The negative impact of conservative judges

Trump-appointed judges question the role of vaccines in the fight against Covid as they block mandates https://t.co/KKqU9EiDSC
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) December 11, 2021

GOP judicial appointees at the state level and on lower-level federal courts are often more right-wing than those on the U.S. Supreme Court—and they rule on way more cases. So it's not just those six. With great thoughts from @BillyCorriher. https://t.co/y2APLfU8DM
— Perry Bacon Jr. (@perrybaconjr) December 22, 2021

"No one is providing adult supervision of the most reactionary judges"https://t.co/r7rzsj1cQC
— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) December 27, 2021

Federal court freezes Biden’s vaccine regulation for U.S. firms, citing ‘grave statutory and constitutional issues’ https://t.co/tzjrZhp4Mt
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) November 6, 2021

Hmm, "quietly" is odd phrasing. The WaPo Trump Claims Database counts more than 100 times when Trump falsely said that he had appointed a record number of federal judges. He was so proud of his judicial appointments he regularly exaggerated about it. https://t.co/f3kK4WTBOf
— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) June 8, 2021

Trump’s 3 new justices will shape the law for decades, but more than 97 percent of federal appeals will be decided by the 12 circuit courts, and the 167 appellate judges who sit on them. That’s where Trump’s judicial legacy will be felt most deeply. https://t.co/glh04UbpPu
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) April 10, 2021

Final count of Trump judges

Contrary to his claim, Trump did not set a "record" for judges confirmed – though he did get a lot confirmed. His 234 confirmations to SCOTUS+district+appeals courts is behind Carter's 261. Carter (39%) and Nixon (37%) also beat Trump (27%) for percentage of the judiciary filled.
— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) January 20, 2021

Donald Trump’s final number of federal judges confirmed: 234.

One-third of the Supreme Court.

More than 1/4th of the US judiciary.

More than any president in first term since Jimmy Carter.

Largely young, conservative, Federalist Society-vetted.

They’ll serve for generations.
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) January 20, 2021

.@chuckschumer supports lower court expansion. Key is to calibrate # of new judges to # McConnell prevented Obama from filling (=stole) in his final 2yrs in office. For each of 119 vacancies Obama was blocked from filling, 2 new judges are needed to nullify stolen seat: 2×119=238 https://t.co/vcbPeTQW0h
— Take Back the Court (@TakeBacktheCt) January 11, 2021

Good morning! ☕ Trump's presidency is ending in a few weeks. But the more than 230 people he put into lifetime federal judgeships will be shaping the nation’s law for decades.

Most of them are white, male, right-wing ideologues. https://t.co/hsZicEWaHn
— Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) December 26, 2020

.@MaddowBlog: For nearly 125 years, the US Senate has steered clear of post-election judicial confirmations. Sen. McConnell won't let norms interfere with his crusade. https://t.co/WZxOyGy7cb
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) December 18, 2020

“In four years, the Trump administration put a record 226 life-tenure federal judges on the bench. And while these judges don’t make the headlines like the Supreme Court does, they are already transforming our country, a little bit at a time.”https://t.co/Do9LU6BPxQ
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) May 24, 2022

Trump judges have been very conservative

Given that some nominees would not even commit to saying that Brown v. Board of Education was properly decided, it’s not really a surprise that disagreement has arisen. Always good to have the data though. https://t.co/sYdLbHfxSF
— Gautam Hans (@dispositive) December 17, 2020

Barrett’s current seat is stolen

Did you know Amy Coney Barrett is sitting in a stolen judicial seat right now? In May 2017, Trump nominated Barrett to IN seat on Seventh Circuit, which covers Indiana, Illinois & Wisconsin. This is same seat to which President Obama nominated Myra Selby, a Black woman, in 2016.
— Leslie Proll (@LeslieProll) September 26, 2020

This👇🏽happened. https://t.co/NrRQGEt9ka
— silverprincess💛 (@marsha_vivinate) October 11, 2020

Here's a good illustration of how Republicans abused Senate rules to hurt Obama — the same rules McConnell wants to blow up now to help Republicans. They delayed votes on Obama's picks for ages and then voted for them in the end. Sometimes unanimously. https://t.co/dIEwmDTQo2 pic.twitter.com/JuS5vIlPGw
— Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) April 3, 2019

Republicans Block President Obama Appellate Judges https://t.co/ftGgA9XnyZ #Scalia #Scotus
— bennydiego✯ (@bennydiego) February 16, 2016

Republicans certainly enjoyed using blue slips to block Obama's judges. Interesting timing for a push on this. https://t.co/VaBEF34HjO
— Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) September 13, 2017

#Republican McConnell: Democrats should NOT be able to BLOCK Judges the way #Republicans BLOCKED @POTUS44 Obama https://t.co/RmiXUGLgRF pic.twitter.com/LXbcAuM4RQ
— VonVictor V. Rosenchild (@Rosenchild) September 14, 2017

Republicans keep appointing judges

Republicans take judicial appointments much more seriously than Democrats do. As far as I know, no Democrat has raised it as a campaign issue. Republicans blocked Obama appointments and have loaded up with Trump appointed judges. The conservative judges will overturn progressive laws in the future.

