Recent Popular Posts

Related Posts

Comments

  1. nobody.really says

    The latest nominations of ten fine lower court judges makes clear that President Trump is the best President for judicial selection since at least Ronald Reagan, particularly in his willingness to nominate conservative legal academics likely to have extraordinary influence.

    I’m intrigued to read this. In reviewing the great accomplishments of Trump’s first 100 days, everyone cites his success in getting a conservative on the Supreme Court. My reaction was that this was something that ANY Republican would have done; Trump’s only contribution to the process was getting elected. I don’t mean to denigrate that contribution, but let’s keep it in perspective. Yet McGinnis suggests that I’ve underestimated Trump’s contribution: Other Republican presidents have failed to perform as well as Trump has managed to do.

    Let’s explore this: What caused past Republican presidents to nominate less desirable candidates (from McGinnis’s perspective)? Were past Republicans more moderate than Trump, and therefore less willing to nominate such extreme candidates? Or did they have more political favors to fulfill and thus lacked the free hand that a novice such as Trump enjoys? Or were they more arrogant than Trump? Whereas Trump may feel no special shame in tacitly acknowledging his ignorance on matters of judicial appointments, and thus may be willing to delegate these decisions to others (such as the Federalist Society), other presidents may have felt the need to demonstrate independent judgment in making such consequential decisions.

    Any thoughts?

    • gabe says

      Nobody:

      I think you may be on to something here.
      Clearly, The Trumpster’s bag of “Political Favors Owed” is not as large as past presidents.
      Perhaps, *arrogance* (or, better, the need to *project* knowledge / power / influence) was higher in previous Prez’s.

      But here is something else to consider:

      Could it be that he, contrary to the dominant narrative by the Left AND the Never Trumpsters, does not perceive himself as the Grand Leader (as in Le Grand Charles) but RATHER as a Manager, in some ways not unlike a CEO.
      Consider the discretion he has afforded the military (with reservations I approve of this BTW). contrast that with Obama, Clinton and Carter who not only wanted extensive control but sought to micromanage the Armed Forces.
      Not so, The Trumpster who appears to be comfortable playing the CEO role not El Jefe.

      This is a strength (to my mind) BUT it may very well prove to be his weakness. It is a strength because it allows those afforded his confidence to work toward what they believe to be a proper solution without fear of *undue* political influence. It is a weakness because in some instances (more later) it provides the opportunity for those who do not share his “particular” vision or feel for a situation to exercise influence over others AND over The Trumpster.

      Specifically, The Trumpster will (is) get in trouble because he has disregarded the old adage:

      “NEVER hire someone that you cannot FIRE”

      Think Jared Kushner and Ivanka here. Given an opportunity to vote for this dynamic duo, would Trump voters have voted for THEM? I think not – trouble lurks here.

      So his “CEO delegation” skills may be of particular benefit when selecting candidates for the Judiciary; not so much for specific policy prescriptions.

      Anyway, it all promised to be interesting!

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>