Donald Trump Releases List of Potential Supreme Court Appointments…

Candidate Donald Trump has released a set of names of potential Supreme Court nominees.  The announcement was made via Facebook –SEE HERE– and is accompanied with the following press release:

Trump scotus picks

(New York, NY) May 18, 2016 – Today Donald J. Trump released the much-anticipated list of people he would consider as potential replacements for Justice Scalia at the United States Supreme Court. This list was compiled, first and foremost, based on constitutional principles, with input from highly respected conservatives and Republican Party leadership.

Mr. Trump stated, “Justice Scalia was a remarkable person and a brilliant Supreme Court Justice. His career was defined by his reverence for the Constitution and his legacy of protecting Americans’ most cherished freedoms. He was a Justice who did not believe in legislating from the bench and he is a person whom I held in the highest regard and will always greatly respect his intelligence and conviction to uphold the Constitution of our country. The following list of potential Supreme Court justices is representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value and, as President, I plan to use this list as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justices.”

♦ Steven Colloton

Steven Colloton of Iowa is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, a position he has held since President George W. Bush appointed him in 2003. Judge Colloton has a résumé that also includes distinguished service as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, a Special Assistant to the Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, and a lecturer of law at the University of Iowa. He received his law degree from Yale, and he clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Judge Colloton is an Iowa native.

♦ Allison Eid

Allison Eid of Colorado is an associate justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. Colorado Governor Bill Owens appointed her to the seat in 2006; she was later retained for a full term by the voters (with 75% of voters favoring retention). Prior to her judicial service, Justice Eid served as Colorado’s solicitor general and as a law professor at the University of Colorado. Justice Eid attended the University of Chicago Law School, and she clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.

♦ Raymond Gruender

Raymond Gruender of Missouri has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit since his 2004 appointment by President George W. Bush. Judge Gruender, who sits in St. Louis, Missouri, has extensive prosecutorial experience, culminating with his time as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. Judge Gruender received a law degree and an M.B.A. from Washington University in St. Louis.

♦ Thomas Hardiman

Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit since 2007. Prior to serving as a circuit judge, he served as a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania since 2003. Before his judicial service, Judge Hardiman worked in private practice in Washington, D.C. and Pittsburgh. Judge Hardiman was the first in his family to attend college, graduating from Notre Dame.

♦ Raymond Kethledge

Raymond Kethledge of Michigan has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit since 2008. Before his judicial service, Judge Kethledge served as judiciary counsel to Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham, worked as a partner in two law firms, and worked as an in-house counsel for the Ford Motor Company. Judge Kethledge obtained his law degree from the University of Michigan and clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy.

♦ Joan Larsen

Joan Larsen of Michigan is an Associate Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. Justice Larsen was a professor at the University of Michigan School of Law from 1998 until her appointment to the bench. In 2002, she temporarily left academia to work as an Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Justice Larsen received her law degree from Northwestern and clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia.

♦ Thomas Lee

Thomas Lee of Utah has been an Associate Justice of the Utah Supreme Court since 2010. Beginning in 1997, he served on the faculty of Brigham Young University Law School, where he still teaches in an adjunct capacity. Justice Lee was Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Civil Division from 2004 to 2005. Justice Lee attended the University of Chicago Law School, and he clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Lee is also the son of former U.S. Solicitor General Rex Lee and the brother of current U.S. Senator Mike Lee.

♦ William Pryor

William H. Pryor, Jr. of Alabama is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He has served on the court since 2004. Judge Pryor became the Alabama Attorney General in 1997 upon Jeff Sessions’s election to the U.S. Senate. Judge Pryor was then elected in his own right in 1998 and reelected in 2002. In 2013, Judge Pryor was confirmed to a term on the United States Sentencing Commission. Judge Pryor received his law degree from Tulane, and he clerked for Judge John Minor Wisdom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

♦ David Stras

David Stras of Minnesota has been an Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court since 2010. After his initial appointment, he was elected to a six-year term in 2012. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Stras worked as a legal academic at the University of Minnesota Law School. In his time there, he wrote extensively about the function and structure of the judiciary. Justice Stras received his law degree and an M.B.A. from the University of Kansas. He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.

♦ Diane Sykes

Diane Sykes of Wisconsin has served as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since 2004. Prior to her federal appointment, Judge Sykes had been a Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court since 1999 and a Wisconsin trial court judge of both civil and criminal matters before that. Judge Sykes received her law degree from Marquette.

♦ Don Willett

Don Willett of Texas has been a Justice of the Texas Supreme Court since 2005. He was initially appointed by Governor Rick Perry and has been reelected by the voters twice. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Willett worked as a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, as an advisor in George W. Bush’s gubernatorial and presidential administrations, as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, and as a Deputy Attorney General under then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Justice Willett received his law degree and a master’s degree from Duke.

trump and eagle

trump eagle 2

This entry was posted in Donald Trump, Election 2016, media bias, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

230 Responses to Donald Trump Releases List of Potential Supreme Court Appointments…

  1. sarrask says:

    We haven’t had a white evangelical on the Court for a long time. How much of that missing diversity is on this list?

    Liked by 7 people

    • Peredur says:

      None of the names look Jewish, except maybe Eid. Eid is married to the son of an Egyptian immigrant. (It is not clear whether he is from a Muslim, Christian, or Jewish background.)

      It would be a nice change to have a non-Catholic, non-Jewish nominee, not necessarily Evangelical, but a white Protestant (or someone from a white Protestant ancestral background). These are the founding stock people of America. It is disgraceful that they are completely absent on the Supreme Court currently.

      Liked by 10 people

      • sarrask says:

        I guess that’s what I meant. It seems anymore they’ve been using Evangelical as a synonym for Protestant. I’ve seen many exit polls talking about the Evangelical vote, zero saying Protestant.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Peredur says:

          Good. I don’t have a WordPress account, so I can’t “like” comments.

          Liked by 1 person

        • mariner says:

          As I understand it, “evangelical” is a subset of “protestant”, and in today’s political parlance it means “fundamentalist”, though with slightly less sneer.

          For example, I don’t think of Methodists or Presbyterians as evangelicals, though they’re protestant Christians.

          Liked by 3 people

          • Deb says:

            I always think of “evangelical” as “non-denominational,” but you never see that term anymore.

            And as a Catholic, I don’t care what your religion is in regards to being on SCOTUS. There are leftist Catholics and conservative Catholics. The point is if someone will adhere to the constitution and not legislate from the bench. If that person is an evangelical or a Protestant, great.

            Liked by 6 people

        • Brian L says:

          Call them WASPs, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

          Liked by 2 people

          • lubyankafh says:

            the comment I heard en-passant on I think ABC network news was “White” candidates as in the too many “White priveledged” candidates who are’nt Kenyan/Uzbeki Transgender Islamic Socialist Diverse Underwater Basket-weaver who got the best Foreign Financed …I’m babbling again. ESD ABC

            end-of-rant

            Liked by 1 person

      • Taco says:

        i’d like to see an Eastern Orthodox SC Justice.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Scott437 says:

          It would sure be nice to see a CHRISTIAN on the Supreme Court.

          Are the followers and disciples of Christ not called Christians?

          “And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26, KJV)

          .

          Liked by 3 people

      • How about just the BEST person for the job??? I think that makes the most common sense…

        On another note… “This list was compiled, first and foremost, based on constitutional principles, with input from highly respected conservatives and Republican Party leadership.”

        Shouldn’t that read from A highly respected conservative, Senator Jeff Sessions? A little help here, who else is a highly respected conservative… and pray tell what in the world is this “republican party leadership” of which they speak???

