Liberals’ worst nightmare: a second supreme court pick for Trump

A future conservative nominee could affect issues ranging from womens reproductive health to LGBT rights

When, merely weeks after taking office, Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the supreme court, the freshly minted US president made good on a central promise of his campaign: to replace the late justice Antonin Scalia with a bona fide conservative.

That moment portended what is shaping up to be among the most indelible of Trump’s triumphs- the reshaping of the federal judiciary with the appointment of dozens of judges with an ideological bent toward the administration’s agenda.

Republicans are working with Trump to make a record-breaking number of appointments to federal tribunals. These new, largely young, white men will be in a position to rule on legislation that could change America for years.

But the most contentious appointment would be a second nomination to the highest court in the land. The supreme court has over decades delivered landmark decisions on issues from abortion to affirmative action and same-sex matrimony. The possibilities for Trump to install another justice on the nine-seat bench, some legal expert argue, could have profound repercussions on issues ranging from women’s reproductive health to LGBT rights.

With speculation mount over the possible retirement of supreme court justice Anthony Kennedy, Trump could have a lasting impact on reshaping America’s most important court.

” If President Trump fills another vacancy on the court it will have an enormous effect ,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley School of Law at the University of California.

” It will create the most conservative court since the mid-1 930 s ,” he added.” It would entail a majority to overrule Roe v Wade and to allow states to prohibit abortions, to eliminate all manner of affirmative action, to eliminate constitutional limits on illegal police conduct .”

The president himself underscored the power of future vacancies earlier this year, where reference is tweeted that Republican” must ALWAYS hold the Supreme court !”.

Donald J. Trump (@ realDonaldTrump)

THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED! As much as Democrat would like to see this happen, and despite the words yesterday of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, NO WAY. We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme court!

March 28, 2018

While it is not unusual for presidents to appoint supreme court justices with similar ideological tilts, Trump’s comments all but reinforced that he is unlikely to nominate a consensus pick if the opportunity. In November, the president updated his shortlist of nominees for a hypothetical vacancy, adding to a roster of proven judicial conservatives.

While the likelihood of a pending vacancy is far from corroborated, judicial watchers have set their sights on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a progressive icon who turned 85 this year, and Kennedy, a critical sway election who has been the subject of retirement rumors for the second straight year.

Ruth
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the oldest sitting magistrate at age 85, was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993. Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/ AP

Any vacancy prior to 2020 would almost certainly be filled by Trump, and a rules change adopted by Republican during the Gorsuch nomination oppose enabled the Senate to confirm supreme court justices with a simple majority vote.

Under the current balance of the court, Kennedy and the chief justice, John Roberts, though conservative appointees, have at times sided with the bench’s liberal justices.

Kennedy was the architect of several major decisions on LGBT rights, most notably the supreme court’s milestone ruling in 2015 establishing same-sex wedding as the law of the land. He is being closely watched as the likely choosing vote on the court’s highly expected decision considering a example of a baker in the state of Colorado who refused to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Camilla Taylor, the director of constitutional litigation at Lambda Legal, their own nationals civil rights group focused on LGBT issues, said Kennedy’s previous decisions in the LGBT community’s favor” helped bring our relationships and our families out of the shadows and recognized the full human beings and citizenship of our community on the court “.

Taylor voiced concern thata second Trump supreme court nominee would present” an immediate and unambiguous threat to the LGBT community .”

” Another conservative Trump justice would jeopardize our right to marry who we love, and also our fundamental equality under the law including protections from discrimination in housing, public accommodations, employment and education .”

Some nonetheless argue that if the supposition around Kennedy’s departure proved true, it would not fundamentally alter the supreme court.

Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor of statute at Vanderbilt University, said Republican pledges to overrule Roe v Wade, the supreme court’s 1973 ruling that decriminalize abortion in the US, are more designed to energize conservative voters than they are grounded in reality.

” Even if we have a more conservative replacement for Kennedy, the conservatives are not going to overrule the human rights of an abortion, they’re not going to overrule lesbian wedding ,” Fitzpatrick said.

” The reality is the big cases where he goes with the liberals are cases that I doubt the conservatives have the belly to reverse, even if they had the votes next year.

” That would be too dramatic a change in national societies ,” he added.” It would cause all kinds of turmoil and backlash in the political system. People like Chief Justice Roberts, he’s a very institutionally minded person. He’s not going to risk the supreme court’s credibility and consistently by operating it like a weathervane .”

If Trump were to oversee a supreme court vacancy, a prevailing topic remains as to whether Democrat in the Senate would force a similar blockade of the seat as Republican did under former chairperson Obama – should they retake the Senate in November’s elections

Democratic wounds have yet to mend over the repudiation of Republican to grant Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia in 2016, a hearing or a election.

The Republican opposition went despite the fact that Garland held a reputation as a widely respected centrist judge on the US appeals court.

Progressives now believe Democrat should devote any future Trump nominee what has become known in Washington as” the Garland treatment “.

Prominent Democrat have signaled reservations about resorting to the same tactics, which they argue would risk further eroding institutional norms. But Senator Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, suggested an overtly partisan pick by Trump would not receive much of an audience with Democrats.

” The topic is who you put up ,” Warren said in an interview with Pod Save America, a political podcast hosted by former Obama aides.

” The people that George W Bush would put in wouldn’t be exactly the same as the people that Barack Obama would put in. But they’d be along the same road .”

Warren noted that the climate had changed, even as she conceded it was counterproductive to follow in McConnell’s footsteps and state from the outset that Democrats would block any Trump nominee regardless of background.

” I think that’s wrong ,” she said.” But I do think you send a Neil Gorsuch to us, and the answer is no. We do hearings, we do it substantively, but the answer would be no .”

