7th Circuit Judge Posner quits

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!

    • Register Log in
    L

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,730
    press1280 said:
    http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2...udge-quits-the-bench/?slreturn=20170805074306

    The author of Moore calls it quits, does not appear he will go to senior status either. I think this is a good thing, as other than the Moore opinion, he hasn't exactly been great on 2A cases. I just hope Trump acts quicker than he has on other vacancies.
    Click to expand...

    Don't hold much hope for that. He told Fox a few days back that he was intentionally leaving vacancies to shrink government. How he didn't fold all of his business I don't know. Last I checked, other than wanting to mismanage something in to the ground, leaving leadership vacant is bad way to find efficiencies....
     
    R

    redeemed.man

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 29, 2013
    17,444
    HoCo
    lazarus said:
    How he didn't fold all of his business I don't know. Last I checked, other than wanting to mismanage something in to the ground, leaving leadership vacant is bad way to find efficiencies....
    Click to expand...
    That's likely because you've probably never been a leader in private industry. His businesses didn't fold because he got rid of fat, something that is a foreign concept to most working in government agencies. Most of the positions he is not filing weren't doing sh1t anyway. Kind of like when the government "shuts down" but 85% of the people are deemed essential and still report to work. Taxpayers don't miss the 15% sitting at home one bit. We'd be better off if the government were trimmed by far more than 15%, it is one giant cluster of waste as it is now. In case you weren't aware there is plenty of "leadership" remaining in federal agencies and I use the term "leadership" very loosely.
     
    P

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,916
    WV
    lazarus said:
    Don't hold much hope for that. He told Fox a few days back that he was intentionally leaving vacancies to shrink government. How he didn't fold all of his business I don't know. Last I checked, other than wanting to mismanage something in to the ground, leaving leadership vacant is bad way to find efficiencies....
    Click to expand...

    I didn't hear anything specific about the judiciary being shrunk. Besides, doesn't Congress allocate the numbers of judges per Circuit?
     
    M

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,761
    Why would ANYONE be excited about Donald Trump, a Republican, failing to appoint justices who could potentially rule in favor of 2A cases? Or other cases down the road?

    And also, if you are tired of it taking 2 years for a case to make it through a court, don't' get excited about cutting the number of justices, because that'll make it take 4 years now.

    This is probably the one thing Trump can do that the next president if he/she isn't Trump, can't undo, and a text book example of Republicans ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
     
    Jim12

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    34,090
    lazarus said:
    Don't hold much hope for that. He told Fox a few days back that he was intentionally leaving vacancies to shrink government. How he didn't fold all of his business I don't know. Last I checked, other than wanting to mismanage something in to the ground, leaving leadership vacant is bad way to find efficiencies....
    Click to expand...

    I can't believe he said that. That's a bad move. The judiciary is the ONE place that Trump wants, and needs to pack with lifetime appointments of conservatives. If he doesn't, the next Leftist POTUS will. Obama appointed lots of federal judges and they are already having a big negative impact -- including in Maryland and the 4th Circuit.

    Trump has to be smarter than that. Leaving federal judicial vacancies is not "shrinking government" unless the authorized number of judges in each district and circuit is actually reduced by Congress. Leaving vacancies open is like having only eight Supreme Court justices. Did he refuse to appoint a ninth -- Gorsuch -- in order to shrink government? Or would he refuse to replace another departing Justice or two? Of course not.
     
    Alea Jacta Est

    Alea Jacta Est

    Extinguished member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 7, 2013
    30,287
    on a hill...in the woods...by the creek
    Wow

    He did say he was leaving vacancies

    He has had a habit of saying one thing while intentionally doing another.

    Any consideration given to the notion that he intends vacancies not necessarily in the judiciary but perhaps elsewhere in bloated USG/feds?

    Very few want to give credit to DJT. While im not his biggest fan, I refuse to join the almost absolute rush of folks who can't wait to find him screwing up.

    You've got (we have got) a wonderful chance to foster hope. Stop buying into the MSM and lib/prog and deep state narrative for a couple fn months and put on some hope. What do you have to lose??

    The campaign to destabilize and unseat him
    is unparalleled in our history. Give the guy a fn break. If folks like us don't, then surely no one will.
     