        Liked by 6 people

      • Eid is NOT Jewish. Just a short search, Wiki. says she’s a “Lebanese – American”. Most likely her parents were Christian (either Syrian Catholic or Orthodox) Lebanese. Probably not Moslem.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Apfelcobbler says:

        That’s an important point that you would never hear brought up in the media – and certainly not the grave implications. They might josh about Harvard vs Yale grads or something of that sort. They obfuscate to the max, skirt real issues and mask the fact that Protestants are losing the institutions they founded. Trump to the rescue!

        I believe Scalia remarked on the Court makeup (as recently as last year?).

        Trump 2016 and America First!

        Liked by 2 people

        • Lindy says:

          SInce you mentioned Harvard, I noticed none of the people on the list went to Harvard Law School. It would be nice to have a Justice educated somewhere besides Harvard, Yale or Columbia.

          Like

      • Mindcraft says:

        Come on. Can we just have a judge that upholds the constitution? I don’t care if they are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, Hindu, or Pantheist. I don’t want anyone’s beliefs shoved down my throat. Isn’t this what we said with Trump? We are not electing a minister. We are electing someone who will put the U.S. first. Well, how about we get someone who will put our constitution first? The only religious belief where that would be a problem is Muslim, so they are out.

        We are all influenced by out beliefs, but that should be out the window when it comes to ruling in the courts.

        Like

    • pancho says:

      Very sad…no trannies, lesbians, gay men(unknown), Hispanics, Black Lives Matter, Asians…just pathetic. Shows how out of touch Trump really is!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Scott437 says:

      sarrask wrote: “We haven’t had a white evangelical on the Court for a long time.”

      ……………………….

      Very much agreed.

      That is an important point that I have made repeatedly.

      What many people have not considered is that there is not a single self-identified Bible-believing Christian on the Supreme Court.

      Before Scalia passed away, this was the breakdown:

      .

      Antonin Scalia: “Roman Catholic” (Wiki)

      Clarence Thomas: “Roman Catholicism” (Wiki)

      Samuel Alito: “Roman Catholicism” (Wiki)

      John Roberts: “Roman Catholicism” (Wiki)

      The so-called “swing” vote:

      Anthony Kennedy: “Roman Catholicism” (Wiki)

      The Leftists:

      Sonia Sotomayor: “Roman Catholicism” (Wiki)

      Stephen Breyer: “Judaism” (Wiki)

      Elena Kagan: “Judaism” (Wiki)

      Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “Judaism” (Wiki)

      ………………………….

      Nine Supreme Court Justices.

      Six self-described “Roman Catholics”, and three self-described Jews.

      Not one self-described Bible-believing Christian.

      Considering that we WANT Justices who will go by the WORD of the Constitution as it is WRITTEN, does it not make good sense to have Justices who already take that same approach to the WORD of God?

      .

      Like

      • alegenoa says:

        Sadly misguided remarks.
        Part of the confusion stems from the fact that leftist Catholics are Catholics In Name Only (is CINO already a thing?), due to their being ignorant idiots/self-deceiving/maliciously deceiving or a combination of the above.

        Scalia is a great loss precisely because he interpreted his own role correctly as applying the Constitution without inserting any new idea into it, and this Originalist approach is out of fashion, sadly. Even though ideally it should be the only possible one.
        I believe Justice Thomas has always followed Scalia’s lead.
        Roberts and Alito aren’t exactly on the same page, but I imagine you won’t complain about them, being responsible conservatives anyway.
        So, the problem is all about incidental, irrelevant formal religious affiliations of justices that are hardly religious anyway, but are imbued with the leftist worldview, and are anyway chosen from certain segments of population in order to pander to ethnic minorities.

        But consider. The Catholic Church interprets the Bible according to the meaning of what God ostensibly wanted to teach with a certain passage. This parallels with Scalia and others interpreting the Constitution according to what people reasonably understood it meant at the time it was promulgated.
        This requires a deep study and the development of a common understanding of any relevant historical and textual fact surrounding the documents.
        Through these reasonable lines you can both assert with confidence that God through the Bible does not want to teach us that the Earth is flat and the is Sun revolving around it, and that the US Constitutions does not provide a basis for anchor babies.
        On the other hand, Protestantism often loses contact with history, to obsess about the text itself, often out of context. This leads to a sort of text fetish that is fruitless and indefensible if not harmful. Eventually literalism escapes from its sterile nature either re-embracing the reasonable point of view I expounded before, or by deciding the narrow focus of the original text requires further modern additions, opening a liberal can of worms.
        So, it’s probably not a coincidence that a remarkable justice such as Scalia happened to be a devout Catholic!

        If you can’t perceive those complicated subtleties about meaning, and you confidently shout “WORD” and “WRITTEN”, embracing literalism, you lose the arguments, liberals will run circles around you.

        A “self-described Bible-believing Christian” is a hollow rhetorical expression to naively pretend to suppress the authority of the only Church founded by Jesus Himself, the Church that gave you the Bible in the first place, substituting it with arbitrary human traditions invented 15 to 20 centuries after Jesus…

        Liked by 1 person

        • Scott437 says:

          alegenoa wrote: “Scalia is a great loss precisely because he interpreted his own role correctly as applying the Constitution without inserting any new idea into it, and this Originalist approach is out of fashion, sadly. Even though ideally it should be the only possible one. I believe Justice Thomas has always followed Scalia’s lead. Roberts and Alito aren’t exactly on the same page, but I imagine you won’t complain about them, being responsible conservatives anyway.”

          ………………

          In a general sense we are in agreement here, though in a deeper sense, all of the Supreme Court justices (and certainly all federal judges, and lower judges, and certainly all politicians at the federal level) know full well how the government has schemed to usurp the God-given inalienable rights of the American people — guaranteed by the Constitution — and replaced them with “corporate benefits and privileges”.

          I had thought Chief Justice Roberts lost his mind during the Obamacare decision, as many others did, thinking that he legislated from the bench, and we were all ‘gaslighted’ and propagandized into thinking just that.

          Then I found this, which puts what he did in an entirely different perspective — he may be the most loyal and patriotic American of the whole bunch, because it appears that he purposely gave us the TOOL to escape our ridiculously oppressive federal government, by revealing how our government has deceived us:

          ………………………………..
          CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS On OBAMACARE & The IRS — Traitor or Patriot? YOU Decide.
          http://americannationalmilitia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/CHIEF-JUSTICE-ROBERTS-ON-OBAMACARE-THE-IRS-1.pdf
          ………………………………..

          The following is just an excerpt (see link above for complete article) from a short document on Roberts’ Obamacare decision, but it highlights and reveals that the centerpiece of the Roberts’ decision was actually to draw attention to the fact that our government has been engaging in a pervasive type of FRAUD against the American People for over a century now:

          …………………………..
          “You see, Roberts jammed the machine . And scared the crap out of the entire Federal government by doing it. That’s why no other Justice would join him— he terrified them too.

          And he did it because it was the only way he could find to halt the unstoppable expansion of a process that was originally promised by Congress to be limited only to the income tax – but technically could be applied to anything at all Congress wanted.

          What was that process?

          • The Federal government’s ability to presume that natural human person Americans had volunteered to be treated as corporations under the law;

          • The Federal government’s ability to do this without telling the people that such a presumption had been made against them;

          • The Federal government’s ability to use this presumption to deny Americans their inalienable constitutional rights by replacing them with government-controlled corporate privileges;

          • And finally, The Federal government’s ability to not tell Americans how to get out of that presumption without being harmed by trying to do so.”
          ………………………………………………

          .