Mitch McConnell pushed through nine more lifetime federal judges TODAY (13 this week), bringing Trump's total to 144.

There’s more than the presidency on the ballot in 2020. We need pro-civil rights senators who recognize the importance of the courts in the fight for our rights. https://t.co/a9VNpKeRXE
— Vanita Gupta (@vanitaguptaCR) August 1, 2019

It may be the most consequential thing Trump ever does yet there's little talk of it in the 2020 primary. Democrats haven't figured out how to talk about judges come election time; Republicans know how to message it effectively. https://t.co/TE3AYf78ZO
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) August 13, 2019

NPR this morning has an alarming report on how Trump has now appointed nearly 1 in every 4 federal appeals court judges.https://t.co/KV018xoV9p
— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) August 2, 2019

Here's what we do know about the judicial nominees that McConnell is trying to fast track: 11 of the 19 refused to say that Brown v. Board was correctly decided. Call your Senators. 202-224-3121 https://t.co/KizS77JPiL
— Sherrilyn Ifill (@Sifill_LDF) July 31, 2019

Meantime, the Senate tonight is advancing 11 of Trump’s judicial nominees for lifetime seats on the federal bench
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) July 31, 2019

👉🏾18 states have never seated a Black justice.
👉🏾Right now, 24 states do not have a single justice of color on their state high court bench
👉🏾Women hold only 36% of state supreme court seats

Read more in our latest report: https://t.co/zQBTczv0XX pic.twitter.com/6Fj4LDWk1P
— Brennan Center (@BrennanCenter) July 27, 2019

Addressing the substantial racial and gender disparities on today’s state supreme courts is one of many necessary steps toward building a judiciary – and democracy – accessible to and reflective of the diverse communities in the United States. https://t.co/0EhqZQsWQs
— Brennan Center (@BrennanCenter) July 26, 2019

McConnell moves to confirm 19 judges next week and not 1 politician that wants Election Security should vote for them. #MoscowMitch #CriminalTrump https://t.co/84wfumD5Jd
— Not Exonerated 🆘 (@equalandallied1) July 26, 2019

Liberals are weighing whether to gut the few bipartisan norms still standing by expanding the size of the Supreme Court and completely eliminating the ability of senators to have a say on judges from their home states https://t.co/uJg6Mnoq2T
— POLITICO (@politico) July 22, 2019

I agree with both ideas.

Conservatives are court packing now

Democrats would not suggest measures like term limits or expanding the size of the Supreme Court if Republicans had not abused the system. Biden thinks he could work with Republicans. I bet they would not approve any of his judicial nominees if he’s elected.

The numbers don't lie: GOP only allowed 2 Obama appointees in his final two years, but jammed through 30 judges in Trump's first two.https://t.co/8WyWqMGTxr
— Sam Berger (@SamBerger_DC) May 29, 2019

"Judicial appointments, especially to the Supreme Court, are a central pillar of the Republican agenda, and Republican voters will forgive any number of other transgressions if the Party delivers on the courts."
This is why Democrats need to catch up.https://t.co/JbMYNtRJYv
— Demand Justice (@WeDemandJustice) June 3, 2019

Over two dozen Trump nominees won’t endorse the Brown vs. Board of Education decision

Today is the 65th anniversary of this landmark Supreme Court decision against school segregation. I can’t understand why you wouldn’t agree with it….unless you’re a racist.

