Why Trump's New Lower Court Nominees Matter.

[Common]

Conservative Victories: Why Trump's New Lower Court Nominees Matter...A Lot President Trump has nominated ten conservatives to fill federal judicial vacancies -- another important step in fulfilling a key election pledge that helped woo many skeptical conservative voters into his column last November. Trump won near-universal praise on the Right for his selection of Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the US Supreme Court earlier this year. Five of Trump's new nominees have been named to fill empty seats across the nation's influential circuit courts of appeals, bringing the total of pending circuit court nominations to six (the president had previously named (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/26/amul-thapar-trump-nominee-senate-hearing-237636) Judge Amul Thapar to join the sixth circuit). Despite the heavy media emphasis placed on the Supreme Court, thousands upon thousands of cases are decided and resolved at lower levels, which is why populating those courts with constitutionalists must be a priority. Some right-leaning court watchers had complained that the Trump administration was not moving swiftly enough on that front, but a White House source told me earlier this month (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/05/01/trump-scotus-list-n2320639) that additional announcements were "in the works." One week later, Trump unveiled a slate of ten nominees

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/05/09/why-trumps-new-lower-court-nominees-matter-n2323751

[Adelaide]

The court of appeals doesn't actually handle many cases. The federal judiciary in general deals with significantly less cases than state judiciaries - it's about 1% federal and 99% state or local if you look at criminal and civil proceedings. While the court of appeals has appellate jurisidiction at the federal level and is generally the court of last resort because the Supreme Court uses certiorari to pick cases, it still can only rule on technical isues. The factual record is established in federal district courts. Technical issues are a lot less controversial than the factual record. Conservative judges will not be able to sway the courts too much from that level.

Basically, this doesn't worry me.

[Scrounger]

The appeals courts, many times, issue a precedent that is so universal among the districts that the United States Supreme Court is reluctant to review the case. The more that those decisions are being made by constitutionalists, the greater the chance that the constitutional interpretation will be upheld.

[Adelaide]

The appeals courts, many times, issue a precedent that is so universal among the districts that the United States Supreme Court is reluctant to review the case. The more that those decisions are being made by constitutionalists, the greater the chance that the constitutional interpretation will be upheld.

You know that conservatives/Republicans and constitutionalists are not synonymous terms, right?

[Common]

The court of appeals doesn't actually handle many cases. The federal judiciary in general deals with significantly less cases than state judiciaries - it's about 1% federal and 99% state or local if you look at criminal and civil proceedings. While the court of appeals has appellate jurisidiction at the federal level and is generally the court of last resort because the Supreme Court uses certiorari to pick cases, it still can only rule on technical isues. The factual record is established in federal district courts. Technical issues are a lot less controversial than the factual record. Conservative judges will not be able to sway the courts too much from that level.

Basically, this doesn't worry me.
It should worry you, look at the impact bill clintons liberal judicial appointees have had and Obamas.. Trump is in the Unique position to be able to fill more than both of them, including the supreme court.

I believe judges have great impact, politically moreso now because they do not follow the constitution they follow their parties agenda

[Scrounger]

You know that conservatives/Republicans and constitutionalists are not synonymous terms, right?

No, I spent all those years studying it so that I need to be trolled over something a person with an IQ lower than their show size knows and realizes.

Trump tries to imply he is a constitutionalist at some level. He is not a Republican. He is a Democrat and most of his actions make everybody wonder whether he has some hidden belief OR he is sabotaging the Republican Party from within.

The judicial branch, in theory, is manned by people more swayed by legal and historical precedent than by political definitions of conservative or liberal.

[Scrounger]

It should worry you, look at the impact bill clintons liberal judicial appointees have had and Obamas.. Trump is in the Unique position to be able to fill more than both of them, including the supreme court.

I believe judges have great impact, politically moreso now because they do not follow the constitution they follow their parties agenda

While judges follow their party agenda, they also have more historical knowledge than most politicians. If the judge tells you they believe in following the Constitution and not legislating from the bench, even if they are not a constitutionalist, at least you have a better beginning point for getting a sound decision.

[Kalkin]

It should worry you, look at the impact bill clintons liberal judicial appointees have had and Obamas.. Trump is in the Unique position to be able to fill more than both of them, including the supreme court.

I believe judges have great impact, politically moreso now because they do not follow the constitution they follow their parties agenda
The court appointees were the real prize of the 2016 election.

[Common]

The court appointees were the real prize of the 2016 election.
The silent surprise

[Tahuyaman]

The court of appeals doesn't actually handle many cases. The federal judiciary in general deals with significantly less cases than state judiciaries - it's about 1% federal and 99% state or local if you look at criminal and civil proceedings. While the court of appeals has appellate jurisidiction at the federal level and is generally the court of last resort because the Supreme Court uses certiorari to pick cases, it still can only rule on technical isues. The factual record is established in federal district courts. Technical issues are a lot less controversial than the factual record. Conservative judges will not be able to sway the courts too much from that level.

Basically, this doesn't worry me.. You never need to worry about true constitutional conservative types. They strenuously resist government taking more power. Even you liberals benefit from that.

[Tahuyaman]

You know that conservatives/Republicans and constitutionalists are not synonymous terms, right?
Conservative and constitutionalist can be. Republican? Not so much.

[Tahuyaman]

The court appointees were the real prize of the 2016 election.
I agree with that. This far left slant of the federal courts needs to be reversed.

[Ransom]

I agree with that. This far left slant of the federal courts needs to be reversed.
I agree. It hopefully will be reversed. Harry Reid blew up filibuster chances, all one needs is majority. Let's stack the courts Conservative.