          It is well worth reading the entire article at the link above.

          And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

          It would appear that what Roberts did was to actually expose the mechanism of the whole deception — by the United States federal government — which they have used to usurp the Constitutional rights of the American People AND all of the many powers reserved to the STATES by the Constitution.

          .

          Like

        • Scott437 says:

          alegenoa wrote: “So, the problem is all about incidental, irrelevant formal religious affiliations of justices that are hardly religious anyway, but are imbued with the leftist worldview, and are anyway chosen from certain segments of population in order to pander to ethnic minorities.”

          ………………..

          How can you know which (if any) are “religious”, now or in the future?

          Are you suggesting that one’s religious belief does not inform, and — if faithful — influence one’s understanding and judgment about morality, ethics, what is right and what is wrong?

          Would it be incidental and irrelevant if all nine Justices were Jews?

          Though you might be happy, would it be incidental and irrelevant if all nine Justices were Roman Catholics?

          Would it be incidental and irrelevant if all nine Justices were Islamic — or even one?

          .

          Like

        • Scott437 says:

          Alegenoa, I have spent some time this evening responding to your post. I very much appreciate the discussion, and the opportunity to discuss these things. I suspect most people have moved on to other (newer) articles, so hopefully no one will mind if I continue our exchange.

          .

          alegenoa wrote: “But consider. The Catholic Church interprets the Bible according to the meaning of what God ostensibly wanted to teach with a certain passage.”

          ……………….

          But the “Catholic Church” does not interpret or teach anything; the Lord’s church is the “body of Christ”, it has no mouth, neither is it an individual sentient being capable of ‘teaching’.

          So it is not accurate to say “The Catholic Church interprets the Bible”.

          Is it not, in truth, men who are members of the Catholic Church who interpret the Bible?

          Is the church not “the body” of believers?

          “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” (1 Cor 12:27)

          “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” (Col 1:18)

          Is Christ not the savior of the body?

          “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.” (Eph 5:23)

          So if the body is the church, and Christ is the savior of the body, how is anyone going to be saved who is NOT a member of the body of Christ, i.e., of Christ’s church?

          It would seem important then to make sure we are members of the Lord’s church, and not some other church, yes?

          So it would seem that “choosing a church of your choice” or “joining” a church that you like, would be an entirely wrong way to go about it, and if we are born into a church-going family, how do we know if our parents are members of the Christ’s church, and not some other?

          Isn’t the example in Scripture to obey the gospel, and if we do that, then we are added to the Lord’s church:

          “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:41)

          “Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:47)

          .

          Like

        • Scott437 says:

          alegenoa wrote: “This parallels with Scalia and others interpreting the Constitution according to what people reasonably understood it meant at the time it was promulgated.”

          ………………

          Promulgated is an interesting word:

          ……………
          verb (used with object), promulgated, promulgating.
          1. to make known by open declaration; publish; proclaim formally or put into operation (a law, decree of a court, etc.). 2. to set forth or teach publicly (a creed, doctrine, etc.)
          …………….

          When the New Testament of Jesus Christ was being written in the 1st century, where was the Roman Catholic Church?

          Is the RCC not known to be very thorough with regard to documentation and records retention?

          The RCC is mentioned nowhere in all of God’s Word, nor the religion of Roman Catholicism. Not even once.

          Does the RCC have any documentation proving that anything called the Roman Catholic Church (or the religion of Roman Catholicism) was promulgated into existence in the first century, when the Lord’s church was established in Jerusalem, in Acts chapter 2?

          If not, then by what Authority does the RCC claim to have merged with the Lord’s church and given the Lord’s church a corporate name? Not by any Authority given in Scripture.

          Where is the document wherein the Lord’s church was renamed?

          Certainly anything of such indescribable importance would be preserved with much more care than even the original signed copies of the Declaration of Independence?

          .

          Like

        • Scott437 says:

          alegenoa wrote: “On the other hand, Protestantism often loses contact with history, to obsess about the text itself, often out of context.”

          …………….

          But Protestantism — like Roman Catholicism — is not a reference point in the revealed Word of God.

          Is there any Authority in God’s Word for Protestantism — or denominationalism — OR Roman Catholicism?

          I cannot find it.

          Is the RCC not a denomination, as is the Eastern Orthodox Church?

          By what Authority do any of these organizations exist?

          Is Christ divided? (cf. 1 Cor 1:10-13)

          Are these institutions and their claimed authority of men, or of God?

          When there is conflict between what men say and what God’s Word says, Whom are we to believe?

          “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

          If there is any context wherein that verse is not true and applicable… what context would that be?

          .

          Like

        • Scott437 says:

          alegenoa wrote: “This [Protestantism] leads to a sort of text fetish that is fruitless and indefensible if not harmful. Eventually literalism escapes from its sterile nature either re-embracing the reasonable point of view I expounded before, or by deciding the narrow focus of the original text requires further modern additions, opening a liberal can of worms.”

          ………………..

          I am not a Protestant (there being no Authority for Protestantism found in Scripture), so I will have to defer to the Protestants regarding your point, if they wish to make a defense.

          In my own experience and reading of God’s Word, it is like most books intended for humans to understand; some is figurative, some is parable, some is poetry, some is history, some is allegory, some is literal, etc. As with most written documents intended for people to read and understand, there are ways to discern whether a passage is literal (or not).

          Sometimes we are told that a passage is a parable (Matt 13:18), or an allegory (Galatians 4:24).

          Sometimes the context of the passage makes it clear to be figurative. But like any other written document intended to be understood, if there is no obvious cue or reason to think a passage is figurative, should it not be taken literally?

          If not, then how can you read and comprehend ANY written document?

          .

          Like

        • Scott437 says:

          alegenoa wrote: “If you can’t perceive those complicated subtleties about meaning, and you confidently shout “WORD” and “WRITTEN”, embracing literalism, you lose the arguments, liberals will run circles around you.”

          ……………..

          Certainly you don’t object to using what limited tools are available to accentuate words in order to enhance a point? I only recently learned how to use italics on this forum. I have not yet figured out how to use boldface.

          So please forgive the occasional all CAPS word for emphasis, but what has it to do with the arguments, literal or otherwise?

          I argue with Leftists all the time — literally, almost every day — usually about religion or politics. I would guess that the large majority of my arguments are quite literal; very much the same as my communications here. And though I don’t mean to boast, I cannot recall any Leftist running circles around me.

          But I appreciate your concern 😉

          It’s not about me, anyway.

          Truth has no agenda, as Sundance frequently reminds us.

          Besides, I’m just asking questions, mostly.

          .

          Like

          • jello333 says:

            Not sure how you do italics, but for me I do it this way:

            Before the words I want to italicize, I use the “<” symbol then “i” then the “>” symbol. Then after the words I want to italicize I do the same thing, but also include the “/” symbol before the “I”. I’m pretty sure that bolding is done the same way, but with a “b” instead of “i”. Here’s let me try both…

            italics

            bold

            Like

          • jello333 says:

            Hey, by the way, just to cause MORE trouble with you guys in your debate… how do we know the “word of God” is indeed the word of God? I mean where is that written? 😉 (Sorry, I just find religious debates kinda funny sometime…)

            Liked by 1 person

        • Scott437 says:

          alegenoa wrote: “A “self-described Bible-believing Christian” is a hollow rhetorical expression to naively pretend to suppress the authority of the only Church founded by Jesus Himself,”

          ………………

          Why would you think that what I said was any of those things?

