Trump Confirms More Federal Judges in First Term than Any President in 40 Years

President Donald Trump often boasts of his accomplishments in nominating federal judges, and for good reason: at the close of his first term, he will have confirmed more judges to the federal judiciary in one term than any recent U.S. president.

As of October 5, according to the Heritage Foundation, Trump has confirmed 218 judges to Article III courts — that is, the “Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. courts of appeals, the U.S. district courts and the U.S. Court of International Trade.”

On October 26, that number will rise to 219 with the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

No president in the past four decades has appointed more judges in a first term. The only one who appointed more was Jimmy Carter, who appointed 248 — but he had the advantage of an expanded federal judiciary.

Under Carter, Congress added 152 new judgeships — nearly one-third of the previous total — and Carter filled them quickly. (Democrats want to expand and “pack” the Supreme Court if Joe Biden wins the 2020 election — not because of a backlog in the courts, which Carter faced, but for ideological reasons.)

Trump has also appointed 53 appellate judges, leaving no vacancies on that level.

Currently, Trump has appointed more than one-fourth of active federal judges. That is a large proportion — but Barack Obama’s appointees still account for nearly 40% of the federal bench, according to the Pew Research Center.

That means Trump will need a second term if he is to establish a solid “constitutional conservative” foundation for the federal judiciary.

There are three things that make Trump’s judicial appointments special. The first is the timing.

Trump won the 2016 election as Senate Republicans were blocking the confirmation of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Had Trump lost, the Court would have had a liberal majority — perhaps for decades.

By filling the empty seat vacated by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, Trump preserved a nominal conservative majority. He will expand it with Barrett’s confirmation.

Second, Trump has appointed an unusually large number of appellate judges. These are among the most powerful judges in the system, and they form the primary pool of candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court. Trump has created a deep bench from which Republican presidents can draw in the future (including himself, if he wins a second term in office).

Third, President Trump’s judicial appointees have been vetted by conservative legal authorities, including the Federalist Society, which promotes the originalist school of constitutional interpretation. Thus, Trump’s appointees are considered more reliably conservative than the nominees of a typical Republican president.

The gains Trump has made could quickly be reversed if Biden wins — not least because his party intends to expand the Supreme Court for the first time in 150 years.

In fact, despite the rapid pace of Trump’s appointments, new vacancies keep opening up on the federal bench. Currently, there are 64 vacancies on the federal bench — over 7% of the total seats. 40 nominations are still pending in the Senate.

A New York Times poll released last week revealed that 58% of likely voters believed the Supreme Court should not be expanded. A majority (57%) of Democrats agreed with the idea of packing the Court; 89% of Republicans opposed it.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His newest e-book is The Trumpian Virtues: The Lessons and Legacy of Donald Trump’s Presidency. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Source

Roberts Sides with Liberals in Pennsylvania Vote-by-Mail Battle

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Republican application to stay the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to grant the Democratic Party’s request to make several changes to mail-in voting that critics have decried as vulnerable to fraud.

As Breitbart News reported last month, “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled … that ballots received three days after Election Day will still be counted — even if there is no evidence they were postmarked on time.”

Republicans sought a stay.

The Supreme Court, however, split 4-4 on the request, leaving the decision of the lower court in place. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Court’s liberal minority; the remaining four conservative justices sided with the Republican request.

The Court currently has only eight justices, due to the passing last month of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

President Donald Trump has nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ginsburg.

In an interview with Breitbart News Daily earlier this month, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) pointed out the need to have a ninth judge before the election to decide close election cases.

Cruz said Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s possible confirmation to the Supreme Court would provide the ninth justice needed to avoid a four-four division over post-election legal battles.

“It’s one of the reasons why it is so important that the Senate confirm Judge Barrett, because if the Supreme Court only has eight justices, eight justices can divide four to four,” Cruz noted. “An equally divided court has no authority to decide anything. So if we have this chaos of litigation, if the Supreme Court is equally divided, there is no resolution and we’re in a constitutional crisis.”

Cruz warned, “If the Supreme Court is divided four-four, there is no answer. You just sty in the chaos, and and that’s why I think it is so important to have fully functioning court.”

Cruz concluded, “There were four justices in Bush versus Gore that were happy to say keep on recounting, keep counting until you find find more Al Gore votes, and that’s dangerous.”

