Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has threatened to keep Democrats off the campaign trail by delaying the vote on Trump's Supreme Court nominee until right before the midterm election unless they stop requesting the documents they need to vet Brett Kavanaugh.
Former Sen. Russ Feingold laid into Trump for first stealing an election, the Supreme Court, and now turning the highest court in the land into a kangaroo court.
One of President Donald Trump’s leading prospects for the U.S. Supreme Court has in the past said that presidents should not be subjected to civil lawsuits, criminal investigations or even questions from attorneys while in office.
Donald Trump is behaving like a man who knows his time is short. He got his wish of a retirement from his pal Justice Anthony Kennedy and now it is being reported that he will announce his replacement pick by July 11th. Clearly this is a man in a hurry.
Sen. Cory Booker said that there should be no vote on any Trump Supreme Court nominee until after the criminal investigation into Donald Trump ends.
On Wednesday U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced that he is retiring effective July 31. Concerning the implications of Kennedy’s retirement, we wrote yesterday:
“Kennedy’s retirement effective essentially immediately means that the dysfunctional president and dysfunctional Republican-led Senate have to hustle to get a Supreme Court justice confirmed before the next term begins in October. Kennedy was a Reagan appointee, so his replacement won’t change the makeup of the court, but it will cement a 5-4 conservative majority for the foreseeable future.”
The United States Supreme Court is seen as the last resort for Americans whose views are not shared by the majority. However Tuesday’s ruling upholding President Donald Trump’s travel ban was called a “decision that will live in infamy.”
U.S. Senate Democratic leader Charles Schumer said on Wednesday the Senate should reject any Supreme Court nominee put forth by President Donald Trump who would vote to overturn the Roe v. Wade abortion decision or "undermine" healthcare protections.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a gerrymandered congressional district map in North Carolina which was supported by the state’s Republican Party, overturning a lower court’s ruling which had said the map was unconstitutional. The ruling was considered a major setback for North Carolina’s Democratic Party.
Republicans Pennsylvania House Speaker Michael Turzai and Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati said the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had “handicapped” Alito by “failing to provide a full opinion to accompany its order to redraw the state’s congressional map.”
Trump is doing the very thing he accuses opponents of his policies of doing: he is court shopping, or trying to get the case heard in a sympathetic court. Trump's attempt to bypass the lower courts on DACA may further damage the judiciary's independence.
But the fast trip to the nation's highest judicial body was not the first time the administration took the unusual route of circumventing liberal-leaning lower courts and heading straight to the conservative-majority Supreme Court for relief from legal setbacks.
Trump is so out of his mind that he thinks that he will appoint four Supreme Court justices by 2020.
On October 3, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could deem “partisan gerrymandering” constitutional.
The challenge comes as the Trump administration tries to redefine the definition of family for the purpose of enforcing their unconstitutional ban.
Trump has been losing so much so often during his presidency that even a partial Supreme Court win on his Muslim ban has become a cause for celebration for a party that has seen a president do nothing but watch Fox News, play golf, and lose.
In another defeat for Republican efforts to keep African-Americans from voting, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal to reinstate North Carolina's Voter ID law.
It’s conceivable that Trump is hoping his boy Gorsuch will welcome the opportunity to expand corporate “religious freedom” to all corporations, whether said religious views are sincerely held, or merely more profitable. But if we go with the existing jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, this element of the Executive Order will fail.
"Texas Senate has no problem with taxpayer-funded discrimination against virtually anyone who doesn't meet a public official's personal [religious] standards."