Justice Department tells American Bar Association it will no longer comply with ratings for judicial nominees

How would I find the best judges? Eliminate every judge recommended by the Federalist Society from consideration.

Look at the mess they made granting presidents immunity! Look at the crimes being committed out in the open since that disastrous decision. Accepting half million dollar planes from Qatar (and Qatar apparently wants Trump to sign a statement that his administration "requested" it.)
Granting pardons to million dollar donors. Granting over 1,000 partners to domestic terrorists who were videotaped committing their terroristic acts at the Capitol on 1/6/2021. Extorting mineral rights from Ukraine far over the value of any support we've given.

The Federalist Society judges have given a get-out-of-jail free card to a criminal in chief. That should bar the DOJ from considering any of their recommended judges again.

Valletta said:

I think the ABA should be replaced.

Click to expand...

Isn’t the ABA a private entity?

Fantine said:

How would I find the best judges? Eliminate every judge recommended by the Federalist Society from consideration.

Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. The Federalist Society has largely been a great boon for the justice system with its strong encouragement of originalism and textualism.

Fantine said:

Look at the mess they made granting presidents immunity! Look at the crimes being committed out in the open since that disastrous decision. Accepting half million dollar planes from Qatar (and Qatar apparently wants Trump to sign a statement that his administration "requested" it.)
Granting pardons to million dollar donors. Granting over 1,000 partners to domestic terrorists who were videotaped committing their terroristic acts at the Capitol on 1/6/2021. Extorting mineral rights from Ukraine far over the value of any support we've given.

Click to expand...

And the immunity decision affected any of that... how?

None of the things you listed are, as far as I can tell, even crimes. You might have disliked Trump's pardons, but there's nothing illegal about them I can see. I think the pardoning power is stupid and should be removed, but it is a power and there's nothing illegal about what you've pointed to. And quite frankly, I can't say any of those are much more corrupt than what past Presidents have done with it either. It's for a long time just been used corruptly by Presidents, hence why I think it should be removed. So the immunity decision has no effect on this.

As for Qatar, I don't think he's even done it yet, but again there isn't any crime here that I see. It may or may not violation the Emoluments Clause, but violating it isn't a crime! (I was rather surprised to discover this) If the President violated the Emoluments clause, then the judging power is not in the criminal justice system, but by congress, who can impeach. So the immunity decision has no effect on this.

As for Ukraine, whatever "extortion" there may be in exchange for support, that's again (as far as I can tell) not anything illegal. Countries can negotiate with other countries, and they can, if in an advantaged position, get more out of the other country than one might seem as fair. So the immunity decision has no effect on this.

So none of these are the result of the immunity decision, or really have much of anything to do with it. I didn't even agree with that decision, but it really doesn't relate to the things you mentioned. Your apparent go-to example of how bad the Federalist Society is... isn't an example of it at all.

Fantine said:

The Federalist Society judges have given a get-out-of-jail free card to a criminal in chief. That should bar the DOJ from considering any of their recommended judges again.

Click to expand...

I am of the opinion that, despite doing some things I disagree with like the immunity decision, every justice of the Supreme Court who's a member of the Federalist Society is better than the justices who aren't (at least, the judges who have been around long enough for me to properly judge--I can't really rank Jackson yet). As far as I'm concerned, Roe v. Wade was such a nonsensical decision that any justice who votes to overturn it is more or less inherently better than one who doesn't.

If they were originalists the Second Amendment would be hugely downsized--as it was till the NRA went commando in the 1980's.
Pardons for sale. In Ukraine, protection for sale (shades of organized crime there.)
Musk's DOGE job bought and paid for. The billionaire cabinet members greased his palms. Worst of all, Rogue Nations bought his worthless cryptocurrency for billions propping up the price and increasing his net worth. Problem is that their ownership of all that crypto gives them a lot of control over him. They can threaten to pull the rug from under him if he doesn't do what they want. The laissez-faire Supreme Court made it impossible for him to be a criminal during his term, but that hasn't stopped him from using his office as a personal bank account.

Valletta said:

The ABA, established in the late 1800s, has grown into a sprawling organization that touts a membership of over 400,000 legal workers.
But it has sparked criticism from Republicans, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, previously blasted the ABA as a "radical left-wing advocacy group."