Barrett is expected to be voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week and to be confirmed by the full Senate next week.

Pennsylvania is considered a key battleground state in the 2020 presidential election.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His newest e-book is The Trumpian Virtues: The Lessons and Legacy of Donald Trump’s Presidency. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Source

Whoa…Mayor Pete Buttigieg Just Flipped

Buttigieg

The former mayor of sleepy little South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg, has set his sights on much bigger things. Now that he’s on Joe Biden’s “transition team” he’s flipped head over heels in love with his former opponent. The one who “supported the worst foreign policy decision made by the United States” in his lifetime.

Buttigieg ready to overlook the past

Pete Buttigieg has always been in favor of packing the Supreme Court and he’s terrified that Amy Coney Barrett may someday nullify his gay marriage. That’s why he agrees with Biden that it’s unconstitutional for Donald Trump to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. He’s miffed over the idea that President Trump or any other president can “just snap their fingers and do it” to appoint a Supreme Court Justice.

Since he and Biden share the same enemy, Buttigieg decided to overlook the past and join forces. His LGBTQ agenda highlights that liberals don’t bother to actually read the Constitution, they just use their own interpretation of it to do as they please. After all, isn’t that what judges are for?

Just because Joe Biden made terrible policy decisions, like “the decision to invade Iraq,” that’s all in the past and there is no reason for Pete Buttigieg to dwell on it, especially since he’s part of Joe’s new government once they manage their own little coup d’etat. Besides that, Kamala has every right to pack the court once she gains power and she’ll probably bring some of her weed along and let Pete help pick out names for the 6 new Justices they plan to add.

You can’t do that

Liberals are still stunned by the recent revelations that the CIA tried to press criminal charges against Hillary, and then Hunter Biden lost track of an errant laptop loaded with incriminating evidence of how he sold access to his VIP VP dad for fun and profit.

When President Donald Trump and the Republican Senate majority do their job, it must be unconstitutional whether it says so in the constitution or not. Buttigieg assured Chris Wallace at Faux News, the constitution means what they think it means, not what it says.

Buttigieg is terrified that Barrett will criminalize his gay marriage so he’s standing up for Biden’s false accusation that Coney Barrett’s appointment is unconstitutional. It’s not in the spirit of the Constitution nor the spirit of our legal system or political system for them to do this,” the ex-mayor theorized.

“Most Americans believe, as I do, as Joe Biden does, that the American people ought to have a say.” Americans do have a say. We elected a Republican majority Senate and President Donald Trump. We also live in a republic, not a mob rule democracy.

Last year, Buttigieg embraced the 15-member Supreme Court idea. Even if Barrett’s appointment is actually legal, he argues, there’s no reason whatsoever not to have 6 brand new George Soros approved members on the supreme court. “I think bipartisan reform with the purpose of reducing the politicization of the court is a really promising idea.”

Source

Coons: Democrats Are ‘Open’ to Adding Justices to SCOTUS Under Biden

Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) said if Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed, he was open to adding more justices under a President Joe Biden with a Democratic majority in the Senate.

Anchor Jake Tapper said, “If Barrett is confirmed and Democrats win back the Senate would you vote to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court if it came up for a vote? Is that something you would be in favor of?”

Coons said, “Jake, like Joe Biden, I’m not a fan of expanding the court. We have a few weeks here to see whether there are four Republicans who will step back from this precipice. It is President Trump who has pressed for this nominee so he can have a key vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act in the middle of a pandemic. The Republican majority is responsible for racing forward with this extremely unqualified nominee, unqualified because of her extreme judicial philosophy, and that is who should be bearing the brunt at the ballot box in this election, that they are doing this to get someone on the court just in time a week after the election to take away critical health care protections from a majority of Americans.”

He added, “We need to focus on that, and then if we happen to be in the fact pattern where we have a President Biden, we have to look at what the right steps are to rebalance our federal judiciary.

Tapper pressed, “Your mind is open about adding justices to the Supreme Court? Yes or no? Your mind is open?”

Coons said, “Yes.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Source

Watch: Handmaids Chant ‘Amy Coney Barrett Is a Christian Theocrat’ During D.C. Demonstration

Demonstrators dressed as handmaids gathered in D.C. on Saturday to protest Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination and forthcoming confirmation, taking part in a series of chants and proclaiming that Barrett is a “Christian theocrat.”