    Jim12

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    34,090
    I am all for his taking an axe to the bloated federal government, but there is a Congressionally-fixed number of federal judicial seats in each district, circuit, and SCOTUS; the Democrat Left has made a conscious decision to take over the country by taking over the courts and having them rule by judicial fiat. That's worked for the past several decades, although the Republicans finally began to wise up a bit during Obama. Look at what the lower courts have done with gun control and other re-imagining the Bill of Rights. Trump needs to pack the courts with conservatives.

    This is a once-in-a lifetime opportunity to have a multi-generational impact. SCOTUS isn't the only court that matters. The overwhelming majority of issues never reach it and are never appealed, good, bad, or indifferent.
     
    shacklefordbanks

    shacklefordbanks

    Active Member
    Mar 27, 2013
    252
    He told Fox a few days back that he was intentionally leaving vacancies to shrink government.
    Click to expand...

    I call BS! Got a link to back you up?

    Everything I've read or seen explicitly states that Trump is not rushing to fill AGENCY positions like Third Undersecretary of BS and Whatnot. He's been full throttle on JUDICIAL appointments. The DEMS have been holding up some appointments with blue slip fights, but these seem to be ending now.
     
    CrazySanMan

    CrazySanMan

    2013'er
    Mar 4, 2013
    11,390
    Colorful Colorado
    shacklefordbanks said:
    I call BS! Got a link to back you up?

    Everything I've read or seen explicitly states that Trump is not rushing to fill AGENCY positions like Third Undersecretary of BS and Whatnot. He's been full throttle on JUDICIAL appointments. The DEMS have been holding up some appointments with blue slip fights, but these seem to be ending now.
    Click to expand...

    This
     
    Mr H

    Mr H

    Banana'd
    Mar 9, 2010
    136,157
    PRM, Province AA, District 32, GBP Zone
    shacklefordbanks said:
    I call BS! Got a link to back you up?

    Everything I've read or seen explicitly states that Trump is not rushing to fill AGENCY positions like Third Undersecretary of BS and Whatnot. He's been full throttle on JUDICIAL appointments. The DEMS have been holding up some appointments with blue slip fights, but these seem to be ending now.
    Click to expand...

    Generally, correct IMO... plus, what boundless said earlier.

    One problem we have among our population here is one of topic conflation.

    Admin/agency is totally separate from Judicial.

    Now... to fill robes and get the Senate off its thumbs.
     
    L

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,730
    L

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,730
    Oh and for judicial vacancies, he has been slower than most of his predecessors on that.

    And yes, vacancies among the executive branch matters as well. Certain delegate authorities can only be carried out by a political appointee. You also end up getting people filling multiple jobs (which makes it hard to do all of them). It is one thing to surgically reform government. It is another to make it fail in a non-selective way.

    It wastes a shit load of my tax money to do that.
     
    R

    redeemed.man

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 29, 2013
    17,444
    HoCo
    lazarus said:
    Oh and for judicial vacancies, he has been slower than most of his predecessors on that.

    And yes, vacancies among the executive branch matters as well. Certain delegate authorities can only be carried out by a political appointee. You also end up getting people filling multiple jobs (which makes it hard to do all of them). It is one thing to surgically reform government. It is another to make it fail in a non-selective way.

    It wastes a shit load of my tax money to do that.
    Click to expand...
    Yeah and that's all Trump, has nothing to do with the obstructionists in Congress.
     
    L

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,730
    Actually, I was mistaken. I found something else that says (as of Aug 1) that Trump is ahead of Bush and Obama on Judicial appointments at this point. Still behind on executive appointments compared to all other modern presidents.
     
    L

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,730
    boundlessdyad said:
    Yeah and that's all Trump, has nothing to do with the obstructionists in Congress.
    Click to expand...

    Erm, it doesn't. He his rate of nomination is about half of what Bush's was. Senate doesn't prevent him from nominating people. Rate of approval is roughly par compared to other presidents in terms of percentage (IE if he nominated 100 and 50 are confirmed, Bush might have nominated 200 and had 100 confirmed).

    So, it really has nothing at all to do with Congress in this case.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    1A Fingerprinting services

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,522
    Messages
    7,284,996
    Members
    33,473
    Latest member
    Sarca

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom