Mike Lee on U.S. Supreme Court? Maybe...

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

President Donald Trump has asked advisers their opinions about nominating Utah Senator Mike Lee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, according to three people familiar with the matter.

...

Trump thinks Lee would be easily confirmed by the Senate, but the president has expressed concern about keeping his Senate seat in Republican hands, one person said. All of the people spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private deliberations.He has been assured the seat will remain safely Republican, the person said. Trump complained that he was told the same about the Alabama Senate seat held by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who wound up replaced by Democrat Doug Jones.

Trump is actively considering other candidates. Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, is said to be another top contender.

Lee has publicly denounced the Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling, which could complicate his confirmation. Many of the other potential nominees, most of whom are judges, haven’t take as clear a position on reversing the precedent.

Lee was on a list of possible Supreme Court nominees that Trump released during his presidential campaign, even though he declined to endorse the real estate mogul for election and said he voted for independent candidate and fellow Utahan Evan McMullin instead as “a protest vote.”

...

Lee has said he would accept the nomination and hasn’t ruled out voting for his own confirmation.

“I’m someone who’s been watching the Supreme Court since I was 10 years old,” he said on Fox. “I’m honored to even be considered for something like this.”

I've never been a particular fan of quotes for judges, particularly "affirmative action"-style selections based on gender, race . . . and now, religion.

Senator Lee's brother, Thomas (currently serving on the Utah Supreme Court), would I think be a better selection.  So, I think, would any number of the 25 candidates on Pres. Trump's list (of which the Lee brothers are two).  Sen. Lee is, notably, the only one who lacks extensive experience as a judge (in fact, he only has 10+ years experience as an attorney).  The rest are on state supreme courts or federal circuit courts.

Don't get me wrong, I have tremendous respect for Sen. Lee.  But as far as qualifications and merits, I think there are better candidates in terms of experience as jurists.

I dunno.  Identity politics really bug me, so I want to stifle that part me that thinks it would be cool to see a Mormon on the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, Sen. Lee has previously publicly disagreed with Pres. Trump, and is an extremely principled person.  I think that his legal training and devotion to the Constitution would predominate over "political" considerations.  And I also think he would be a helpful voice on the Court for matters pertaining to religious liberty.

Thoughts? 

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here:

I've never been a particular fan of quotes for judges, particularly "affirmative action"-style selections based on gender, race . . . and now, religion.

Senator Lee's brother, Thomas (currently serving on the Utah Supreme Court), would I think be a better selection.  So, I think, would any number of the 25 candidates on Pres. Trump's list (of which the Lee brothers are two).  Sen. Lee is, notably, the only one who lacks extensive experience as a judge (in fact, he only has 10+ years experience as an attorney).  The rest are on state supreme courts or federal circuit courts.

Don't get me wrong, I have tremendous respect for Sen. Lee.  But as far as qualifications and merits, I think there are better candidates in terms of experience as jurists.

I dunno.  Identity politics really bug me, so I want to stifle that part me that thinks it would be cool to see a Mormon on the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, Sen. Lee has previously publicly disagreed with Pres. Trump, and is an extremely principled person.  I think that his legal training and devotion to the Constitution would predominate over "political" considerations.  And I also think he would be a helpful voice on the Court for matters pertaining to religious liberty.

Thoughts? 

-Smac

Good post, this is interesting.  Lee is a little too extreme for my current tastes, and I think your points about his lack of experience are also concerning.  Its funny because I supported Lee as a republican delegate for my precinct when he first got elected, so its an interesting reminder for me personally about how much my political views have changed in recent years.  

I would like to see the court get less political and not more political, so in general I'm against appointing politicians to these positions.  Conversely, Lee as a Senator has found himself taking positions that are out of alignment with the rest of his party, and that kind of trait might be a good one for a judge, that independent allegiance to principles trait.  However, it worries me that he would attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, I don't personally like abortion, but I also don't want the court to overturn that decision and I think it would create great turmoil in our country.  