“Amy Coney Barrett is a Christian theocrat,” the women, wearing handmaids costumes and holding signs reading “Trump Pence OUT NOW,” chanted on Saturday.

“Donald Trump is stealing the election. We must vote,” they continued.

“But voting is enough to remove Trump when he’s stealing the election. This is why refuse fascism is calling on people to take to the streets and stay in the streets,” the demonstrators continued, inviting others to march with them.

“Be one of a lot of handmaids announcing to the world, ‘Trump Pence out now!’” they added.

Anti-Barrett protesters have gathered in the nation’s capital several times since her nomination. On Thursday, demonstrators wearing the same handmaids outfits took part in an “installation,” chaining themselves to a bench outside of the Supreme Court to demonstrate purported voter suppression.

“These are women dressed in the enslaving garb of the handmaids outfit representing theocracy and the enslavement of women. They are being put in chains, and the voting ballot— booth is going to be just out of their reach,” a speaker said, claiming that Trump is “stealing the election and suppressing votes”:

Jack Knudsen Source

Dictionary Changes Definition of a Word to Appease Democrats

Merriam-Webster dictionary

Merriam-Webster Dictionary has officially bowed to leftist’s push to change the definitions of words to suit their political needs.

The dictionary has changed its definition of “sexual preference” to include the word “offensive” right after Democrats attacked Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett for using the term during the Senate confirmation hearings on Tuesday.

Before Tuesday, the fifth definition of the word “preference” referred to orientation, meaning sexual preference.

As of Wednesday, the fifth definition was changed to include the word “offensive” when used to refer to sexual orientation.

“Our scheduled updates, which add new words and also add new definitions, usage guidance, and example sentences to existing dictionary entries, take place several times per year. From time to time, we release one or some of these scheduled changes early when a word or set of words is getting extra attention, and it would seem timely to share that update,” Peter Sokolowski, Merriam-Webster’s editor-at-large, explained in a statement to Fox News.

“In this case, we released the update for sexual preference when we noticed that the entries for preference and sexual preference were being consulted in connection with the SCOTUS hearings. A revision made in response to an entry’s increased attention differs only in celerity—as always, all revisions reflect evidence of use,” Sokolowski continued.

Why the Definition Changed

At the Senate hearings on Tuesday, Senator Mazie Hirono attacked Barrett for stating that she would not discriminate on the basis of “sexual preference.”

“Sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term, it is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice — it is not,” the Democrat from Hawaii said.

“Sexual orientation is a key part of a person’s identity,” Hirono continued.

In yet another attempt, and failure, to get Judge Barrett to tell Democrats how she would rule on a certain subject, Hirono was asking whether the judge agreed with the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges, which was the Supreme Court case that gave same-sex couples the right to marry.

“So even though you didn’t give a direct answer I think your response did speak volumes. Not once, but twice you used the term ‘sexual preference’ to describe those in the LGBTQ community,” Hirono said.

“The LGBTQ community should be rightly concerned whether you would uphold their constitutional right to marry,” Hirono added.

“I certainly didn’t mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community. So if I did, I greatly apologize for that,” Barrett said.

Later, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey brought up the subject again, asking Barrett about her use of the phrase.

“In using that word I did not mean to imply that it is not an immutable characteristic or that it’s solely a matter of preference. I fully respect the rights of the LGBTQ community. Obergefell was an important precedent of the court,” she said.

“But by what you just said, you understand about that immutable characteristic. That in other words, that one’s sexuality is not a preference, it is who they are. Is that what you’re saying?” Booker asked.

“Senator, I’m saying I was not trying to make any comment on it. I fully respect all the rights of the LGBT community. Obergefell is an important precedent of the court. I reject any kind of discrimination on any sort of basis,” Barrett explained.

As is evident by the sudden decision that “sexual preference” is offensive, Democrats are desperately searching for anything they can use to attack Amy Coney Barrett, in an attempt to keep President Trump from being able to appoint a third Supreme Court justice. Changing dictionary definitions is yet another tool in the leftist toolbox.

Source

Biden Co-Chair Richmond: Biden ‘Has Not Dodged’ on Court-Packing, He’s Said ‘He’s Not Going to Answer’

On Thursday’s broadcast of CNN’s “OutFront,” Biden Campaign National Co-Chair Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) stated that 2020 Democratic presidential nominee former Vice President Joe Biden “has not dodged the question” on court-packing, “What he has said is he’s not going to answer the question,” and there is a difference between the two. Richmond also stated that “court-packing is when you rush through unqualified judges, 50 judges on the circuit court, and you put not one African-American on the circuit court.”

