Then There Were Three
Numerous sites (Fox News Politico and USA Today) are reporting President Trump has winnowed the field of potential Supreme Court judges down to three candidates. Conventional wisdom doesn’t bat 1000, but I’ll work with what I have. Who are these people, and what are their backgrounds? I did some digging- here’s what I found. Sorry for the length, but I did edit out much that wasn’t really relevant.
Brett Kavanaugh (born February 12, 1965)
After graduating from Georgetown Prep, Kavanaugh attended Yale University and graduated with a B.A. cum laude in 1987. He then attended the Yale Law School, and graduated with a J.D. in 1990. At Yale Law, he served as Notes Editor of the Yale Law Journal.
Kavanaugh clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, as well as Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit and Judge Walter Stapleton of the Third Circuit. Prior to his Supreme Court clerkship, Kavanaugh earned a one-year fellowship in the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States, Kenneth Starr, during which he worked on the Whitewater investigation.
Kavanaugh was later a partner at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, where his practice focused on appellate matters. Kavanaugh also served as an Associate Counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel, where he handled a number of the novel constitutional and legal issues presented during that investigation and was a principal author of the Starr Report to Congress on the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton and Vincent Foster investigation.
President George W. Bush first nominated Kavanaugh to the D.C. Circuit on July 25, 2003, to a vacancy created by Judge Laurence H. Silberman, who took senior status in November 2000. Kavanaugh’s nomination was stalled in the Senate for nearly three years. Democratic Senators accused him of being too partisan, with Senator Dick Durbin calling him the “Forrest Gump of Republican politics.” The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended confirmation on a 10–8 party-line vote on May 11, 2006, and Kavanaugh was thereafter confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 26, 2006 by a vote of 57–36. On June 1, 2006, he was sworn in by Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom he had previously clerked, during a special Rose Garden ceremony at the White House.
Raymond Kethledge (born December 11, 1966)
Kethledge graduated from Birmingham Groves High School in the Birmingham Public School District. He attended the University of Michigan, graduating in 1989 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history. He then attended the University of Michigan Law School, graduating magna cum laude (and second in his class) with a Juris Doctor in 1993.
After graduating, Kethledge clerked for Sixth Circuit Judge Ralph B. Guy Jr. in 1994 in Ann Arbor, Michigan. After finishing his clerkship, he served as judiciary counsel to Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham from 1995 to 1997. Following that, Kethledge clerked for United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1997.
After completing his Supreme Court clerkship, Kethledge returned to Michigan in 1998 to join the law firm of Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn, where he became a partner. In 2001, he joined Ford Motor Company as in-house counsel in the company’s Detroit headquarters. He later joined Feeney, Kellett, Wienner & Bush as a partner. In 2003, Kethledge co-founded a boutique litigation firm, now known as Bush, Seyferth & Paige, with its office in Troy, Michigan. In addition to his duties as a federal judge, Kethledge teaches a course at the University of Michigan Law School called “Fundamentals of Appellate Practice,” which focuses on the elements of good legal writing.
Kethledge was first nominated to the Sixth Circuit by President George W. Bush on June 28, 2006, to replace Judge James L. Ryan. From November 2001 to March 2006, Henry Saad had been nominated to the seat, but he had been filibustered by the Senate Democrats and later withdrew. Kethledge’s nomination lapsed when the 109th Congress adjourned in December 2006. Bush again nominated Kethledge on March 19, 2007. However, his nomination stalled for over a year due to opposition from Michigan’s two Democratic Senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow.
On June 24, 2008, he was confirmed by voice vote, almost exactly two years after his original nomination. He received his commission on July 7, 2008. Kethledge was the eighth judge nominated to the Sixth Circuit by Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate.
Commentators have noted that Kethledge has “broadly criticized judicial deference and specifically criticized deference to federal agencies under Chevron” and “has set himself apart as a dedicated defender of the Constitution’s structural protections.”
Amy Coney Barrett (born January 28, 1972)
Barrett graduated from St. Mary’s Dominican High School in New Orleans in 1990. In 1994, Barrett graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in English literature from Rhodes College, where she was a Phi Beta Kappa member. In 1997, she graduated from the Notre Dame Law School with a Juris Doctor, where she was executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review.
After graduation, Barrett served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She then spent a year as clerk to Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1998–99. From 1999 to 2002, she practiced law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C.
In 2002, she began teaching at the Notre Dame Law School, where she was named a Professor of Law in 2010, and, from 2014–17, held the Diane and M.O. Miller Research Chair of Law. Barrett continues to teach as a sitting judge.