          Is it your position that the Word of God is NOT the highest Authority there is, or can be?

          If that is your position, then what Authority do you claim is greater than God?

          And if that is not your position, then by what Authority does any church contradict God’s Word?

          .

          Like

        • Scott437 says:

          alegenoa wrote: “…the only Church founded by Jesus Himself, the Church that gave you the Bible in the first place, substituting it with arbitrary human traditions invented 15 to 20 centuries after Jesus…”

          …………………..

          But unlike the RCC, where have I done any such thing?

          To what authority or doctrine have I appealed, except God’s Word only, and your own faculties or reason?

          We would probably agree that the world is full of religious error. Every teaching of men which cannot be legitimately supported with book, chapter and verse is, by definition, of man, and not of God.

          And sadly, the doctrines of men are what many people are taught in many of the various churches, whether it’s the doctrines of Aquinas (foundational to RCC doctrine), the doctrines of Calvin (foundational to many Protestant churches), or others.

          ………………….
          “Aquinas’s Summa Theologica was deemed so important that at the Council of Trent [1545 AD], it was placed upon the altar beside the Bible and the Decretals.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquinas)

          “In his Encyclical of August 4, 1879, Pope Leo XIII stated that Aquinas’s theology was a definitive exposition of Catholic doctrine. Thus, he directed the clergy to take the teachings of Aquinas as the basis of their theological positions.” (Ibid)

          “Also, Leo XIII decreed that all Catholic seminaries and universities must teach Aquinas’s doctrines, and where Aquinas did not speak on a topic, the teachers were `urged to teach conclusions that were reconcilable with his thinking.’ ” (Ibid)
          …………………….

          If that is not breathtaking, it certainly should be, making the writings of a fallible man equal with the Word of God, placing it on the altar next to God’s Word, teaching the writings of a fallible man, and instructing teachers to teach conclusions that reconcile with the writing of Thomas Aquinas, NOT with God’s Word!

          Would it not be reasonable to say that members of the RCC belong to the church of Aquinas – if not in whole, then certainly in part?

          Are they teaching and following the doctrine of Christ, or the doctrine (opinion) of what some man said about Christ?

          The doctrines and theology of the fallible man Thomas Aquinas, is that not what it says Roman Catholics are to follow – by decree of Pope Leo?

          Was Aquinas crucified for you?

          Were you baptized in the name of Aquinas?

          “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:13)

          Is this not truly an incredible thing, that they are not taught to reconcile their doctrine with God’s Word, but “urged to teach conclusions that were reconcilable with his [Aquinas’] thinking.” — what kind of standard is that?!?

          Thomas Aquinas was a mortal man, and no one claims he was inspired by God, therefore by definition he was fallible, as Thomas himself would surely agree.

          If men make mistakes – and all men do – then is the foundation for many of the most fundamental theological positions of the Roman Catholic Church — by admission of Popes — not based on the theology of a mortal, fallible man from the 13th century, whose ideas were written down nearly 1,200 years after the last inspired Book of the Bible was written?

          .

          Like

        • Scott437 says:

          alegenoa wrote: “…the Church that gave you the Bible in the first place,”

          …………….

          This is always a fascinating claim.

          Is it your contention that practitioners of a religion called “Roman Catholicism” — a religion mentioned nowhere in all of God’s Word — collected all the books of the New Testament and hid them in a basement for centuries, until they released them to the world hundreds of years later?

          Does that even make sense, on its face?

          Is it not true that the men who wrote down the New Testament books by inspiration of God knew they were being inspired by God to do so? (2 Tim 3:16, Gal 1:11-12, 1 Cor 2:12-13, 1 Thess 2:13, 2 Peter 1:20-21, Matt 4:4, John 14:26, John 16:13, et al)

          And the apostles, at least several of whom were still alive (obviously) when the New Testament was written, were the Apostles not certainly able to know and confirm which writings were Scripture and which were not?

          The Scriptures themselves show that the writings of the Apostles were to be circulated among the churches:

          ……………………..
          “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” (Col 4:16)
          ……………………..

          If the RCC — a church we did not even exist in the first century — “gave” us the Bible, which was written in the 1st century, and the RCC did not deign to bequeath the world with God’s Word until the councils at Nicea (AD 325) and Hippo (AD 393) or later, then what were Christians using for their guide, for their commandments and examples of faith, for the previous 300+ years?!?

          Would Jesus Christ not be shocked to find out that His New Testament did not exist for at least 300 years, until it was assembled by a church that is mentioned nowhere at all in His Word?

          .

          “And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” (Hebrews 9:15)

          Does Hebrews 9:15 say in future tense, “And for this cause he WILL BE the mediator of the new testament”, in 300 years or so, when people in the religion of Roman Catholicism get around to putting their human “Imprimatur” on God’s Work and Word?

          Or does Hebrews 9:15 say in present tense, “And for this cause he IS the mediator of the new testament”?

          Did the New Testament exist in the 1st century, or not?

          Did the Roman Catholic Church give us God’s Word — or did God give us His Word?

          “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2 Timothy 3:16)

          “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. [12] For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:11-12)

          “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. [13] Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” (1 Corinthians 2:12-13)

          “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

          “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)

          “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)

          .

          “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12)

          .

          Like

        • Scott437 says:

          alegenoa wrote: “…the authority of the only Church founded by Jesus Himself,”

          ………………..

          No doubt you believe the RCC was founded by Jesus Christ, but by what logic of reason?

          The RCC is not mentioned anywhere in God’s Word, and didn’t even exist in the first century, yet we know for certain and without dispute that Christ’s church absolutely was established in the first century, as recorded in Acts chapter 2, and referenced throughout the New Testament.

          Is the legal fiction of a “corporation” not a Roman invention of civil law? What does the Lord’s church have to do with any such thing? Is there any pattern or example of the Lord’s church in Scripture being a fictitious legal construct?

          The RCC encyclopedia website fudges some things of course, and assumes a few things about itself, but here’s what they say:

          ……………………………..
          (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07719b.htm)

          “Christianity at its very beginning*, found the concept of the corporation well developed under Roman law and widely and variously organized in Roman society. It was a concept that the early Christians soon adapted to their organization and, as a means of protection in the periods of persecution. Whether we attach to the burial corporations (collegia tenuiorum or funeraticia) of the early Christians the importance that De Rossi and other archæologists do, there can be no doubt that in the second and third centuries of the Christian era the corporation was generally resorted to as a means of holding, and transmitting church property.

          In later times this concept fitted in naturally with the genius of the religious orders, and the great monastic establishments of the Middle Ages were organized on that plan.**”

          My notes, referencing the asterisks above:
          * Certainly NOT “at its very beginning”, the Holy Ghost did not “incorporate” the Lord’s church as a Roman legal fiction when the Lord’s church was established in Jerusalem in Acts chapter 2!!!

          ** NOT organized according to God’s plan and pattern for His church given in Scripture, but according to a Roman legal fiction or construct plan, a “corporation”.
          By what Authority did men presume to merge the Lord’s church with a fictitious Roman legal construct?
          ……………………………….

          In all fairness and plainness of speech, since the Lord’s church was established in the first century, and the New Testament was written in the 1st century, and the religion of Roman Catholicism did not even exist in the 1st century, where is the Authority for any man to co-opt the Lord’s church and rename it?

          Sadly, this is not a problem unique to Roman Catholicism. Most churches in the world are not according to the pattern and design given in God’s Word.

          Do you know how the Lord’s church is referred to in Scripture?

          Is it not referred to in such a way that glorifies the Father or the Son?

