As he was deliberating last year over replacing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, President Trump told confidants he had big plans for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
"I'm saving her for Ginsburg," Trump said of Barrett, according to three sources familiar with the president's private comments. Trump used that exact line with a number of people, including in a private conversation with an adviser two days before announcing Brett Kavanaugh's nomination.
***
Yes, but: There's no guarantee Trump will get another Supreme Court pick. It's very unlikely Ginsburg will retire while he’s in office. And though she's 86 and has had 3 bouts with cancer, she's on the bench now and appears healthy.
Barrett isn't a lock even if Trump does get to make another appointment, the people familiar with his thinking said.
Barrett has the inside track "in a very specific sense," said a source who's discussed Barrett with Trump. "She is the most known quantity right now amongst the women on the list. ... And she also has the inside track in the sense that she was kind of battle-tested for having gone through a confirmation already."
Between the lines: Trump changes his mind all the time, and Barrett would need to undergo a fresh round of vetting to review the rulings and public comments she's made since confirmed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017.
"The Supreme Court judicial selection process with the president is a very fluid one," said a source familiar with Trump's thinking on the subject. "He floats in and out of these discussions over a period of time."
Barrett's education didn't appeal to Trump, according to sources familiar with his thinking. She went to law school at Notre Dame, and Trump prefers candidates with Harvard and Yale on their resumes.
Why it matters: Trump has already pulled the court well to the right. If he gets to replace Ginsburg, especially with Barrett, he would cement a young, reliably conservative majority that could last for decades.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
No words. That he would say that and his people would leak it.
ReplyDelete1005
DeleteTotally agree. Thats beyond words.... its lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous!
I thought I was being groomed to replace Ginsberg.
ReplyDeleteVery surprised that Weaver didn't include the ausa smack down in closing in his article.
ReplyDeleteDefense lawyers are such suckers. We know judge will never grant mistrial for rebuttal argument. Its ausa 101
ReplyDeleteHe planned that vampire comment all along.
ReplyDeleteWhats so inappropriate about the vampire comment? No one would believe it was a literal suggestion the guy is actually a vampire. How is it so different from "They have stacked their case with con artists, liars, fraudsters...even drug dealers..." ? The jury is going to get confused and just convict because the prosecutor is calling him a vampire? Help me out.
ReplyDeleteThe risk here is not one of confusion. The prosecutor's comment was a personal attack on Esformes. He likened Esformes to a flesh eating and blood sucking predator of innocents. A murderer. That type of comment has no place in a courtroom.
ReplyDelete1126
DeleteOf course it was a personal attack--the guy is literally on trial. The question is whether it is an *unfair* attack. You take issue because vampires are flesh eating and blood sucking murderers. But would anyone even actually think the prosecutor was suggesting the guy was a vampire *in that way*??? I really dont get it. Maybe it is beneath the decorum of the courtroom. But what i dont understand is why anyone would argue it is cause for a mistrial. Name calling = mistrial? Is that what we are saying?