick if the Democrat filibuster fails to materialize or if the GOP goes nuclear. Trump could then pick Hardman, however, as his next choice when the next Supreme Court judge steps down.

The alternative is to pick Hardiman first. In that scenario, the liberals scream bloody murder, and the Republicans aren't as excited as they otherwise could be and probably wouldn't go nuclear. If he had to cave on Hardiman, it will be tough to go _more_ conservative unless the GOP is willing to go nuclear.

So really the correct choice is: Gorsuch. But expect Hardiman to take the seat, unless the GOP has the balls to go nuclear.

On the otherhand, I just have 10 minutes to kill and that's why I am typing this nonsense, because I actually haven't a clue what I am talking about.

Inconceivable!

[Kung Wu]

Inconceivable!

Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!

[SB Shock]

The Supreme Court Nominee is: Judge Neil M. Gorsuch (10th Circuit - Denver)

This is poetic justice for Harry Reid when he decided to break 40 years of senate tradition and employ the "nuclear" option for getting the 2nd high court judges appointed. Paybacks are a ....

[ShockingButTrue]

I'll be darned.

[Kung Wu]

And Operation Kung Wu is under way. Now will the GOP have the balls to go nuclear or does the full Hardiman Gambit play out? Your turn GOP.

[shocka khan]

LOL

I will say one of the things I'm very interested in seeing is the religion of the nominees (it may already be public. I admittedly haven't looked). Since 2010, the Court has been entirely Catholic or Jewish, which is such a strange occurrence considering the general lack of Catholics or Jews in the White House. It will be interesting to see if a Protestant makes it back onto the Court. I know Hardiman went to Georgetown and Notre Dame, so I think it's more likely than not that he is Catholic, but I really have no idea.

I have a friend who put her kids through Georgetown. Her kids went to HS at Second Baptist HS here in Houston. Just because someone went to Georgetown (and especially for post-graduate work) doesn't automatically mean they're Catholic. People go to Georgetown for a lot of reasons, primarily among them is that they want an education at a top-notch school and can afford it (IIRC it's at least 100K per year, I'm thinking close to a half-mil for a full four years).

I would also venture to guess if Gorsuch is from northern Indiana (like Fort Wayne, for instance), it might have been he went to Notre Dame because it is close. Note I haven't the foggiest clue where Gorsuch is from, just pointing out (since spending some time up in that neck of the woods) that there are a lot of locals in the area who go to ND. If they don't go to IU or IUPUI or IPFW, the only other choice up in northern Indiana is Purdue. Purdue is also relatively expensive, with out-of-state tuition running about 40K/yr.

EDIT, says he is from Colorado. Perhaps him and Goatlube have something in common.....