          The church of the Firstborn:
          “To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,” (Hebrews 12:23)

          .

          The church of God:
          “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:” (1 Corinthians 1:2)

          .

          The church of Christ:
          “Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.” (Romans 16:16)

          .

          In the first century, and in the inspired Word of God which was written down in the first century, when the church of Christ was established in Jerusalem (Acts chapter 2) and spread throughout the world, is the Lord’s church not called or referred to in such a way that it glorifies the Father or the Son?

          By contrast, who (or what) does the corporate name “The Roman Catholic Church” glorify?

          Does it not glorify Rome?

          Who does the Lutheran Church glorify?

          Is it not Luther?

          Who (or what) does the Methodist Church glorify?

          Do you see the problem?

          Who’s church is it?

          Is it Luther’s?

          Is it Rome’s?

          Or it is CHRIST’s church?

          And if it IS Christ’s church, then why is it named after Rome, or some other place, or some other man?

          I implore you to think on these things.

          The truth has no agenda, and it doesn’t matter what I say or think (except to me, of course).

          But it does matter what God’s Word says, and it does matter that we use the common sense ability God gave us to understand things plainly.

          These things we have discussed here, are they hard to understand?

          Or are they fairly straightforward and plain?

          .

          Like

        • Scott437 says:

          NOTE: I have tried to post this many times now, and for some reason it will not post, so I will break it down into smaller sections, to try to figure out what the problem is, and correct it. I will number the parts so you can know the order.

          Part 1

          alegenoa wrote: “Through these reasonable lines you can both assert with confidence that God through the Bible does not want to teach us that the Earth is flat and the is Sun revolving around it, and that the US Constitutions does not provide a basis for anchor babies.”

          ………………

          The “flat earth” idea seems to be way overblown in modern culture.

          [continued]

          .

          Like

          • Scott437 says:

            Part 2

            ………………………..
            “The idea of a spherical Earth appeared in Greek philosophy with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most Pre-Socratics retained the flat Earth model. Aristotle provided evidence for the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds by around 330 BC. Knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on.” – Wiki

            “Early Christian Church During the early Church period, the spherical view continued to be widely held, with some notable exceptions.” – ibid

            “The idea that everyone used to believe that the Earth was flat until only very recently, mostly due to the influence of religion, is essentially a complete myth. A Greek Egyptian by the name of Eratosthenes not only proved the world was round, but calculated its circumference with an error of less than 2%, and did it in the third century BCE — nearly two thousand years before Christopher Columbus had ever existed. This is often brought up as an example of how secular enlightenment has triumphed over unfounded religious dogma; indeed, some theories state that this is the reason the myth is so popular.

            Another possible reason for the myth may be the existence of various Flat Earth Societies in the 19th century.” http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
            ………………………

            .

            Like

          • Scott437 says:

            TESTING, testing, 1 2 3…

            Like

          • Scott437 says:

            TESTING!!!

            This is maddening.

            I have tried to post this about ten times now, and I cannot figure out WHY it will not post!

            Part 3!!!

            What does the Bible say?

            “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7)

            “He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.” (Job 26:10)

            [continued… maybe!]

            .

            Like

      • roxanne175 says:

        To make the assumption that a Catholic cannot be a “Bible believing Christian” is just flat out wrong.

        Although I do not identify as Catholic, I was raised Catholic and have known many over the course of my life. Known many who were “saved” in the Catholic church.

        Like

        • Scott437 says:

          roxanne175 wrote: “To make the assumption that a Catholic cannot be a “Bible believing Christian” is just flat out wrong.”

          I made no assumptions.

          I would like to pose a few questions in response, in complete sincerity.

          What does “Catholic” mean? I am told by my Roman Catholic friends (I have some Roman Catholic family members as well) that “Catholic” means “universal”.

          Are the believers and followers of Christ not called Christians?
          ““And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26, KJV)”

          What is a Roman Universalist?

          The six Judges listed previously self-identified as Roman Catholics on their Wikipedia pages.

          Where is Roman Catholicism mentioned anywhere in the Bible?

          Jesus did not teach the religion of Roman Catholicism, and the apostles never practiced Roman Catholicism, because the religion of Roman Catholicism did not yet exist in the first century.

          But the Lord’s church certainly did exist.

          Was it not established in Jerusalem, in Acts chapter 2?

          Please understand, none of this is about me; it doesn’t matter what I think about it… but it does matter what God’s Word actually says — does it not?

          .

          Like

          • cycle1 says:

            What was the first time they use the word Trinity? Do you believe in the Trinity? Is the word trinity in the Bible?

            Like

            • Scott437 says:

              cycle1 wrote: “What was the first time they use the word Trinity? Do you believe in the Trinity? Is the word trinity in the Bible?”

              ………………..

              Excellent question.

              Do the Scriptures not plainly show that the deity of God consists of three individual “Persons”, i.e., the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit)?

              And Jesus, quoting Deuteronomy 6:4, said “And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:” (Mark 12:29)

              .
              .

              Yet beginning in Genesis, Scripture reveals:

              “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” (Gen 1:26) [Note the plural pronouns “US” and “OUR”]

              .
              .

              And we have the beginning of the Gospel of John, affirming that Jesus is God:

              “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. [4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” (John 1:1-5)

              .
              .

              When Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, we see that all Three are present:

              “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: [17] And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:16-17)

              Jesus commands that we be baptized in the name of all Three:

              “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” (Matthew 28:19)

              .
              .

              In John 14:28 Jesus says “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.”

              In John 10:30 Jesus plainly states: “I and my Father are one.”

              In these two statements, does Jesus not show that while living as a Man on earth, Jesus is subordinate, and yet Jesus and His Father are one, both in nature and purpose?

              .
              .

              Shortly before Jesus was crucified, He told His disciples: “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:” (John 15:26)

              All Three are again mentioned, and they are distinct; Jesus was not promising to send Himself from Himself.

              .
              .

              The concept of multiple individual persons being “one” in unity of mind and spirit and purpose is also found in the church being “one body” (Ephesians 4:4), while the “body” consists of “many members” (1 Cor 12:12).

              Jesus prayed for such unity:

              “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; [21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (John 17:20-21)

              Scripture clearly distinguishes between the individual “Persons” of God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is only one God or all-powerful deity, consisting of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, completely united in thought and purpose.

              .
              .

              If there is a better or more accurate understanding, provided in Scripture, that explains away the verses cited above and supports another understanding which can be shown with book, chapter and verse — what is it?

              .

              Like

        • Scott437 says:

          roxanne175 wrote: “Although I do not identify as Catholic, I was raised Catholic and have known many over the course of my life. Known many who were “saved” in the Catholic church.”

          ………………..

          Saved according to whom (or to Whom)?

          Were they saved according to what men in your church said?

          Or were they saved according to what God’s Word — the Bible — says?

          HEAR. According to the Gospel of John we must HEAR the gospel: “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath HEARD, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (John 6:45).

          This is supported by Paul in Romans 10:17 – “So then faith [cometh] by HEARING, and HEARING by the word of God.”

          BELIEVE. According to the Gospel of John we must BELIEVE: “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye BELIEVE not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24).

          This is supported by Luke in Acts 16:31 – “And they said, BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” and by Hebrews 11:6 – “But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must BELIEVE that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him”.

          REPENT. According to the Gospel of Luke we must REPENT: “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye REPENT, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).

          This teaching is supported by Acts 2:38 – “Then Peter said unto them, REPENT, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” and again in Acts 17:30 – “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to REPENT.”

