There are five months or so until the election. At this point, the major polls have Clinton and Trump tied. Among registered voters, WaPo/ABC has Trump ahead by 2; for NBC, it's Clinton ahead by 3; for NYT/CBS Clinton is up by 6; and Fox has Trump up by 3. Likely voters tend to be slightly more Republican and a slightly better predictor of actual results. Thus, for now, it's a tie.
With that as the state of play, I'm happy to join the game going on elsewhere in this town, to wit, suggesting names for Trump's VP and the Supreme Court nominees.
N,B. This is not an endorsement of Trump. CJLF does not endorse candidates, and I personally am not at this point. My favorites, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, didn't get this far.
For Vice-President:
-- Jim Comey. Widely respected for his honesty, probity, maturity and judgment, and thus a wonderful foil for Trump. Has broad experience in the most critical areas of government responsibility, to wit, physical protection of the population from crime and terrorism. Trusted on both sides of the aisle.
-- Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC). First elected black Republican from South Carolina since Reconstruction and a strong conservative. Will shore up Trump with both conservatives (who justifiably have their doubts) and with those who look upon Trump as a racist.
-- Former Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ). Won convincingly in an important border state with a large Hispanic population. One of the huge issues in the campaign (although in an odd way, still a sleeper) is immigration.
-- Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH). Provides youth (47) to Trump's age (69). Was state Attorney General. Has a moderate image but a decently strong conservative voting record, and (important from my perspective) has conspicuously declined to endorse the SRCA. She's acutely aware of the dangers of drugs, given the heroin crisis in her state.
-- Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK). Only in his first term, but headed for greatness. This would be an early step in getting there. A Harvard Law graduate and combat veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, Cotton masters complex issues as quickly and thoroughly as anyone I have seen in Congress. A politician of unusual character and directness; he would be a breath of fresh air.
For the Supreme Court:
Trump has already named at least three excellent potential nominees -- Judges Ray Kethledge, Diane Sykes and Bill Pryor. I would add:
-- Hon. Mike Luttig, a former Scalia clerk and for many years a judge on the Fourth Circuit. At the time of his appointment by Pres. Reagan, he was the youngest circuit court judge in the country. For the past ten years, he has been General Counsel of Boeing. He thus has experience outside the government, something that Trump (and many others) will look on as a plus.
-- Hon. Paul Clement, formerly Solicitor General for Pres. George W. Bush and widely thought to be one of the most persuasive Supreme Court advocates of his day.
-- Miguel Estrada, formerly Assistant to the Solicitor General. Miguel is so good that the Democrats waged a years-long (and unfortunately successful) campaign to deny him a vote on his nomination for the DC Circuit. Since then, like Paul Clement, Miguel has established himself as the go-to guy for Supreme Court litigation.
-- Prof. Randy Barnett of Georgetown (a colleague of mine). A brilliant constitutional theorist and former Chicago prosecutor. Randy is a libertarian, but does not suffer from ideological tunnel vision. Has a balanced, gracious and moderate temperament and an intellect stunning in its breadth and depth.
I would be VERY interested, Bill, on you take on what Trump has been saying lately about judicial bias based on ethnicity.
I think he says whatever he wants, which is not new. Maybe he should have been a defense lawyer.
My own view is that a person's ethnicity is irrelevant. A person's VIEW of ethnicity, however, may be relevant indeed. If, for example, one thinks that blacks are entitled to more (or fewer) goodies from the judicial system simply because they're black, I must dissent. Race doesn't count. Attitudes count. Behavior counts.
But now that we're at it...........what do you think of the defense argument in McCallum v. Georgia that criminal defendants are entitled to strike prospective jurors based solely on race?
Now that I'm thinking of it, didn't you recently say that you were disappointed in the nomination of Crusty Old White Man Merrick Garland because you would have preferred someone of a different race???
Should SCOTUS candidates also be dropped down the list because of their religion (too many Catholics, too many Jews -- I've heard both in my lifetime)?
Apart from all the other things wrong with this way of thinking, which are numerous and serious, there's the fact that the Court, being in the judicial rather than the political branch, IS NOT SUPPOSED to be representative to start with.