Sherrilyn Ifill: For nearly 65 years, the legal consensus around Brown was unequivocal. But since April 2018, more than two dozen Trump nominees, including new judge Wendy Vitter and deputy attorney general Jeffrey Rosen, have declined to endorse it. https://t.co/75hVzmBpaU
— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) May 17, 2019

Today is the 65th anniversary of Brown v. Bd of Educ. Yet while we celebrate this anniversary and its beneficial impact on millions of Americans, Trump has nominated and McConnell’s Senate has confirmed numerous judicial nominees who REFUSE to say Brown was correctly decided. Sad
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) May 17, 2019

Sez @Eugene_Scott : Brown embodies the legal foundation on which all other desegregation decisions were based and the principle on which our federal civil rights laws were premised.https://t.co/9d1xR0Rvvh
— Vanessa Williams (@WaPoVanessa) May 17, 2019

Brown v. Board of Education is more than a historic ruling. It paved the way for #CivilRights progress & laid the foundation for equal protection under the law. Refusing to affirm #BrownvBoard is to lack fidelity to the rule of law. More via @USATODAY: https://t.co/c4cb3GM15X
— Derrick Johnson (@DerrickNAACP) May 17, 2019

1/2 I’m with ⁦@Sifill_LDF⁩. Brown v. Board gave black children the right to attend school with white children & ended separate but equal. If you won’t commit to Brown in your confirmation hearing, you shouldn’t be a federal judge or the Deputy AG. https://t.co/sv1SSl1nKJ
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) May 13, 2019

Federal courts keep ruling against Trump

Trump isn’t interested in following laws. He just wants to do things his way. Sad!

The court protection against Trump’s unlawful ideas will go away if he continues to stuff the court with extremist judges.

“A Washington Post review shows over 60 adverse rulings against the administration. All administrations lose cases, but experts cannot recall so many losses in such a short time.” https://t.co/TFtbLrArus
— Mimi Rocah (@Mimirocah1) April 13, 2019

#BREAKING: WA is now 19-0 against @realDonaldTrump after today's announcement that his admin would no longer defend attempts to roll back protections for marine wildlife. 11 of those wins are final & can't be appealed, meaning we have permanently blocked those unlawful policies.
— Bob Ferguson (@BobFergusonAG) April 16, 2019

McConnell’s impact on judicial picks

This is extremely important:

Obama left office with 107 open judgeships, many with nominees who didn’t get a vote or even a hearing. A SCOTUS seat was unfilled. McConnell was responsible for the 2-year effort that created these vacancies. https://t.co/6PZHjCazcm
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) March 29, 2019

McConnell, who is often mischaracterized as an institutionalist, has been willing to scrap Senate traditions/rules if there's a compelling ideological or partisan benefit (e.g. ramping up legislative filibusters, axing blue slips, and nuking SCOTUS filibuster & now debate time).
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) April 3, 2019

“We are going to move judges like they are on a conveyor belt.” —@SenateMajLdr McConnell@SenateGOP wouldn’t give Merrick Garland a hearing.

They took unprecedented steps to block Pres. Obama’s nominees.

Now they need to change the rules to force through Pres. Trump's judges? pic.twitter.com/XBWi0BChOb
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) April 1, 2019

Court packing may be needed to correct Republican abuse

Republicans have trashed norms by blocking Obama judicial appointments, stealing a Supreme Court seat, and abandoning the blue slip tradition. There is no reason for Democrats to adhere to norms if Republicans won’t do it too. A drastic measure like court packing may be needed to offset the Republican abuses of the appointment process.

The steps that Republicans have taken to shape the Supreme Court over the past few years have led some Democrats to believe that it’s time to throw out the rule book and fight back. https://t.co/TrI9z5iNvn
— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) March 31, 2019

Democratic plans to pack the Court are terrible, but Republicans can't amend the Constitution to prevent it without their support. Here's an idea for a compromise – only inn @PostOpinions.https://t.co/No3tVvKvx3
— Henry Olsen (@henryolsenEPPC) March 22, 2019

The column above by a conservative admits Republicans may block any Democratic Supreme Court pick: “…
the decision in 2016 by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to not hold hearings on President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, suggests that even a Democratic president could not successfully place his or her nominee on the bench if Breyer or Ginsburg were to step down while Republicans control the Senate.”

Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand said they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president https://t.co/xRiyoTBEg0
— POLITICO (@politico) March 18, 2019

From the article:

“Expanding the Supreme Court would amount to a historic power play by the next Democratic president and Congress, requiring an intense legislative fight and the abandonment of many judicial and congressional norms.

But Democrats say that after Republicans blocked Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland and other lower court judges during President Barack Obama’s final term only to quickly fill those vacancies once President Donald Trump was in office, the party needs an equally bruising response.”

There is no longer any debate about whether Democrats must reform the Supreme Court. The only discussion is about the how. Term limits are a good step but we also must expand the Court's size.https://t.co/mbimN2zT3E
— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) March 18, 2019

“It is time for the Democrats to drop the pretense that the judiciary is apolitical, and admit that no progressive agenda can be enacted or maintained without a drastic overhaul of the federal judiciary.” https://t.co/B7YKG8Ysco
— Pack The Courts (@PackSCOTUS) April 19, 2019