          CONFESS. According to the Gospel of Matthew we must CONFESS Christ: “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I CONFESS also before my Father which is in heaven. [33] But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32-33).

          This teaching is supported by Paul in Romans 10:9-10 – “That if thou shalt CONFESS with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [10] For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth CONFESSION is made unto salvation”.

          Be BAPTIZED for the remission of sins. According to the Gospel of Mark, we must be BAPTIZED: “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. [16] He that believeth and is BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:15-16).

          This teaching is supported by Luke in Acts 2:38 – “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”.

          And again in Acts 22:16 – “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be BAPTIZED, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord”.

          And again in Acts 16:33 – “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed [their] stripes; and was BAPTIZED, he and all his, straightway”.

          And again in Acts 10:47-48 – “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be BAPTIZED, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? [48] And he commanded them to be BAPTIZED in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days”.

          And again in Acts 16:14-15 – “And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. [15] And when she was BAPTIZED, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us”.

          And again in Acts 8:37-38 – “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. [38] And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he BAPTIZED him”.

          And again in 1 Peter 3:20-21 – “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. [21] The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”

          REMAIN FAITHFUL. “Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast [some] of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: BE THOU FAITHFUL UNTO DEATH, and I will give thee a crown of life” (Revelation 2:10)

          “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. [21] For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. [22] But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.” (2 Peter 2:20-23)

          1 Corinthians 9:24-27 – “Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. [25] And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they [do it] to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. [26] I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: [27] But I keep under my body, and bring [it] into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway”.

          2 Timothy 4:6-8 – “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. [7] I have fought a good fight, I have finished [my] course, I have KEPT THE FAITH: [8] Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing”.

          Matthew 10:22 – “And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.”

          .

          Like

    • glypenblog says:

      http://www.oann.com/potential-trump-high-court-nominee-mocked-him-on-twitter/ When you hit Mr. Trump expect to get hit back. This is our guy, showing these clowns who is in control!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Voltaire's Crack says:

    Diane Sykes is the ex-wife of NeverTrumper Charlie Sykes.

    Thomas Lee is the brother of Mike Lee, who is also still withholding his support for Trump as far as I know.

    Nice move.

    My guess is that Trump would appoint Sykes first.

    Liked by 7 people

  3. Paula says:

    Take that, nevertrumpers!!

    It’s so funny how CNN is already trying to spin this. They’re saying, this is his list, it doesn’t mean these will be his pick. LOL

    Liked by 3 people

    • majorstar says:

      Lol, what’s that supposed to insinuate? Like he’s diabolical? What cretins…

      Liked by 6 people

      • Paula says:

        Desperation. They know what this list means. Unification. LOL

        Meanwhile their party is heading to a contested convention!!! Haha

        Liked by 10 people

        • lastConservinIllinois? says:

          ABSOLUTELY!!!
          Seems like just yesterday (cuz it more or less was) that the lame-streamers, along with the RNC, were trying to convince us we were going to ruin any chance at putting a “conservative” in the White Hut because The Donald was going to cause a contested convention.

          And – lo and behold – the Dems are going to tear themselves apart with the contested repeat of 1968!!!

          Fantastic!

          See that RNC – let the people have their say and we will show you the way!

          Liked by 2 people

    • mariner says:

      I was heartened by the number who clerked for Justice Thomas.

      Liked by 16 people

    • BakoCarl says:

      N.Y. Times is also using the same spinning wheel on this story.
      But … but … but that mighty conservative G. H. W. Bush said “Read my lips”, and you know what happened there.

      Like

    • Pam says:

      Carl Cameron even had the gall to say that some of these people didn’t know they were on his list. I find that very hard to believe. Regardless of race or gender, as long as it’s someone who strictly believes in the constitution and believes in rulings based on the law rather than the liberal justices who interpet the laws, then it would be a very refreshing change. No gun grabbers like Garland please!

      Liked by 2 people

    • deqwik2 says:

      Well,there goes the support for Trump numbers .. higher again. Thanks CNN.

      Like

  4. bluesky says:

    Nice to see most did not attend Harvard or Yale which automatically makes this list ‘outside of the box’

    Liked by 16 people

  5. The Boss says:

    What? No complaints yet about the lack of blacks?

    Like

    • mariner says:

      Look back a couple of dozen comments, and you’ll find one right here.

      Like

    • sunspots7 says:

      And how about illegal aliens and muslin “refugees”??

      Like

    • Keln says:

      The SCOTUS, unlike other branches of government, has no case for diversity. One’s background or life experience should have nothing to do with interpreting a document intended to protect the American people from government overreach. They are not representatives of certain people. They are representatives of the People as a whole, and of the Constitution. A Supreme Court Justice must be blind to the consequences of a case before them, only interested in what the Constitution says and how it applies.

      Liked by 12 people

      • mariner says:

        In Utopia that’s true.

        In the real world one’s background–geographic, educational, religious, and other–influences one’s view of the meaning and importance of constitutional provisions and protections.

        Right now our Supreme Court is skewed far to the left, to the Northeast, the federal bench and Catholic. It would be nice to see other backgrounds represented.

        Like

        • Keln says:

          I’m not really sure what being Catholic has to do with it.

          Like

        • Deb says:

          You are describing bias. A good judge is able to put aside all bias and prejudices, personal feelings and simply use the facts, the law, and reason to render a decision. This is called logic.

          Leftists reject logic for their own set of biases and prejudices, and prefer to use emotions to make their case. Leftists also assume that everyone is exactly like them, which is why they think that conservatives can’t be unbiased judges.

          We now have a very illogical SCOTUS filled with very bad judges.

          Like

      • saywhat64 says:

        Tell that to the “wise Latina”…

        Like

    • JoJo says:

      No, but I would have liked to have seen an Italian — to fill the Italian seat, you know. 😉

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Duchess says:

    Hugh Hewitt is going to be upset with this as he wanted Trump to tell us WHY he was selecting specific judges and not rely on some group like the Heritage Foundation, to put the list together.
    Hewitt is again thinking he is the King Maker for the Republican party. LOL!

    Liked by 7 people

  7. smiley says:

    Your move, Hillary…
    Your move, Bernie..

    show some cards.

    brilliant play, Mr. Trump !

    Liked by 13 people

  8. Duchess says:

    More information here:

    Don Willett is a Texas Supreme Court justice:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Willett

    David Stras is an associate justice on the Minnesota Supreme Court:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stras

    Allison Eid is a justice on the Colorado Supreme Court:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_H._Eid

    Joan Larsen is a justice on the Michigan Supreme Court.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Larsen

    Steven Colloton is a federal judge who has served on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Colloton

    Raymond Gruender is a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Gruender

    Thomas Hardiman is a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hardiman

    Raymond M. Kethledge is a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Kethledge

    Thomas Lee is the Associate Chief Justice on the Utah Supreme Court:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rex_Lee

    William Pryor is a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and a Commissioner on the United States Sentencing Commission. Previously, he was the Attorney General of the State of Alabama from 1997 to 2004:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Pryor_Jr.

    Diane Sykes is a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and former Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_S._Sykes

    Liked by 6 people

    • petszmom says:

      whew! a Texan…and a rodeo cowboy at that…I likey. cowboys are good people!

      Liked by 5 people

      • JoJo says:

        Even better, mom, is that Justice Willetts’ rodeoing was likely for the money. First in is family to get a college degree, he and his sister were raised by their mother after their dad died at age 40. Not a lot of money for college, but rodeo winners can make pretty good money — if they are good.

