Trump Changes the Judiciary with Judge Selections (Correct)

on American courts. Here to talk with us about how the President seems to be approaching judicial nominations for the federal judiciary are Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve Law School, and Billy Courier, Deputy director of Legal Process at the Center for American Progress. Jonathan, the President is said to be on the verge of nominating about ten judges for federal positions on the judiciary, and uh the way he's approaching a conservatives probably should be happy

with the way he intends to go, Isn't that right? Certainly, the names that have and identified are all incredibly well respected and incredibly well qualified lawyers injurists, people that have demonstrated, uh, they're commitment to the principles of the rule of law and their intellectual acumen. Um, there's sort of folks that conservatives who care about the courts would want to see. Billy, how much of what Jonathan just said, would you disagree with? Uh?

You know, based on this list. Uh, you know, we're we're still learning about some of these people, but it looks to be a very well credential, well qualified uh people that that Donald Trump is nominating. Well, I mean, I agree that I think conservatives will be very happy with this list. Um, I'm not sure that I would describe all of the nominees as extremely well qualified. UM.

Joean Larson, for example, has very little experience as a judge. Um. But she actually appeared on Trump's uh potential list of potential Supreme Court nominees. UM. But she's only been on the benches to don and fifty answer, that's not a lot of experience. She had more has more experiences a judge than Elena Kagan did when she was nominated to

the Supreme Court. More experience, Uh, probably an attorney before leon Kagan became the listener general, I think if we compare the qualifications of these nominees to appelic courts to the qualifications of people that have been confirmed unanimously over the past twenty years. Uh, they're comparable or or they exceed the qualifications we would expect. I mean, you know, we we apply the standards we usually would apply. I don't think there's any basis to question the qualifications of

any of these central nominees. Well, Jonathan the you know, one of the things was kind of interesting and unprecedented about the way President Trump approached the Supreme Court nomination that ended up, as with Neil Gorsitch, was that he had he put out a list that seemed to come predominantly from uh, you would look like the Federal Society, you know, and and sort of he had it felt almost some to some people like he had outsourced who he was going to jet who's going to pick for

a Supreme Court judge hip? What's the process as far as we know about how he's come up with his list for the lower courts? Uh, you know, I think this president, like presidents generally, seek the advice of people that are experts in the field when trying to identify potential judicial nominees and also seek the input of the senators from other relevant states, particularly when we're looking at district court nominations. I think that's what's occurring here. But

that's what's all what what often occurs. I mean, we know that during the Obama administration, uh, the Obama administration was influenced by the views of outside groups in deciding to nominate some individuals over others uh and in terms, and also was influenced by home state senators. I don't think there's anything unusual about that. I mean, when when we elect a president, we we certainly pay attention to the sort of person that we think that that that

president is likely to appoint to the judiciary. But we don't expect the president and or herself to on their own be able to come up with a list of quality wid on nominees. We assume that they will rely upon experts and and their staff to help them with that, just like they do for all all sorts of policy matters. Billy, isn't there something to that? Do you see any uh, fundamental difference between the way Donald Trump is approaching judge ships and the way Barack Obama or George Bush or

any other recent president did. Yeah, I believe so. I mean you mentioned at the beginning of that question that, uh, the President explicitly said that he's outsourcing his Supreme Court nominee list to the Federalist Society into Heritage, and and that's unprecedented. Um, you know, not just the list, but

having these outside groups actually draw up the list. Um. And I think also, um, you know, the President has disregarded the American Bar associations historic role in this process, and that was something that of course President Bush did as well. Um. But I think it's something that shows that the President is relying on these right wing groups rather than uh, the American Bar Association, which historically played a big role in recommending or not recommending nominees. Jonathan.

Given the number of judge hips that are open right now, how big an impact really can we expect President Trump's nominees to have as far as how the lug gets interpreted in the country for the next over the next ten or fifteen years. Sure, well, in terms of numbers, it takes a long time for a single president, uh

to really alter the composition of the federal courts. As a general rule, we can assume that a president in a single four year term will get to nominate about one fifth of the federal judiciary, and so two term president has a very substantial impact. And President Obama, for example, when he took office, there was one federal appellate court that had a majority of Democratic nominees on it when he became president. When he left, I believe it was