She is a member of the conservative Federalist Society.
On May 8, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to the seat vacated by Judge John Daniel Tinder, who took senior status on February 18, 2015. A hearing on her nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee was held on September 6, 2017.
During Barrett’s hearing, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein questioned Barrett about whether her Catholic faith would influence her decision-making on the court. Feinstein, concerned about whether Barrett would uphold Roe v. Wade given her Catholic beliefs, stated “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern.” The subject of Feinstein and other Democrats’ concern was a 1998 article by Barrett where she argued that Catholic judges should in some cases recuse themselves from death penalty cases because of their moral objections to the death penalty. During her hearing, Barrett said: “It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”
On October 5, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on a party-line basis of 11–9 to recommend Barrett and report her nomination to the full Senate. On October 30, 2017 the Senate invoked cloture by a vote of 54–42. The Senate confirmed her with a vote of 55–43 on October 31, 2017. She received her commission on November 2, 2017.
Three eminently qualified candidates for a seat on the Supreme Court; glad I’m not the one who must choose. Even though the finalist has yet to be named, the Dems are already throwing stones. This fight will be beyond ugly; I can’t see how the Dems could possibly succeed, other than look like spoiled, screaming children who can’t have their way.
(Ex, listed by DOB, nothing else. Having spent a tour behind the podium, I do prefer those with teaching in their resume)
Methinks I know the one IDC SARC would choose – if he could, that is. (smile)
As if that didn’t cross my mind, posting this.
*grin*
Why is that the first thing that all of us think about before anything else !!!!
She is a looker !!!!!
I wouldn’t kick her out of bed for eating cookies, that’s for sure.
My pick would be Kethledge this round because he’s not an Ivy Leaguer and there is plenty of time to nominate the younger Barrett. In reality, I would be happy with any of the three. Even better would be having all three sitting on the court. Could we please just do that?
I see your point OWB, but I’d go with Barrett, and here’s why. The dims fell all over themselves screaming about how women need to support women, and how there’s a special place in hell for those who didn’t vote for hitlery, etc. So now the President puts up a woman for SCOTUS, let the dims loose their minds attacking a woman (that they won’t be able to block anyway), and run all of the footage, contrasted with their earlier comments, as campaign ads in the mid-terms…. The, when “Weekend at Gingriches” finally falls apart, the President can nominate one of the other two..
I like Barrett as well. The other two clerked under Kennedy, while she clerked under Scalia.
Also the other two are Bush appointees; both ’41 & ’43 enjoyed big government too much for me.
That’s not to mention Barrett is the youngest of the three. 🙂
I agree with you. Any of the three would be a good choice. Given that the Ivy League is grossly overrepresented on the Court as is, to me that tips the balance in favor of Kethledge.
Best I can tell, neither Barrett nor Kethledge ever attended an Ivy League school.
As noted, Kethledge attended the University of Michigan both as an undergraduate and for law school. And Barrett attended Rhodes College (a private liberal arts college in Memphis, TN) – NOT the Ivy League’s Rhode Island University. She also attended law school at Notre Dame; last time I checked, Notre Dame isn’t Ivy League either – it’s in the Midwest, not the Northeast (though Notre Dame is considered an elite Catholic university considered to be on par with the Ivy League).
Besides: how can someone who shares a name with a .50 BMG sniper rifle be a bad choice for SCOTUS justice? (smile)
Well stated Hondo… any info on whether she’s related to the rifle manufacturer? That’d definitely be extra points as far as I’m concerned..
OWB,
There were two non-Ivy League types in the list and perhaps my prejudice against the so called “intelligentsia” is raising its ugly head, but I’d take either one of them. The fact that all were opposed by the Democratic dogmatists in their earlier appointments is also favorable in my book.
Looks like all three are well qualified and would be excellent nominees for SCOTUS. And, based on their ages, any one of them could be on the bench for 20+ years, which would give the Donks/Socialists a conniption.
Don’t care about particular cases, all I want is an originalist. If you don’t like something in it, amend it. Stop using judicial interpretation.
1,000,000 ^^^^THIS^^^^
also, FUCK YOU 9th Judicial.
You could have shortened it to Durbin and Feinstein dislike these two to tell me all I need to know.
I am hesitant to get excited about someone like Barrett for the SCOTUS. Obviously she’s eminently qualified, but I like to see a longer history on the bench. Although that’s not always a bellwether of how they’ll be on the SC.
If they nominate Barrett, they can play the sexism card for anyone who wants to vote against her as the left did with Kagan and Sotomayor. Imagine the liberal outrage at yet another of their underhanded techniques being co-opted by Trump!