In many states, Bill, judges are elected, so in that way, many courts are designed to be "representative." More to the point, I do not desire a (multi-member) court that is perfectly "representative," I desire a collection of judges that refelcts the diversity of perspectives and experiences that make America a uniquely wonderful and successful melting pot. And that is because, like you, I believe "Attitudes count. Behavior counts." AND also experiences count --- and having diverse attitudes and experiences of lots of different Americans as jurists seems to me to be an important way to help minimize the impact of the kinds of conscious and unconscious bias that I believe both of us find so troublesome.
So, rather than change the topic, Bill, on a post about a future Trump administration, I remain eager to hear what you think about the recent "behavior" of the GOP nominee for Prez. To their credit, a good number of GOP leaders have condemned his judge-bias comments. But while you are busy condemning defense attorneys in multiple posts, you (and others here) have been tellingly silent on an issue that seem to cut to the heart of the rule of law and the importance of an independent judiciary.
Please understand, I am not trying to play "gotcha" here. I just want to know if you share my deep concerns about what Trump has been saying lately. Notably, Alberto Gonzales has come to his partial defense, and I am wondering if you are similarly inclined.
"In many states, Bill, judges are elected, so in that way, many courts are designed to be 'representative.'"
But in the only jurisdiction Trump aspires to head, judges are not elected, so why are you even going there?
"I desire a collection of judges that refelcts the diversity of perspectives and experiences that make America a uniquely wonderful and successful melting pot."
...which desire just happens to coincide with putting on the Court members of demographic groups more frequently sharing your pro-defendant outlook.
What a coincidence!!!
"...having diverse attitudes and experiences of lots of different Americans as jurists seems to me to be an important way to help minimize the impact of the kinds of conscious and unconscious bias that I believe both of us find so troublesome."
So far as I know, you've cited no evidence that Merrick Garland has bias of any kind, yet you downgraded him in favor of minorities SOLELY because of his race.
Yup, we agree on some things. But on that, we part ways. I would not confirm Garland to Scalia's seat, but my opposition has zero to do with race and it never will. As in N-E-V-E-R.
"So, rather than change the topic, Bill, on a post about a future Trump administration, I remain eager to hear what you think about the recent 'behavior' of the GOP nominee for Prez."
I think the same thing your new pal, Newt Gingrich, thinks. And the same thing I thought of his behavior when The Donald was, in my estimation, at the bottom of the (one-time) list of 17 Republican presidential aspirants.
"But while you are busy condemning defense attorneys in multiple posts..."
You better believe it. The condemnation will continue full blast as long for as the defense bar continues its deceitfulness, cruelty and misogyny. And I dearly wish you would join me, and, in addition, blog about this dishonest and gross "20 minutes of action" narrative the defense was sponsoring at a rapist's sentencing.
(You might also want to blog about the racism in the Left's denying Miguel Estrada a vote. Well, at least it wasn't misogyny).
"... you (and others here) have been tellingly silent on an issue that seem to cut to the heart of the rule of law and the importance of an independent judiciary."
Defendants in civil cases yelping about the judge is the oldest trick in law, except only for criminal defendants' routine lying. It becomes a threat to the rule of law if and when -- and only if and when -- The Donald becomes President, which oddsmakers now have as a remote possibility.
I tend to worry about what actually happens (Wendell Callahan's early release on account of sentencing reform and flagrant attorney lying), not so much about what might or might not happen.
And more to the point, if Trump were to appoint any of the seven SCOTUS candidates I mentioned, the rule of law would be in vastly better shape than if Hillary (or Obama) appointed a results-driven ideologue like Jane Kelly, to whom you also gave plenty of favorable ink.
Bill, I hope you can see the (Trumpesque?) comedy of your suggestion we ought not yet worry about The Donald becoming President in the comment thread of a post in which you are starting to "Flesh[] Out the Trump Administration."