        Liked by 2 people

      • parteagirl says:

        Don Willet is highly respected here in Texas. And he has a killer twitter account- great sense of humor.

        Liked by 1 person

        • petszmom says:

          I don’t know anything about him but I am sure we will find out. the only thing I heard about his tweeting is he wrote a disparaging haiku about our man, trump. he will learn to start acting like a SCOTUS, I am sure. he is obviously not from my part of texas.

          Liked by 1 person

  9. Martin says:

    Now some of these “conservative” morons (NeverTrumpers) can shut up.

    Liked by 6 people

    • dotherightthing4 says:

      Guess again—just go to rightscoop—they are as nasty as ever. They are so invested in their hatred they will never give it up. Hopefully the truth about the real character of their idol Cruz will be revealed and they can “snap out of it” before the election.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Jett Black says:

        I’m glad we don’t have to discuss Cruz any more and can move on to elevate the discussion to Mr. Trump’s positives that the MSM and anti-Trump factions ignored and even actively obfuscated. Mr. Trump has been very consistent in his actual, practical fealty to strict construction of the Constitution–moreso, perhaps than any other candidate. Unspinnable, clear statements like this put that out, front and center, where it should have been all along.

        Liked by 7 people

        • dotherightthing4 says:

          He has spoken clearly on things that many have probably forgotten…like small children receiving too many vaccines and too close together. He also pledged to release the 28 pages of the 9-11 report that has been hidden. SO many things he says that people scoff at but he is always proven right.

          Liked by 4 people

    • grainofsalt2 says:

      The NeverTrumpers are actually liberals in “conservative” clothing only.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Annie says:

      Not really. Tuned into Levin tonight( hadn’t listened since he called me names for supporting Trump) just to hear his comments on Trumps’ picks for Supreme Court. He said that he knew two of them and they would be excellent; the others he was not friends with or knew much about them. Then he turned like the little worm that he has shown himself and started his negative mealy mouth comments on how can we trust what Trump says; he may do the opposite when in office. He had the opportunity tonight to be positive but instead showed what a little creep he is. I could only stand five minutes of his opening and turned him off for the final time.

      Like

  10. Howie says:

    Watching the leftist media critics try and criticize these brilliant moves is so funny. They are so frantic, pathetic, and desperate.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. they call me sweetheart says:

    Out of the blue, Cruz announced Fiorina as his VP pick.

    After a promise to do so, the Presumptive Nominee of the Republican Party releases his potential SCOTUS picks.

    The first, presumptuous and pompous. The second, what one might expect a Presumptive Nominee to do considering the SCOTUS vacancy.

    C’mon HillBill – where’s YOUR list? Is Hussein O at the top?

    The deliciousness of Mr. Trump’s timing cannot be understated (who cares about returns!)

    Liked by 11 people

  12. Hillbilly4 says:

    This list, diverse in experience, education and background tells me The Donald has LISTENED to some very savvy advisors. This is the watermark of a great leader…listen to those around him, then take the lead and choose a course. The ship can have but one Captain. “Chart a course First Mate”….Make it so.

    Liked by 9 people

    • they call me sweetheart says:

      What I particularly liked about the list is it has a number of state supreme court justices included. That has the potential to be yuge when a SCOTUS decision comes down to the 10th.

      Liked by 7 people

    • BakoCarl says:

      YES!!! The great leader knows how to pick extraordinary advisors, and will listed to them, and will make well-informed decisions, will follow up through implementation and effective practical use . . . and then will tweak as necessary.
      That’s our man TRUMP!!!

      Liked by 3 people

    • Athena the Warrior says:

      Geography as well. The middle of the country is finally represented. I knew from the beginning that a Trump admin. would be an extension of the Trump Organization.

      Liked by 4 people

  13. Pentheus says:

    There must have been a mistake, why isn’t Raphael Eduardo Cruz on the list?

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Erick Dee says:

    Willet from Texas is a great pick for this list. He deconstructed Justice Roberts on one of his decisions and earned the respect of a lot of conservatives and liberals alike.

    Liked by 5 people

  15. Backspin says:

    The highly esteemed , most important , universally accepted PHONEY right wing ‘ conservative ‘ gate keepers will be around shortly to explain to all of us vulger peons , why , these picks are so wrong , wrong , wrong. Picked from outside the ‘ Club ‘ – Without elites permission ..? No , No this won’t do at all.——— Must protect the entrenched parasites.

    Liked by 5 people

  16. NC Patriot says:

    Once again–our man plays three dimensional chess! He is a master at it !

    Liked by 6 people

  17. Mr. Haney says:

    Lee from Utah……brilliant.

    Like

  18. Keebler AC says:

    I’m ready to forgive him for not doing rallies. He’s been busy doing important work. I understand. Plus, it must be very exhausting doing rallies practically every second day, interviews and also tweeting infusing all those attacks. He needs to pay some self and rest as well, that’s important for the game. 😘

    Liked by 6 people

  19. chojun says:

    As previously noted, the Ivy League is largely left off of this list. With Trump we have continuous evidence that the people who built this country – we the vulgarians – are taking it back.

    Liked by 11 people

  20. Karmaisabitch says:

    The Democrats just released a short list, Barrister O’ Bama, Elaine De’ Generate, Devil Patrick, Oprah Likefries, George Loony, Bill Clinton and Burning Sands.

    Liked by 12 people

  21. Arkindole says:

    The South shall rise. Particularly, Jeff Sessions. And perhaps William Pryor–hated by the left.

    Liked by 4 people

  22. outerlimitsfan says:

    Not surprisingly, Ben Shapiro, Erickson, and other Never Trump morons are attacking him even on this. Saying he will appoint lib justices, and not anyone on this list.

    They obviously prefer Hillary who will definitely pick left wing justices. They don’t seem to care though. What an embarrassment Shapiro and others have become.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. benY says:

    Oh no….what is Cruzifer going to rail about now. I almost want to listen to “I’m a legend in my own mind” Levin attack this list….almost but will not pollute my mind.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thurmrob says:

      Levin and others have taken their long walk off the short pier. Now I wish they would just sink!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Paula says:

        I want all of them to sink. Ben Shapiro just said, the list is good, but he doesn’t believe Trump will use it. LOL

        They’ve lost all credibility. All of it. Levin has gone silent today. He must be frantically looking for any tiny flaw he can latch onto. Rush didn’t even mention the list!

        Bahahahaha!!

        Liked by 4 people

  24. Bonitabaycane says:

    Just when I thought Trump couldn’t be more brilliant, he proves me wrong. Brilliant move Mr. Trump. I love me some Trump 🙂

    Liked by 4 people

  25. NJF says:

    Anyone from the never trump camp attacking this list will be proving how stupid and blindly biased they are. Have at it idiots.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. bullnuke says:

    Very pleased with this list. No elitist snobs.
    Well payed, Mr. Trump.
    Will wait for the MSM to asked the Dem’s who they would select.
    Any comment Private Ryan?

    Liked by 4 people

  27. Keln says:

    Without knowing more, and I am sure I will get educated over the next couple of weeks, I like Joan Larsen here. She worked for Scalia at one point, and may understand his thinking. You’ve got to admit, he’s a hard man to replace, but he is exactly the type of person we need on the court. She also has state supreme court experience, so she is already familiar with the job.

    There is another thing Trump will have to look at when he makes a pick (he will be president, so he will be making a pick), and that is making sure his appointee will easily pass muster. Because the media is going to go after whoever he picks and try to expose any possible thing they can. Just look at what they did with Clarence Thomas, and that was all a complete fabrication.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Reality Wins says:

    Can you imagine three or more Supreme Court Justices being appointed from this list during President Trump’s eight years in office? Since they are all young it means we would have our Constitution back for the next 30-40 years!