You forgot Levin and Stabenow, Mason. While I do appreciate your point, I wanted to give the TAH horde a look into the education and experience of the current three candidates. Sort of the Knowledge, Skills, Ability (KSA) requirements for other govvie jobs. All three are outstanding, and I’ve tipped the cards a bit on my preferences. I’ll do an in-depth on the candidate who gets the nod from Trump.
Everyone, keep me honest with your critiques. I can’t get better at this in a vacuum, send specifics to AW1Ed dot USN at gmail dot com.
If Barrett was appointed, it would give Bubba the pervert something to put in his bucket list! 😉
Catholic girl for the school yard fight of the century. I want to see her take a ruler to Susan Collins.
“Three eminently qualified candidates for a seat on the Supreme Court; glad I’m not the one who must choose.”
I wish I were the one to choose. I see only one of that trio that I would trust not to change stripes once on the court. First to be eliminated is Brett. Never trust anyone with that name. More importantly, he is a Yalie and is part of the inside team. The killer is that he clerked for Kennedy. That makes him a no way, in my hope chest. That said, the other guy clerked for Kennedy, too. He and Brett were both nominated to the Federal bench by Bush. I don’t see that as a plus. Ray is a go-getter, clearly ambitious, and has made all of the right moves. He’s much too slick for me.
And that leaves me with the extra, most bestest selection of all, a true conservative who clerked for St. Antonin. In recent times, Kagan showed that no experience in judicial matters isn’t fatal, although she truly sucks and is nothing but a tag-a-long, agenda-driven softball player. Justice Barrett has a very nice ring to it. Please, God.
I should have added, “At least Barrett has some” after the words about Kagan’s lack of judicial experience.
Here you go. As far as I am concerned you need no more than to know this: mThe Washington Post says that Trump ought to pick……………Raymond Kethledge.
And, UpChuckSchumer said that Trump should pick…….wait for it…………Merrick Garland.
Of course he did.
I would like to see Trump nominate an actual dead horse for the dems to kick.
I wonder if President Trump is considering Wide Load McPantsuit for the SCOTUS pick ???
And, if so, would IDC/Sarc hit it ???
Even if Trump had nominated Garland, the democrats would start finding reasons why he shouldn’t be on the court. Why? Merely because Trump nominated him. Period.
Exactly!
Nice how none of the three served in the military, even as a JAG. Senator Tom Cotton graduated Harvard Law then went into the Army as an Infantry Officer and completed the Ranger Course. Military service should be a qualification requirement for any appointment.
Not a bad idea..
Why? What would that accomplish? FDR was Veteran. Thomas Jefferson was not. In fact, he ran like hell when the British neared, yet, could the nation have done without him in its birth and infancy? I like that military and civilian authority is well separated in our country and just as a good politician doesn’t make a good soldier, a a good soldier doesn’t make a good politician. Hell, look at the jokers south of this land. Many of those clowns were/are generals and colonels and aren’t worth a shit.
Bingo.
Jimmuh the Clueless was a vet; the SCoaMF preceding the current POTUS was not. Both sucked bigtime as President. Teddy Roosevelt was a vet; James Polk was not. Both are generally regarded as among the most successful US Presidents.
Being a veteran is nice in those appointed or elected to Federal office – but strength of character, convictions, and leadership is far more important in those who hold high Federal office if the nation is to succeed. Those qualities are not unique to veterans.
Nor is being a shitbag solely the domain of those that did not serve.
Agree. That would make a nice trivia question: how many SCOTUS judges have been veterans? If you take away those from the Civil War, how many would be left?
Find out and let us know.
Franklin wasn’t a vet that I know of, Teddy was!
FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy, not a sailor. So, right, he was not a Veteran. Another progressive type would have done fine, including Teddy. I was hasty.
Sorry, but FDR never served, unless you count Undersecretary of the Navy during the Wilson administration.
Yes, Casey, yesterday that was pointed out by “desert” and acknowledged by me. FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy and, no, that doesn’t count.
I respectfully disagree.
Such a requirement would undermine, de facto if not de jure, the principle of civilian control of the military.
I don’t think that’s true, seeing as how they’d have to be prior military, not currently serving… that being said, You are all quite correct that having served is no guarantee that they won’t be a shitbag… I guess my reaction was a bit kneejerk, just thinking that having people who actually understand real service to country would be a good thing…
I’m sure the liberal mainstream media TARDOs are already foaming at the mouth and sharpening their knives for all three as we speak. Sexual Harassment allegations,…
I’d like to see someone who is not from Harvard or Yale on the bench. I’d also like to see real-time court experience, which they all have.