In any event, I am pleased to hear you think what The Donald has been saying is "inappropriate." (For the record, and like federalist, I also find somewhat inappropriate your eagerness to throw around the label "racist" and also to wrongly accuse me of "downgraded him ... SOLELY because of his race." I downgrade him because his background and experience and behavior and attitude strike me, in my opinion, to be too similar to a lot of persons already serving on the Court.)
I would be inclined to ask you the basis for your saying unanimously confirmed Jane Kelly is a "results-driven ideologue," but I am getting tired in this thread of feeling like I am having a discussion with Sean Hannity rather than with a former senior DOJ official. Sigh...
"Bill, I hope you can see the (Trumpesque?) comedy of your suggestion we ought not yet worry about The Donald becoming President in the comment thread of a post in which you are starting to "Flesh[] Out the Trump Administration."
Worrying about a likely-never-to-exist Trump administration is different from setting forth my wish list for VP and SCOTUS, which would be the same no matter who becomes President.
Still, I'll give you credit for a good rhetorical device. They are under-appreciated.
"I also find somewhat inappropriate your eagerness to throw around the label "racist" and also to wrongly accuse me of "downgraded him ... SOLELY because of his race." I downgrade him because his background and experience and behavior and attitude strike me, in my opinion, to be too similar to a lot of persons already serving on the Court.)"
Tell me that if Garland were black, you wouldn't be enthusiastic about him. Please! Tell me!!
And I'm too old to fall for the trick of using "background and experience" as a thinly disguised proxy for "race." Exactly the same thing is going on with college affirmative action plans. It's a way of saying "race" without having to say "race." College admissions officers have known this for about 30 years. Now the rest of us do, too.
Still, I'll confess that I actually WANT Supreme Court justices to have an identical outlook: Fidelity to the written Constitution. All this "behavior and attitude" talk is a more clever and circumlocutious way of making the argument for "empathy" first, Constitution second.
I am not buying that argument. Indeed, I doubt I'd buy it for the legislature, much less the judiciary.
"I would be inclined to ask you the basis for your saying unanimously confirmed Jane Kelly is a "results-driven ideologue," but I am getting tired in this thread of feeling like I am having a discussion with Sean Hannity rather than with a former senior DOJ official. Sigh..."
Well, each of us tires of different things. I personally am a mite weary with your avoiding a discussion of the new defense moniker for rape ("20 Minutes of Action"); the dishonesty and callousness that spawns thinking like that; the merits of any of the SCOTUS nominees I suggested; and the fact that Dan Markel's killer should long since have been in jail but for a shockingly lax and lenient criminal justice attitude. (Instead, you tried to turn that thread into a discussion of the death penalty. You did this with a ridiculous question whether I would support capital punishment for "everyone involved in this hit").
Oh, sure.
You wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole the actual subject of that thread. It just didn't play well with your argument that we have too many people in jail.
You remain the master of staying on offense. I should have such discipline (and I'm sincere about that).
Bill, the father of the offender came up with that awful moniker for rape --- though I share your eagerness to figure out if the defense attorney saw/blessed it. Either way, I am not avoiding the discussion --- indeed, I now have a post up on the case, have responded to some of your posts n the case, and I am not quite sure what you want me to say other than that is an awful phrase for a crime.
On the merits of your SCOTUS list, I like it. I woud be especially eager to see folks I personally know/respect like Clement and Barnett.
As for the Markel murder, I really wonder whether/if the apparent family hit would have found another killer even if the actual shooter were still locked up. And I do not think it a distraction to ask if you think this kind of murder-for-hire merits the death penalty.
I trust you realize I always try to respond to all your queries as my time and energy permits. And I only "stay on the offensive" because I am always eager to hear your opinions on hard questions --- like whether someone who values the rule of law can really be comfortable backing Trump to be Prez. (For the record, I have long despised the Clintons because I think they, too, are terrible for the Rule of Law.)
Oh, if Garland was a defense attorney, I would be much more excited about his nomination. And you are again so funny to assail others about speaking about the importance of using "background and experience" in the comment thread of a post in which you make much of the background and experience of all the people you hope to see in a Trump administration. Yeesh again, ...