Justice Clarence Thomas has been secretly lobbying senators to get controversial Trump judicial nomi
Justice Clarence Thomas has been secretly lobbying senators to get controversial Trump judicial nominee confirmed
written by David Badash / The New Civil Rights Movement March 1, 2019
In a rare move Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been secretly lobbying Republican Senators to urge them to vote to confirm President Donald Trumps highly controversial judicial nominee, Neomi Rao.
Justice Thomas is working behind the scenes to boost the prospects of his former law clerk, Neomi Rao, to serve on a powerful federal appeals court in Washington, The Washington Post reports Thursday.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a small but highly powerful appellate court that has the power to hear cases brought by or against the federal government. It tends to have exclusive jurisdiction over matters that are likely to have a national effect, and its judges are considered prime candidates to become Supreme Court justices.
Most recently, Judge, and now Justice Brett Kavanaugh sat on the D.C. Court of Appeals. Neomi Rao, whose rulings and stated beliefs are considered far out of the mainstream and by some entirely inappropriate for any judge sitting on the federal bench, is President Trumps nominee to replace Kavanaugh now that he has been elevated to the nations top court. Four of the nations current sitting Supreme Court justices came directly from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
More:
https://www.alternet.org/2019/03/justice-clarence-thomas-has-been-secretly-lobbying-senators-to-get-controversial-trump-judicial-nominee-confirmed/?utm_source=push_notifications
riversedge
(70,215 posts)FBaggins
(26,737 posts)Of course senators are talking to judges that a nominee worked for or with. Id be shocked if they didnt.
Does anyone remember why Kavanaugh wasnt on Trumps original list? It was because he campaigned for Garland.
madaboutharry
(40,210 posts)about protocol or how things might be inappropriate.
Nothing surprises me anymore.
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)Research their history
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)MBS
(9,688 posts)Or at least shouldn't it be?
FBaggins
(26,737 posts)Think of all the claims at the Kavanaugh hearing that it wasnt a trial, it was a job interview. What job interview wouldnt include a former supervisor in the same field?
I would consider it inappropriate for a sitting justice to comment on a nominee for their own bench... but Id bet that it happens and I dont think its illegal.