On Monday, it is said that President Trump will announce a predicted first wave of monthly federal court nominees. According to a senior White House official, the President’s first wave will contain the names of ten nominees to fill the current 120 vacant seats in federal courts. This is following, of course, Trump’s recent great conservative pick Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.
As per The New York Times:
The White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, said the nominations were a vindication of a commitment Mr. Trump made during the campaign “to appoint strong and principled jurists to the federal bench who will enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power and protect the liberty of all Americans.”
So far, one of the only campaign promises President Trump has not flipped on has been his promise of a conservative Supreme Court nominee, and these judges ideologies are likely not to be different, as Trump is reportedly pulling from the same Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society lists he used to find Neil Gorsuch; splendid news. These prospective waves of new conservatives in the judicial realm is sure to shake things up in the American court system.
Cue the Left’s outrage.
The president of the Alliance for Justice said, “The Trump administration has made clear its intention to benefit from Republican obstructionism and to pack the federal courts with ultraconservatives given a stamp of approval by the Federalist Society,” without recognizing that it is generally judges on the Left who take on the onus of activism and baselessly obstruct that which they take offense to, regardless of Constitutionality. He concluded with something I’m sure members of both sides of the political aisle can come together to an agreement of approval on, “We’ll be scrutinizing the records of these nominees very carefully.” To what basis their scrutiny will be built upon, however, can assuredly be up to interpretation. The interpretation being predicated on history; recent history, that is.
To understand the absurdity of what said scrutiny is based upon, one must look to, for example, the Alliance for Justice’s document entitled “The Gorsuch Record.” In it, they attempt to condemn Neil Gorsuch’s record as a judge by citing cases he’s ruled on and excoriating him, giving one the perception that Gorsuch should have ruled differently, even though every ruling cited was the most Constitutional decision possible on Gorsuch’s end. An example of this would be the famed Hobby Lobby case in which Gorsuch defended Constitutional religious freedom by siding with the owners of Hobby Lobby instead of those that wanted the federal government to have over-reaching power that allowed them to force business owners to provide contraceptive coverage to employees, something that the owners perceived to be against their religion. Gorsuch’s decision was then supported by the Supreme Court.