They’re all very qualified, but it’s a plus for me that Kethledge teaches a course in legal writing.
What does that mean, that they are qualified? There are no qualifications at all. What we need is someone who doesn’t believe that there are secret messages between the lines of the Constitution that allow justices to makelaw and effect social engineering. I’m not picking on you. Many people here and elsewhere refer to qualified nominees. I want another Scalia, someone to join with Thomas and Alito, someone who can kick Roberts in the ass to straighten out his head.
Well, if there are no qualifications, I could apply for the job, right? 🙂
I want to see some freakin’ common sense return to the Court.
Some of the most unqualified people I’ve ever encountered have been professors’s. That’s not a resume builder for me.
I think all are very good and I do agree that I’d like to see someone from beyond the Ivy League.
The way these colleges have been brainwashing the students into communism and away from patriotism, I am not sure a justice picked from a patriot on the street with a high school diploma and common sensse wouldn’t be the best choce! 😉
To me, this is damn near everything in the Trump presidency. It is not possible for me to over emphasize this matter of Supreme Court nominations. The Left knows it can be fatal–yes, fatal–to them. Thank God Wide Load did not get these picks.
Agree. They know it’ll be fatal because the tactics of the left is to win in court with sympathetic judges and clever arguments when you can’t win at the polls.
I favor Barrett. A good judge who will have leftist tying themselves in knots with impotent rage that a successful woman would have the audacity not to do exactly as they say she should.
Barrett would make liberal heads explode. The hypocrisy would never end.
“…once in love with Amy, always in love with Amy…”
Liz Peek: Democrats are furious about Trump and the Supreme Court – They have only Obama to blame
Fox News Link
This is a good opinion piece- recommend you read it in it’s entirety as it’s too long to post here. Ms. Peek discusses the near perfect storm of an unpopular president, Harry Reid and the Nuclear Option, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocking Merrick Garland’s senate vote.
Are you saying that Democrats are digging holes and burying themselves, AW1Ed?
If so, nothing would surprise me more.
I’m not saying it, Ex, Ms. Peet is. But I will admit to enjoying the show immensely!
The REAL crime was the murder of Scalia….anyone with a single brain cell could see that one! Yet it was never investigated,imo !!
Conspiracy theorist alert!!!
Yeah, desert subscribes to all of the conspiracy theories. I’m sure he was waiting for the civil war that was supposed to happen on the 4th, too. And then he wonders why he’s moderated.
I’m guessing then that the “Hillary has her enemies assassinated” meme has him really wrapped too tight…
She doesn’t?
So, Jews vs Catholics, now? Both Feinstein and Schumer identify as Jewish/affiliate with Judaism. 7 total in the Senate, and all Dems if you count the Bern.
Catholics in the Senate? 24. 9 Republicans and 15 Dems. Yet somehow being a Catholic supposedly disqualifies one from public office?
Gonna need more popcorn.
And since Susan Collins is one of the Rep Catholics, it will be interesting to see how she postures though a Barrett confirmation.
As related to Collins, and others, it should read “catholic”, as by definition, someone who supports abortion is living in a state of sin according to the Catholic Church, and therefore is not allowed to receive any Sacraments, such as Holy Communion.. So while they claim to be “Catholic”, that is about as accurate as them claiming to be “Republicans”…
Catholics don’t stick together like, say, Muslims. There are absolutists and there are, at the other end, relativists. Most Catholics are in bewteen those poles. Pelosi/Collins/Any Kennedy are in the relativist minority.
I should have said Muslims of a particular flavor.
True 2/17, individual Catholics do have a range, though the Church itself has no such flexibility… that’s why kennedys and others still claimed to be catholic, while if they hadn’t been famous, the Church would have taken great exception to their actions / votes..
Funniest Jew/Cath joke I ever heard…Jews invented guilt but the Catholics perfected it.
Lol, having grown up in a Catholic family, and gone to 6 yrs of Catholic school, i can say without question, you are NOT wrong!!
I loved the late Justice Scalia, or St. Antonin as I can refer to him now, because he operated from a legal philosophy, not a political agenda. He was an originalist, someone who had no patience or tolerance for courts that read into the Constitution what was not there in black and white. He understood and appreciated that there were three separate branches of government and did not consider it the court’s proper role to make law. He did, however, not fear or shrink from telling one or the other branch that it was out of line. Most often, he told inferior courts they were. He had a great sense of humor and was a regular guy. He was short, paunchy, and was brilliant but down to earth. I miss him sorely.