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good post, this is interesting.  Lee is a little too extreme for my current tastes, and I think your points about his lack of experience are also concerning.  Its funny because I supported Lee as a republican delegate for my precinct when he first got elected, so its an interesting reminder for me personally about how much my political views have changed in recent years.  

I would like to see the court get less political and not more political, so in general I'm against appointing politicians to these positions.  Conversely, Lee as a Senator has found himself taking positions that are out of alignment with the rest of his party, and that kind of trait might be a good one for a judge, that independent allegiance to principles trait.  However, it worries me that he would attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, I don't personally like abortion, but I also don't want the court to overturn that decision and I think it would create great turmoil in our country.  

Same here. I'm not a fan of Mike Lee. Not saying he's a bad person (at least politically he seems to have a lot of integrity), but he's way too right-wing for me--and I'm pretty darned conservative. I also worry that packing the court with conservatives is likely to create an activist court, which I don't like. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Good post, this is interesting.  Lee is a little too extreme for my current tastes, and I think your points about his lack of experience are also concerning.  Its funny because I supported Lee as a republican delegate for my precinct when he first got elected, so its an interesting reminder for me personally about how much my political views have changed in recent years.  

I haven't noticed anything "extreme" about his political/legal positions.  They seem to fit well within the mainstream.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I would like to see the court get less political and not more political, so in general I'm against appointing politicians to these positions. 

That's sort of my sentiment as well.  Devotion to the Constitution, originalism (rather than "Living Constitution" theory), judicial restraint (rather than activism) and political impartiality are biggies for me.  That last one, political impartiality, could be hard for politicians (who are necessarily partial in their politics, I mean, it's baked into their jobs).  On the other hand, sitting judges could perhaps do a better job at the political impartiality thing.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Conversely, Lee as a Senator has found himself taking positions that are out of alignment with the rest of his party, and that kind of trait might be a good one for a judge, that independent allegiance to principles trait. 

Sort of.  I'd prefer to see the personal opinions of the Big Nine subsumed.  I would prefer to influence of the U.S. Supreme Court to be lessened.  I would prefer that Congress, or state legislatures, or the people, make more decisions and SCOTUS less.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

However, it worries me that he would attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, I don't personally like abortion, but I also don't want the court to overturn that decision and I think it would create great turmoil in our country.  

Perhaps overturning Roe (Planned Parenthood v. Casey may be the more apt case here) and letting the individual states figure this out for themselves would resolve the "turmoil" of the abortion debate.  Some of it, anyway.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Storm Rider]

Given the atrociously political state of the US Circuit Courts, it does not surprise me to see the Supreme Court become so political. It also makes US citizens doubt the validity of most decisions for the courts in various areas - they are not based on law, but on political leanings and desires. 

It may be different on issues of guilt or innocence, but I personally feel that most cases are dependent upon how much money you have to spend on an attorney rather than an individual's actual guilt or innocence. 

I detest, intensely, hearing that a court, a corporation, a candidate's desire to serve in political office should be evaluated on it being the first gender, race, religion, etc. I have yet to see that qualifications depend on someone's gonads to determine if they are qualified.  I find almost all identity politics not about fairness, but about a desire for power.  The moment identity politics enters the conversation I realize that it is no longer about qualifications, but issues significantly less than that. 

Please, give me a qualified judge that does not create law, but depends on the Constitution as it is written - no more and no less - before you give me a race, a gender, a religious affiliation, etc. 

[USU78]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

I've never been a particular fan of quotes for judges, particularly "affirmative action"-style selections based on gender, race . . . and now, religion.

Senator Lee's brother, Thomas (currently serving on the Utah Supreme Court), would I think be a better selection.  So, I think, would any number of the 25 candidates on Pres. Trump's list (of which the Lee brothers are two).  Sen. Lee is, notably, the only one who lacks extensive experience as a judge (in fact, he only has 10+ years experience as an attorney).  The rest are on state supreme courts or federal circuit courts.

Don't get me wrong, I have tremendous respect for Sen. Lee.  But as far as qualifications and merits, I think there are better candidates in terms of experience as jurists.