seven or eight that have a majority Democratic nominees. UM for President Trump, UM, there's certainly are a decent number of vacancies now, but there's only one federal appellate court um that could that could have its balt altered based on existing vacancies, and that's the Third Circuit UH, and it would take time in additional retirements for his nominees to have President Trump made it clear that he intended to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court, and he did

so when he nominated Neil Gorsitch, who was now on the bench. Now he's starting to nominate judges to the lower federal courts, and the list of his first nominees is solidly conservative. With about twenty federal judge ships open, there may be an opportunity for President Trump to move the federal traditional system overall to the right. We are talking about the president's judicial nominations with Jonathan Adler, professor at Case Western Reserve Law School, and Billy Corrier, Deputy

director of Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress. Billy, when Barack Obama was president, Uh, the Republicans in the Senate slowed down a lot of nominations. There are a lot of negotiations about what to do about it. And eventually, to make a long story short, Uh, the Democrats got rid of the judicial filibuster for courts below the Supreme Court. Um. Can we expect that the Democrats now facing a Republican president who seems to have a philosophy about how he's

about putting conservatives on the court. Can we expect them to be trying to fight these nominations in the same way that the Republicans slowed things down back in the Obama administration. Well, I mean, I think, um. The big differences of course, that the Democrats are in the minority. UM, so they don't have the power to, you know, determine when candidates or nominees are brought up for a vote or not. Um. But I think that you can't expect them to take a hard look at the records of

these judges. Um, And I think that for the home state senators where these nominees are coming from, I think that Bill they'll particularly take a really hard look at the records of these judges and decide whether or not

they can they can support them. Jonathan. There are ten names on on this list, first reported by The New York Times Sunday Night, which which names they're sort of jump out at you, either as somebody we might be talking about as a Supreme Court nominee in the future, or who might just become a a leading voice as a federal appeals Court judge or a federal district judge

for that matter. Well, sure, I think too. Well. Two of the names, Justice David Strauss, who's a Supreme Court justice in Minnesota, and Justice John Lawson, who's a Supreme Court justice in Michigan, we're already on Trump's list of one potential Supreme Court nominee, So uh, assuming they are both seated on federal pellate courts, I would think they would continue to be the part of any discussion should we see an additional Supreme Court vacancy. I think, uh.

Professor Amy Barrett is someone who one would think would become part of that discussion as well. I mean, she is an incredibly well regarded academic, incredibly thoughtful and intelligent UM with a really an impressive record, UM, a former SCHOOLI A clerk. I would would not be at all surprised to see her as part of that discussion as well.

Um uh. And I think all of the Pelt nominees are people who not only have qualifications, but are the sorts of people that one would expect to write influential opinions and to have an influence on their circuits, UM and their colleagues. Billy, If the Democrats think that there is let's say, one of these judges who is potentially getting set up to be put on the Supreme Court, Um, what kind of and given that there's no filibuster anymore

for this, what what kind of tactics? You know, you mentioned the home state senators are going to look closely at them, But what kind of tactics can we expect Democrats to try to mount when they think somebody is really going to be a problem. Well, I mean, I think sure. The I mean there's a century long tradition of who requiring home state senators to sign off on

nominees from their states. UM Chairman Grassley has respected this process in the past, and I think that that's an opportunity for Democrats in those states to really make their feelings known. Um, they're Democratic senators in Michigan and Minnesota where David Straws is from. Who I think I might have something to say about the records of those two nominees. Jenna than we have only about a minute left or so,

but I'm I'm interested. Um, are we inevitably moving towards the world or maybe not inevitably, but are we moving towards a world where we're going to have Republican judges and democratic judges? It seems as though both sides are getting better and better in the Trumpet administration, quite proficient at selecting people who are are you know, likely to agree with their party on on issues. Going forward, I actually think the end of the filibuster for judicial nominations

could actually have the opposite effect. I think we will make it easier for presidential administrations of both parties to select people who have not only sound judicial temperament, but that are intellectually independent and are willing to apply independent judgment, they'll be less likely to feel they have to pick stealth nominees who have worked our way up through the party process and party organization, and more willing to pick

people that have really just demonstrated excellence. I think that means the range of experiences we could see from nominees will increase, and I think over time it will actually lead to a more diverse and in many respects, less

partisan judiciary. Our thanks to Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve Law School, and also to Billy Courrier, deputy director of Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress, for being with us in Bloomberg allowed to talk about the first batch of judicial nominations to the lower federal courts that's going to be made by President Trump