    Like

  29. sDee says:

    Trump pointing out a rat within the Court in – July 2012.

    Liked by 5 people

  30. JC says:

    “He needs to be more presidential.”
    Is this presidential enough for ya’? Extremely good, well-vetted list. Perfect example of impeccable and timely leadership and utilization of the best experts for appropriate nominee recommendations. Also perfect demonstration of Prez Trump listening to and responding to the millions of Americans who have been begging for the name of at least one appropriate SCOTUS – and he gives us 12!

    Let’s see, Prez Trump has offered 12 excellent SCOTUS possibilities, relentlessly fielded every TV-hack gotcha interview question, attended daughter’s graduation and probably anonymously helped someone in need. While… what’s the guy’s name who’s occupying the WH? Wait, it’ll come to me… nope, can’t pull it up. How many rounds of golf, half-court basketball games, celebrity dinners and late-night talk shows has he “squeezed in” between dictating school restroom edicts and making his list for presidential pardons?

    Liked by 4 people

    • BakoCarl says:

      You grossly underestimate the activities of our Obozo-in-Chief. He’s also been selecting an openly gay Secretary of the Army, suing the Little Sisters of the Poor, taking over police departments around the nation, working on the March madness basketball brackets, keeping VA medical lines and response times long, making sure black farmers get government largesse, increasing funding for black colleges, decreasing penalties for crack cocaine crimes, continuing his fight against voters having to have a picture I.D., planning where to stash Muslim terrorists under the guise of refugee compassion, planning how to let illegal aliens take all our welfare, housing, medical aid, food stamp, and unemployment benefits, and enable them to vote for more, and probably planning their next vacations in Martha’s Vineyand or Hawaii (or both).
      O.K. (gasping for breath), there’s more, but I’m done.

      Liked by 2 people

      • JC says:

        Haha… thank you, BakoCarl, for correcting my gross oversight! I started to pull together a more comprehensive list, but my fingers shriveled – happens all the time when I even think of the Lawless One.

        Like

        • BakoCarl says:

          Thanks JC. Levity aside, I honestly can’t convey the level of hope I have for the Trump presidency, and the level of relief I will feel when I no longer have to park my brain in the insane asylum our current administration has become.

          Like

          • JC says:

            Yes! Well said.
            The relief of simply seeing Trump’s POTUS list… about 7 or 8 months early. That feeling of: you mean, there’s a leader out there who just might do what he says, and everything he’s done so far has already exceeded my tentative hopes? Hmmm… what?
            Every nerve has seized up in utter frustration for YEARS by the incessant, extreme and vile actions of virtually every politician ravaging the country I’ve loved since childhood.
            The anger!
            No wonder there’s a tsunami of support and enthusiasm for this flawed-but-extraordinary man. This surprising symbiosis of Trump and patriotic Americans is extraordinary.
            I’m so grateful.

            Liked by 1 person

  31. angryduc says:

    List obviously has relatives of several of his critics. One of the candidates has tweeted posts the media sees as a negative. I think this was a brilliant move. Will probably dominate several news cycles as well.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Bonitabaycane says:

      A very competent Conservative list. Not one of whom Crooked Hillary would nominate. Choke on that all you Never Trump clowns. Trump being Trump. Being brilliant.

      Liked by 6 people

  32. truthandjustice says:

    Yes, I knew when he came out with the list, it would be real Conservatives and wondered how the NeverTrumpers would spin it. They too would have known in advance if they’d done their homework about what Trump has stated in interviews, etc.
    All they can do – and are as we speak – is to suggest he’s just doing it for more votes and doesn’t mean he will, …..Krauthammer said as much…pointing out in his interview with Hannity (tonight I think) that he said it’s “most likely” he’d choose one from that list.. Good grief.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Deb says:

      He has to say “most likely,” because he has no way of knowing who the Senate will confirm. They might reject every one on the list!

      Liked by 2 people

      • amjean says:

        A$$hat, Ted Cruz, leading the rejection charge!

        I swore I would never type his name again after he
        finally suspended his campaign, however, I now realize
        that he will be the proverbial thorn in Trump’s side
        along with Mike Lee. If I recall correctly, it was mostly
        Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul who were the most
        media vocal in the senate. I think Rand Paul will be
        supportive of Trump, however, the other two…..could
        be trouble.

        Come on Texas, help the country; vote Cruz out.

        Liked by 3 people

  33. Sue in MT says:

    I’m disappointed that judge Roy Moore of Alabama isn’t on the list.

    Like

  34. I’ll have to listen to Laura Ingraham tomorrow. I’m sure she’ll talk about this and she’s very very good regarding the Supreme Court.

    Liked by 3 people

  35. rumpole2 says:

    I don’t see any “minorities”
    Maybe a few GLBT?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Bonitabaycane says:

      Who said this country doesn’t have time for political correctness? Hmmm. Look what Obama Won Kabuki has done to the SCOTUS. It is not supposed to be a social experiment. I’ll take Trump’s standard of competent Conservative judges who will embrace the Constitution.

      Liked by 1 person

    • amjean says:

      And why is that important to you?

      Like

    • jello333 says:

      Yep. If there’s a minority (being just coincidentally a minority) who should be on that short list, then Donald would have included them. If there’s not, then he will NOT include them. Simple No more affirmative action.

      Liked by 2 people

  36. No Harvard lawyers, which is a big change from how things have been going the last several nominations.

    I like the idea of drawing from different schools.

    Liked by 3 people

  37. Heather Mae says:

    Wish Judge Andrew Napalitano was on the list.

    Like

  38. MfM says:

    But, but, but… Trump didn’t put his sister on the list like all the ‘Never Trump’ people kept saying he was going to do!

    Liked by 2 people

  39. Bonitabaycane says:

    FWIW Diane Sykes is the former wife of Trump hater Charlie Sykes who is a radio host in Wisconsin. I hope Mr. Sykes is choking on his dinner tonight. Trump gets the last laugh on this Never Trump clown. I love it! 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  40. WeThePeople2016 says:

    Hannity said he talked to all kinds of law experts on this list, and all are very pleased with it. He had one woman come on briefly, I forgot from which organization, and she was pleased with it. Hannity also said Mike Lee is happy with it – I wonder why? lol

    Liked by 1 person

  41. WeThePeople2016 says:

    The one judge that deserves something, I don’t know if he qualifies for the Supreme Court, but he was the brave soul that stopped the O Administration in its tracks on the immigration fiasco is Judge Hanen from Texas.

    Liked by 2 people

  42. lubyankafh says:

    Heck. I want Americans for all Associate Supreme Court Justices. I love reading Clarence Thomas Opinions.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. jello333 says:

    I can’t BELIEVE I’m not on the list! 😦

    Liked by 3 people

  44. cycle1 says:

    That list is the linchpin that will secure a major unifying affect the Trump is looking for…

    Like

  45. stevo says:

    I hope Mr. Trump abolishes the FISA court, or at least shines some sunlight on the proceedings.
    There is no excuse for having a secret court in the USA. The courts perform the people’s business. The people have a right to oversight and transparency.

    Like

  46. duchess01 says:

    WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2016
    I’ll be the Judge of That

    http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2016/05/ill-be-judge-of-that.html

    Like

  47. Toronto Tonto says:

    I don’t like Willett or Kethledge. The others are fine. Trump named the two best during the SC debate: Pryor and Sykes.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s