Wednesday, March 6, 2019

Not Often I Link to HuffPost

Like most of President Donald Trump’s court picks, Rushing is also a member of the conservative Federalist Society, which has been driving Trump’s judicial selection process and funneling anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ nominees to the White House....
The Senate is voting on two more circuit court nominees this week, both of whom, like Rushing, are young, ideological and Federalist Society members.Eric Murphy, 40, is up for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. He has fought to make it easier to disenfranchise voters and argued against marriage equality in the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case before the Supreme Court.
Chad Readler, 46, is up for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. He filed a brief on behalf of the Trump administration in favor of striking down the Affordable Care Act’s pre-existing coverage requirement. He has also defended efforts to weaken voting rights and defended Trump’s ban on transgender people serving in the military.
Both are expected to be confirmed along party lines, though Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Tuesday that she’ll oppose Readler. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said Tuesday that she’s undecided on her vote regarding Readler.Trump is dramatically reshaping the nation’s federal courts. With Rushing’s confirmation, he has now gotten 32 circuit judges, 53 district judges and two Supreme Court justices confirmed. That’s so many circuit judges ― more than any other president confirmed by this point in his first term ― that 1 in 6 seats on U.S. circuit courts is now filled by a judge nominated by Trump.
The progressives have been big fans of judges overturning majority will for decades and in some cases, I agree with this (you know, like when a right is explicitly listed, and not an inkblot hiding under the 9th Amendment).  Watch how fast they will be arguing for limits on judicial activism.

1 comment:

Windy Wilson said...

What could be more equal than for the government to be unintrusive and not look at what the parties to a marriage do in their bedroom than to merely verify that the marriage consist of one man and one woman who are not blood relations within a certain degree, and butt out?

I guess that's too much to expect from government where dissolution of marriage and family law bring billions of dollars in business now, as court cases and as the subject for therapists and authors and authors and speakers.