I dunno.  Identity politics really bug me, so I want to stifle that part me that thinks it would be cool to see a Mormon on the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, Sen. Lee has previously publicly disagreed with Pres. Trump, and is an extremely principled person.  I think that his legal training and devotion to the Constitution would predominate over "political" considerations.  And I also think he would be a helpful voice on the Court for matters pertaining to religious liberty.

Thoughts? 

-Smac

He would be, were he nominated and confirmed, the second Utahn and first Mormon.

[USU78]

Memories: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Smoot_hearings

[strappinglad]

A part of me wants DT to nominate some obvious liberal judge , say from the 9th so as to watch some politicians fall over themselves backing away from their current stand to oppose any nomination because of McConnel's blockage of Obama. This will be an interesting fight.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

A part of me wants DT to nominate some obvious liberal judge , say from the 9th so as to watch some politicians fall over themselves backing away from their current stand to oppose any nomination because of McConnel's blockage of Obama. This will be an interesting fight.

Most have not publicly taken that stance and insist they will evaluate the next Justice on the merits. Spoiler: They are not going to want to confirm anyone Trump picks. It will be interesting. If Trump follows through on his campaign promise to only nominate pro-life justices who would weaken or overthrow Roe v Wade it is an open question whether the few pro-life Republicans in the Senate will refuse to confirm. If so, the choice of the next justice might take a while.

I think it would be funny if Democrats take back the Senate before a new Justice is confirmed and then refuse to confirm anyone until after the next Presidential election. The tirades from the POTUS after that would make me smile.

On a personal note I find it confusing why we got rid of the judicial filibuster requiring 60 votes to appoint judges at all levels that serve for life but keep it at 60 votes for legislation which is much easier to change. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

[Calm]

https://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/from_war_to_war/georgesutherland.html

Quote

 One year prior to his death, his alma mater, Brigham Young University, awarded him an honorary degree. At the ceremony Sutherland offered these words of wisdom that his life personified: "Character to be good must be . . . so firmly fixed in the conscience, and indeed in the body itself, as to insure unhesitating rejection of an impulse to do wrong.

 

[rpn]

The reason they are considering Senator Lee is that there is some thought that because he is a current senator, senators who would oppose any nominee might support him.   I think that it would just give opposition a reason to oppose him (though I'm not sure how we got to a place that only people who've been sitting on prestigous courts can be Justices:  part of the problem IMHO in the law is that judges know little about how things work in the non-legal world, though admittedly that should be more of an issue in a trial court).

Thomas Lee, however, would be a good choice.    But it isn't going to result in overturning Roe v. Wade, because it just isn't.   What it might do is make it possible for states to regulate abortion to early months, except for life of the mother; wait while they think about it, and not for sex/race/down syndrome.  

Trump wants to break the streak of conservative presidents who nominated a supposedly conservative judge, who thereafter decided differently that what the pres thought a conservative should have decided.

Edited June 29, 2018 by rpn

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thoughts? 

I think nominating Sen. Lee would just be a play, sort of like I believe Harriet Miers was a few years back.

Put up someone who the opposing party is going to go bonkers over (and as a politician, he should have plenty of quotes that can be mined) and then let your opponents burn through their most of their disapproval capital before nominating someone more 'reasonable' who was actually your first pick all along. 

 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I think nominating Sen. Lee would just be a play, sort of like I believe Harriet Miers was a few years back.

Put up someone who the opposing party is going to go bonkers over (and as a politician, he should have plenty of quotes that can be mined) and then let your opponents burn through their most of their disapproval capital before nominating someone more 'reasonable' who was actually your first pick all along. 

This article in USA Today makes some interesting points about the potential nomination of Lee:

Quote

Trump’s list of candidates is an embarrassment of judicial riches, several of whom would be great bets for a Supreme Court seat. But Sen. Mike Lee’s name sticks out. Lee is one of the smartest people in the senate. He has an unquestionable commitment to interpreting the Constitution as it was understood when it was ratified, not as it has evolved in the minds of Supreme Court justices and law professors. But he is also humble and gracious, important traits when one has to work with the same eight people for decades.