McConnell, for his part, has said any supreme court vacancy this term would be dealt with expeditiously and before the midterm elections.

” It would be a top priority ,” he told NPR last week.

” If we get a vacancy on the supreme court this year, we’ll dealing with this problem .”

Make sure to visit: CapGeneration.com

Advertisements

Daca: supreme court refuses to hear Trump’s bid to intervene on controversy

Justices refuse to take up appeal of a lower court order involving continued acceptance of renewal applications for Dreamers

The supreme court has rejected the Trump administration’s unusual request to bypass a federal court of appeals in a case stemming from the president’s cancellation of a program that protects young immigrants known as Dreamers.

The court’s decision on Monday against intervening in a California lawsuit means the government must continue to accept renewal applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or Daca.

The California us attorney general, Xavier Becerra, who brought the suit, said the decision was a victory for the “rule of law” and the 800,000 people protected from expulsion by the program.” We hope all these victories are adding up to show this is a program that is fully legal ,” Becerra said.

In September 2017, the Trump administration cancelled Daca, which offerstemporary protection against expulsion and grants eligibility for work permits to people who migrated to the US as children but do not have legal status.

Quick guide

What is Daca and who are the Dreamers?

Show Hide

Who are the Dreamers ?

Dreamers are young immigrants who would qualify for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival( Daca) program, enacted under Barack Obama in 2012. Most people in the program entered the US as children and have lived in the US for years “undocumented”. Daca devoted them temporary protection from deportation and work permits. Daca was only available to people younger than 31 on 15 June 2012, who arrived in the US before turning 16 and lived there endlessly since June 2007. Most Dreamers are from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras and the largest numbers live in California, Texas, Florida and New York. Donald Trump cancelled the program in September but has also said repeatedly he wants Congress to develop a program to “help” the population.

What will happen to the Dreamers ?

Under the Trump administration, new applications under Daca will no longer be accepted. For those currently in the program, their legal status and other Daca-related permits( such as to work and attend college) will begin expiring in March 2018- unless Congress passes legislation letting a new channel for temporary or permanent legal migration status- and Dreamers will all lose their status by March 2020.

Technically, as their status lapse they could be deported and was sent out to countries many have no familiarity with. It is still unclear whether this would happen. Fear had been rising in the run-up to last week’s announcement. Those with work permits expiring between 5 September 2017 and 5 March 2018 will be allowed to apply for renewal by 5 October.

What does the recent ruling by Judge William Alsup mean ?

In his ruling, Alsup ordered the Trump administration to restart the program, permitting Daca recipients who already qualify for the program to submit applications for renewal.

However, he said the federal government did not have to process new applications from people who had not previously received protection under the program.

When the Trump administration ended the Daca program, it allowed Daca recipients whose legal status expired on or before 5 March to renew their legal status. Roughly 22,000 recipients failed to successfully renew their legal status for various reasons.

Legal experts and immigration advocates are advising Daca recipients not to file for renewal until the administration provides more information about how it intends to comply with the ruling.

” These next days and weeks are going to create a lot of embarrassment on the legal front ,” said Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, which has filed a separate suit against the Trump administration’s termination of Daca.

Thank you for your feedback.

The Daca program was to end on 5 March, but because of decisions in the California lawsuit and a separate lawsuit in New York, the government is obliged to continue accepting renewal applications, perhaps indefinitely. People who have never had Daca benefits, however, cannot apply for the program under the courts’ orders.

” While we were hopeful for a different outcome, the supreme court very rarely grants certiorari before judgment, though in our view it was warranted for the extraordinary injunction involving the Department of Homeland Security to maintain Daca ,” a Department of Justice spokesman, Devin O’Malley, said in a statement, referring to the decision to review a instance or not, sometimes known as “cert”.

” We will continue to defend DHS’ lawful authority to wind down Daca in an orderly manner ,” he said.

The California and New York injunctions have been appealed to federal tribunals.

” It seems likely that injunctions that are in effect will stay in effect until those courts of appeals regulation, which would be at the earliest in June or later ,” said the immigration attorney Andrew Pincus, who has argued in the supreme court.

The injunctions could stay in effect beyond those rulings if the appeals courts affirm the lower courts’ decisions.

Immigration proponents cheered the supreme court decision, but underscored the necessity of achieving a permanent solution for Dreamers.

” I’m thrilled with the supreme court decision ,” said Eliana Fernandez, a plaintiff in the New York case.

Fernandez, a mom to two children born in the US, called on Congress to pass the Dream Act, which would create a pathway to citizenship for her and other Dreamers, but which has failed to be passed by successive administrations.

Donald Trump has repeatedly said he wants Congress to create a answer for Dreamers, but his decision to cancel the program has left the lives of those protected by the program hanging in the balance.

The White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement that Daca” is clearly unlawful “.

” The district judge’s decision to unilaterally reimpose a program that Congress had explicitly and repeatedly repudiated is a usurpation of legislative authority ,” Shah said.

In a brief unsigned remark, the justices say they assume” the court of appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case “.

Trump had set 5 March as the end date for the Dacaprogram.

It is unclear how the court’s action Monday will affect efforts in Congress to come up with a legislative fixing. The Senate recently failed to pass an immigration bill.

The supreme court rarely hears a lawsuit before a lower appeals court has considered it. The fight over whether Richard Nixon had to turn over the Watergate videotapes is one such example.

Make sure to visit: CapGeneration.com

In blow to GOP, supreme court allows Pennsylvania redistricting to proceed

Justice Samuel Alito repudiated a Republican plea to block an order from the state supreme court to devise new congressional districts