Richmond said, “He has not dodged the question. What he has said is he’s not going to answer the question, and I think that that is a difference.”

Richmond continued, “But if you’re talking about court-packing, court-packing is when you rush through unqualified judges, 50 judges on the circuit court, and you put not one African-American on the circuit court. And all of a sudden, you want to pretend that you care about poor people, minorities. Because you’re not showing those people in what you do. … And so, look, we will answer that question at the appropriate time. But the real thing is, we should not confirm a justice with 19 days to go before an election, and I believe the majority of the people in the country agree with that position.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

Source

Harris: ‘If We Want to Talk about Court-Packing,’ We Should Talk About Judges GOP Has Confirmed

On Thursday’s broadcast of “CNN Tonight,” 2020 Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) stated that “if we want to talk about court-packing,” we should talk about the judges that Republicans have nominated and confirmed to the bench.

Harris said, “I think that Joe Biden has been consistent about saying that this is not the time right now to have this discussion. And frankly, to be honest with you, Don, and just to be very straightforward, if we’re going to talk about court-packing, which is something that, all of a sudden, has become a big point of discussion, I think because our opponents are trying to create a distraction.”

Harris added, “Seriously, if we want to talk about court-packing, can we please talk about — and I’ve witnessed this firsthand on the Senate Judiciary Committee. They’ve been, one after another, nominating people who are unqualified, people who refuse to say that Brown v. Board of Education is precedent. Do you know that they put 50 people on the lifetime federal court of appeals and not one is black? I mean — I just — I’m sorry, but I can’t have a conversation about court-packing, around something that has not even happened yet, which is who is going to be the next president, without dealing with what they’ve been doing for the last few years.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

Source

CNN’s Van Jones: Court-Packing a ‘Teddy Bear’ for ‘Angry’ Democrats — Biden ‘Doesn’t Want to Take the Teddy Bear Away’

CNN contributor Van Jones said on Thursday’s broadcast of “Cuomo Prime Time” that court-packing had become a “teddy bear” for Democrats.

Jones was reacting to former Vice President Joe Biden saying at an ABC News town hall earlier he would answer whether he supports packing the Supreme Court after the confirmation process of Judge Amy Coney Barrett is complete.

Jones said, “Yeah, D-minus on that answer. There’s just no way around it. And now he’s put himself in this odd position where he says he’s going to wait until some other date. I guess what he’s saying is that he’s holding out some hope that they won’t nominate this new justice if he continues to play this game. It doesn’t make any sense. None of it makes any sense. And so I think the reality is the Democrats are very angry and upset, because at every level of the government right now it feels like the deck is stacked against us.”

He added, “We’ve got two Supreme Court Justice seats that we don’t feel were given to the Republicans fairly. You feel like the Electoral College stacks the deck against Democrats. You feel like the Senate’s got the filibuster. All these different things. The gerrymandering. So there’s so much pent-up frustration that Democrats are feeling that this issue of being able to pack the court has become a teddy bear for a lot of Democrats to hug on to at night, and he doesn’t want to take the teddy bear away. But I think he’s hurting his own brand by not doing it. I think it’s better for him to come forward and say, ‘That’s not my brand of politics, I’m not going to do it,’ or, to your point, say he’s going to use it as a bargaining chip. But right now, I think he’s hurting his brand.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Source

CNN’s Lemon: Court-Packing ‘Is a Distraction’ and It’s Partially ‘Up to the Media’ ‘To Not Make It Her Emails’

During an interview with 2020 Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) on Thursday’s broadcast of “CNN Tonight,” host Don Lemon stated that questions about court-packing are “a distraction” and that while the Biden campaign could put the issue behind it if it answered questions on the subject, the media should “not make it her emails.”

After Harris said that court-packing “is something that, all of a sudden, has become a big point of discussion, I think because our opponents are trying to create a distraction.” Lemon stated, “I actually think it is a distraction, and I just wanted to get you on the record. So — because maybe if you guys answer it, you’ll get it behind you and it doesn’t become her emails. And that’s up to the media too to not make it her emails.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

Source