Most interestingly, he is the only one on the list who is not currently a judge. It used to be more common for politicians to wind up on the court. The increasing reliance on lower court judges has turned the federal judiciary into a career ladder; talented lower court judges may too often have a Supreme Court seat in mind when they write their opinions. Finally, as a non-judge, Lee would have no judicial opinions to defend. Given the likely battle over any confirmation, it would be hard to imagine any of his Republican colleagues breaking ranks to vote against him; and collegiality would likely even carry some Democratic votes.

Eugene Kontorovich is a law professor at Northwestern University and clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Follow him on Twitter: @EVKontorovich.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Anijen]

I would love to see Mike Lee on the Supreme Court. I would love to see Roe overturned.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Anijen

[Prof]

Has there ever been an LDS member on the Supreme court?

 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Prof said:

Has there ever been an LDS member on the Supreme court?

 

Nope.  There has been one Utahn, though.  George Sutherland (his mother joined the Church and moved to the Utah Territory in 1863, but their family left the Church in the 1870s, so Mr. Sutherland was never baptized).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kevin Christensen]

Living in PA, I do not see much of Mike Lee, but I did see this, which disturbs me.

https://thinkprogress.org/mike-lee-gaslights-about-trump-russia-comey-83ff550101d8/

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited June 29, 2018 by Kevin Christensen

[strappinglad]

Shapiro give his views on 5 of the possible nominees and then mentions Mike Lee. .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aTH6Agv44g

 

[Sky]

President Trump is under criminal investigation for colluding with a foreign power to sway the election in his favor.  I don’t think he should be allowed to appoint a new Supreme Court nominee until after the Special Counsel / Russia investigation is completed.  

So much is at stake here - 

Not just abortion rights, but health care, immigrant rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, union rights, environmental justice, and so much more.  

We are in for an ugly, divisive fight.  

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This article in USA Today makes some interesting points about the potential nomination of Lee:

From the moment Kennedy announced his retirement, the media started posturing about how a conservative appointment by Trump could lead to the end of Roe and LGBT rights. In my opinion, nominating a conservative Mormon from Utah, who has invariably made comments on both of those issues, is going to feed right into that media storm. I can see Trump using that as a way to drum up controversy, possibly using it as a feign, for some other nominee.

 

[longview]

42 minutes ago, Sky said:

President Trump is under criminal investigation for colluding with a foreign power to sway the election in his favor.  I don’t think he should be allowed to appoint a new Supreme Court nominee until after the Special Counsel / Russia investigation is completed.  

So much is at stake here - 

Not just abortion rights, but health care, immigrant rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, union rights, environmental justice, and so much more.  

We are in for an ugly, divisive fight.  

Mueller is very much a part of the Deep State with many questions about his competency dating back several decades regarding his role as prosecutor.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Sky said:

President Trump is under criminal investigation for colluding with a foreign power to sway the election in his favor.  I don’t think he should be allowed to appoint a new Supreme Court nominee until after the Special Counsel / Russia investigation is completed.  

So much is at stake here - 

Not just abortion rights, but health care, immigrant rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, union rights, environmental justice, and so much more.  

We are in for an ugly, divisive fight.  

Good to see you, Sky.

[clarkgoble]

Even with the filibuster for SCOTUS dead I can't see Mike Lee getting through the Senate. I could see Trump nominating him just to cause a big uproar. Especially since Trump's whole brand of conservatism is unfortunately getting Republicans to feel like victims. But I can't see Lee being on SCOTUS. That said Lee is no Harriet Myers.

Edited June 29, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Prof]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  There has been one Utahn, though.  George Sutherland (his mother joined the Church and moved to the Utah Territory in 1863, but their family left the Church in the 1870s, so Mr. Sutherland was never baptized).

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the info, smac!!!

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, longview said:

Mueller is very much a part of the Deep State with many questions about his competency dating back several decades regarding his role as prosecutor.

Only if you believe the questionably accurate smear jobs of Fox talk shows and talk radio. There is no real evidence he is incompetent. If there is no evidence then the President’s allies make it up. There is a certain irony that they are whining about a witch hunt that has generated over a dozen real indictments and five guilty pleas while they are conducting an actual witch hunt.