Trump’s Ladies or the Court by Larry C Johnson

Judge Barbara Lagoa

The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg over the weekend may have added superheated fuel to what was already a fiery inferno of a Presidential campaign, but it was no surprise. Donald Trump’s announcement of an additional list of prospective nominees for the Supreme Court nine days before Ginsburg’s demise was inspired because the he knew that the elderly judge was on her last legs. The list is important because it reflects President Trump’s genuine intent on the kind of judge he wants to nominate to the Supreme Court.

Donald Trump is quite clear–he is going to nominate a woman. Now it is possible that a new name might surface in the coming week that was not on the lists he has released over the last four years, but he has assembled a formidable group of lady jurists. Here they are in the chronological order (i.e., Trump’s 9 September 2020 announcement marked the fourth time since he started running for President in 2015 that he announced a list of prospective selectees). The two getting the most attention are Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa.

My money is on Judge Barbara Lagoa, who is the only latina on the list and hails from Florida, where the latino vote is capable of tipping the scales in the favor of Donald Trump over Joe Biden.

Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Allison Eid of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Joan Larsen of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Margaret Ryan of Virginia, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Bridget Bade (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit)

Barbara Lagoa (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit)

Trump nominated Lagoa for the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last September, and she was confirmed by an unusually lopsided 80-15 Senate vote in November. Most of Trump’s nominees win confirmation narrowly. Lagoa’s status as one of the few female Latina judges made her a tough choice to oppose.

Martha Pacold (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois)

Sarah Pitlyk (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri)

Allison Jones Rushing (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit)

Kate Todd (deputy White House counsel)

Trump’s upcoming announcement of the new Supreme Court Justice is going to unleash a fascinating dynamic. The Democrats will follow their playbook of demonizing the choice as a souless whore spawned by Satanic demons. The female nominee could have spent her entire life caring for the disabled and she will still be vilified as evil and incompetent.

I don’t think that dog will hunt now. The vile hatred and vitriol the Senate Democrats spewed at a white guy like Judge Kavanaugh will have little resonance against someone like Barbara Lagoa, a woman and a Cuban American. This will put the Democrats in an uncomfortable position. While they insist that Trump is the anti-woman President and a serial sex predator, it will be Donald Trump who is extolling the virtues and character of an accomplished woman. It is very likely that the Democrats will grossly overplay their hand and evoke among the public at large the same question raised during the Army McCarthy Hearings of the fifties—Senator, have you no sense of decency?

The fact that 85 Senators voted for Judge Lagoa’s current judicial appointment provides another political club that Trump can and will use to bludgeon Senators who try to walk back their previous endorsement. You can bet that Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski endorsed her and will find it difficult to avoid taking a stand on behalf of the female nominee.

This is not going to be a static affair. According to some commentary on the Sunday talks shows, the real reason to get a liberal judge has nothing to do with Roe v Wade and everything to do with Obamacare. If true, this gives Donald Trump another opening that will put the Democrats on their heels if he comes out with his detailed plan for replacing Obamacare. I am certain of one thing–do not trust the conventional wisdom. Donald Trump is not conventional.

This entry was posted in Larry Johnson. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Trump’s Ladies or the Court by Larry C Johnson

  1. Eric Newhill says:

    Larry,
    I don’t know about the Obamacare angle. Now that the mandate to have insurance has been removed (by Trump a couple of years ago), I don’t know what there is about it to take the Supreme Court. Also, when covid ends in the second week of this Nov and the economy picks up again under Trump, ACA enrollment will be back to trending toward minimal (around 8.5 million total enrolled nationwide last January, down from 12.5 million a couple years prior. Insurance companies have figured out how to deal with, price, etc pre-existing conditions. There really is no reason to go after the ACA other than the subsidies cost the govt a little money. I think Trump is happy enough to keep it going. Shutting it down at this point would be purely for ideological revenge against Obama’s “legacy” and IMO Trump is not that ideological or stupid. He might just tweak it a little more, but, again, that doesn’t require the Supremes. There’s no there, there. I have worked (senior manager) on ACA implementation and improvement for one of the big insurance companies for a few years.

  2. J says:

    Trump is playing 4-D Chess with the liberals who are locked in their 2-D mode.

  3. Fred says:

    Larry,
    The left’s media allies are already setting the narrative.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/BonillaJL/status/1307685723538173952

  4. Deap says:

    SCOTUS is ripe for interpretation of ……..”under the jurisdiction thereof” in the US Constitution citizenship clause.
    How will a strict constructionist Cuban heritage jurist rule on that? My guess is just the opposite from what the current “wise Latina” on the bench would rule. Does one strictly define the express terms written by the Founders; or does one insert their own activist social agenda into the ruling on that term.
    What will …”under the jurisdiction thereof” … mean to this new court?
    Does merely crossing a national border put one “under the jurisdiction” of the United States; or does holding a valid non-resident, non-citizen visa subject put one under the jurisdiction there of the United States.
    What arguments did Judge Lagoa make in the Elian Gonzales case, that ultimately repatriated a minor non US child back to Cuba, who had arrived in the US via the boat people migrations.

  5. J says:

    Pelosi has nefarious plans
    “We Have Our Options”: Pelosi Doesn’t Rule Out Impeachment Over Supreme Court Pick
    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/we-have-our-options-pelosi-doesnt-rule-out-impeachment-over-supreme-court-pick

  6. Dave Schuler says:

    The irony of that is that Democrats seem to be committed to dumping the Affordable Care Act themselves. Remember during the debates? Most of those running for the nomination raised their hands in support of “Medicare For All”. The caravan has moved on and Democrats don’t support the ACA any more. How much does Biden’s promise to expand the ACA actually mean? I don’t think it means anything.
    Someone should insist that Speaker Pelosi pledge not to change the ACA. That would be amusing.

  7. AK says:

    J,
    IMO, if the House Dems were to actually try this stunt, especially given recent polling which suggests that more than 60% of Americans favor filling the seat ASAP, we might actually see a unified government under complete Republican control come January 2021. Any swing state Democrat should run as far as possible from this plan. Of course, they have proven themselves to be the most incompetent and deranged opposition party in modern American history, so anything is possible with them.

  8. Deap says:

    Solid reports the votes are there; now we just need the candidate. And some popcorn when we watch Kamala Harris make a bloody fool of herself again.
    Smart move would be for Democrats to just accept this and get back to selling America they are the better choice; not an ugly pack of braying obstructionists .They lost in 2016 and they finally need to accept this and now is the moment.
    Onwards to 2020 on the issues, Democrats. Not just the politics of personal destruction. Give it your best shot with your very best team. (Cough, cough, cough). Rest assured California is now bristling with Biden-Harris yard signs all over the nicer neighborhoods – and one can only say ….what are they thinking? Not even a shred of embarrassment about either of their team. This is so odd.
    The union orthodoxy runs loud in these people.

  9. TV says:

    Deap:
    Re. California.
    I have visited the state many times and travelled end to end.
    I always felt that I was dealing with children in adult bodies.
    There is something childlike about the whole place.
    So, their politics doesn’t surprise me.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.