Justice Department tells American Bar Association it will no longer comply with ratings for judicial nominees

The Department of Justice will no longer comply with the American Bar Association's ratings process for judicial nominees, citing the organization's alleged liberal bias.

www.yahoo.com

I am encouraged by this. The ABA did not sanction the judges that went after Trump and made a mockery of the law and Constitution. I think the ABA should be replaced.

Click to expand...

How about this. Maybe Republicans should stop doing things that warrant judicial criticism. To infer it's those big ol bad judges fault for correctly adjudicating the actions of someone who has a long long history of flouting the laws is really, well, really kind of rich.

Fantine said:

If they were originalists the Second Amendment would be hugely downsized--as it was till the NRA went commando in the 1980's.

Click to expand...

Except the argument that the Second Amendment, in original public meaning, protects an individual right is rather strong. Akhil Amar, who is a politically liberal originalist, has acknowledged as much; see, for example, this article of his. But that, to be fair, is from quite a while ago. Much more recently, as I recall, he endorsed the decision of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen on his podcast (this was when talking about the Rahimi decision, which he also agreed with).

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the Second Amendment were repealed. But for better or for worse, it is in the Constitution.

Fantine said:

Pardons for sale. In Ukraine, protection for sale (shades of organized crime there.)
Musk's DOGE job bought and paid for. The billionaire cabinet members greased his palms. Worst of all, Rogue Nations bought his worthless cryptocurrency for billions propping up the price and increasing his net worth. Problem is that their ownership of all that crypto gives them a lot of control over him. They can threaten to pull the rug from under him if he doesn't do what they want. The laissez-faire Supreme Court made it impossible for him to be a criminal during his term, but that hasn't stopped him from using his office as a personal bank account.

Click to expand...

First, I notice your lack of an actual response to my points. You pointed to a bunch of things you claimed the immunity decision caused, and then I correctly pointed out it has nothing to do with those things you were complaining about. Now you just ignore all of that and change the subject to complain about stuff Trump did that you don't like... that appears to somehow have even less of a connection with the Supreme Court than what you were complaining about before. You throw out the claim that the Supreme Court "Made it impossible for him to be a criminal during his term" (a considerable exaggeration, for the record), but that again has nothing to do with the things you're complaining about.

JSRG said:

Except the argument that the Second Amendment, in original public meaning, protects an individual right is rather strong. Akhil Amar, who is a politically liberal originalist, has acknowledged as much; see, for example, this article of his. But that, to be fair, is from quite a while ago. Much more recently, as I recall, he endorsed the decision of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen on his podcast (this was when talking about the Rahimi decision, which he also agreed with).

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the Second Amendment were repealed. But for better or for worse, it is in the Constitution.


First, I notice your lack of an actual response to my points. You pointed to a bunch of things you claimed the immunity decision caused, and then I correctly pointed out it has nothing to do with those things you were complaining about. Now you just ignore all of that and change the subject to complain about stuff Trump did that you don't like... that appears to somehow have even less of a connection with the Supreme Court than what you were complaining about before. You throw out the claim that the Supreme Court "Made it impossible for him to be a criminal during his term" (a considerable exaggeration, for the record), but that again has nothing to do with the things you're complaining about.

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court made it possible for him to commit crimes with impunity. They removed guardrails when the most corrupt president in history was running for a second term.

Fantine said:

The Supreme Court made it possible for him to commit crimes with impunity. They removed guardrails when the most corrupt president in history was running for a second term.

Click to expand...

Yet again you simply restate your claim without responding to the points I raised.

But even if we were to suppose that it made it possible for him to commit crimes with impunity (again, a considerable overstatement), the fact of the matter is that the things you've cited are not affected by the decision, because none of them appear to be prosecutable crimes to begin with. They may or may not be bad things, but don't appear affected by the decision.

I don't even agree with the decision (I wish, if nothing else, that Barrett's concurring opinion had been the majority opinion instead, as it approached it in a much more logical manner and got rid of the most egregious part of it), and yet your criticism of it is so over-the-top and erroneous I still have to defend it.

At any rate, I'll gladly take then getting something like Trump v. United States wrong if they get something like Dobbs v. Jackson right.