DOCSLIB.ORG

Les États-Unis Divisés. La Démocrafi

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Les États-Unis Divisés. La Démocrafi Septembre 2019 LES ÉTATS-UNIS DIVISÉS LA DÉMOCRATIE AMÉRICAINE À L’ÉPREUVE DE LA PRÉSIDENCE TRUMP Frédérick Gagnon, Frédéric Heurtebize et Maud Quessard (dir.) ÉTUDE – n o 68 LES ÉTATS-UNIS DIVISÉS LA DÉMOCRATIE AMÉRICAINE À L’ÉPREUVE DE LA PRÉSIDENCE TRUMP Frédérick Gagnon, Frédéric Heurtebize et Maud Quessard (dir.) Pour citer cette étude Frédérick Gagnon, Frédéric Heurtebize et Maud Quessard (dir.), Les États- Unis divisés : la démocratie américaine à l’épreuve de la présidence Trump, Étude n° 68, IRSEM, septembre 2019. Dépôt légal ISSN : 2268-3194 ISBN : 978-2-11-152698-3 DERNIÈRES ÉTUDES DE L’IRSEM 67. Le Financement chinois dans le secteur des transports en Afrique : un risque maîtrisé Juliette GENEVAZ et Denis TULL 66. L’Expérience militaire dans les médias (2008-2018). Une diversification des formes de récits Bénédicte CHÉRON 65. MCO 4.0. Le potentiel des technologies de l’industrie 4.0 appliquées au maintien en condition opérationnelle (MCO) des équipements de défense Josselin DROFF, ICA Benoît RADEMACHER 64. Impact des nouveaux modèles économiques industriels sur les équipements des armées Dr Antoine PIETRI, ICA Benoît RADEMACHER 63. Le Rôle des armées dans la fonction « intégration » de l’État Barbara JANKOWSKI 62. Le Gazoduc Nord Stream 2. Enjeux politiques et stratégiques Céline MARANGÉ, Angélique PALLE et Sami RAMDANI 61. Améliorer la résilience psychologique des combattants et de leurs familles. Pour une prévention permettant de limiter l’impact psychologique d’un traumatisme et/ou de faciliter le rétablissement LCL Arnaud PLANIOL 60. L’Activité de renseignement des groupes jihadistes COL Olivier PASSOT 59. France and Poland Facing the Evolution of the Security Environment Barbara JANKOWSKI and Amélie ZIMA (eds.) ÉQUIPE PRÉSENTATION DE L’IRSEM Directeur Créé en 2009, l’Institut de recherche stratégique de l’École militaire Jean-Baptiste JEANGÈNE VILMER (IRSEM) est un organisme extérieur de la Direction générale des relations internationales et de la stratégie (DGRIS) du ministère des Directeur scientifique Armées. Composé d’une quarantaine de personnes, civiles et mili- Jean-Vincent HOLEINDRE taires, sa mission principale est de renforcer la recherche française sur les questions de défense et de sécurité. Secrétaire général L’équipe de recherche est répartie en cinq domaines : CRG1 (2S) Étienne VUILLERMET - Questions régionales Nord, qui traite de l’Europe, des États-Unis, Chef du soutien à la recherche de la Russie et de l’espace post-soviétique, de la Chine, du Japon et Caroline VERSTAPPEN de la péninsule coréenne. - Questions régionales Sud, qui traite de l’Afrique, du Moyen- Éditrice Orient, du Golfe, du sous-continent indien, de l’Asie du Sud-Est et Chantal DUKERS du Pacifique. - Armement et économie de défense, qui s’intéresse aux questions économiques liées à la défense et aux questions stratégiques résul- tant des développements technologiques. - Défense et société, qui examine le lien armées-nation, l’attitude de l’opinion publique vis-à-vis des questions de défense, et la sociolo- Retrouvez l’IRSEM sur les réseaux sociaux : gie de la violence, de la guerre et des forces armées. - Pensée stratégique, qui étudie la conduite des conflits armés à tous https//www.irsem.fr les niveaux (stratégique, opératif, tactique). En plus de conduire de la recherche interne (au profit du ministère) et externe (à destination de la communauté scientifique), l’IRSEM @IRSEM1 favorise l’émergence d’une nouvelle génération de chercheurs (la « relève stratégique ») en encadrant des doctorants dans un sémi- naire mensuel et en octroyant des allocations doctorales et postdoc- torales. Les chercheurs de l’Institut contribuent aussi à l’enseigne- ment militaire supérieur et, au travers de leurs publications, leur participation à des colloques et leur présence dans les médias, au débat public sur les questions de défense et de sécurité. AVERTISSEMENT : l’IRSEM a vocation à contribuer au débat public sur les questions de défense et de sécurité. Ses publications n’engagent que leurs auteurs et ne constituent en aucune manière une position officielle du ministère des Armées. © 2019 Institut de recherche stratégique de l’École militaire (IRSEM). SOMMAIRE INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 9 TRUMP : L’IMPOSSIBLE AVÈNEMENT DE LA NORMALITÉ ? RÉFLEXIONS SUR LA PRÉSIDENCE AMÉRICAINE ................................................ 15 François Vergniolle de Chantal Résumé ............................................................................................................................ 15 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 15 L’épuisement de la présidence moderne ? .................................................................. 17 Trump et le Congrès : l’épreuve de force .................................................................... 19 La polarisation de la présidence ................................................................................... 26 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 28 LE PARTI DÉMOCRATE À L’HEURE DE TRUMP : APRÈS LA RECONSTRUCTION, UN AVENIR INCERTAIN, MAIS PROMETTEUR ............ 31 Christophe Cloutier-Roy Résumé ............................................................................................................................. 31 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 31 Crise et occasion : le Parti démocrate de 2016 à 2018 ................................................ 33 Des élections de mi-mandat prolifiques pour les démocrates.................................. 36 Au-delà des résultats, que retenir de 2018 ? ................................................................ 40 Conclusion : au-delà de 2020, assistera-t-on à l’émergence d’une majorité démocrate à l’échelle des États-Unis ? ......................................................................... 44 DONALD TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY: EROSION OF NORMS AND LOSS OF LEADERSHIP .................................................................................................................. 47 Anne Deysine Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 47 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 47 The attack on both written and unwritten norms ...................................................... 48 Loss of leadership and soft power ................................................................................ 55 Soft power and bad example ......................................................................................... 60 Conclusion: the decline of Western values.................................................................. 62 TRUMP’S JUDGES AND THE THREAT TO DEMOCRACY .................................. 65 Caroline Fredrickson Abstract ............................................................................................................................. 65 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 65 Process Failures ............................................................................................................... 68 Impact on the Law .......................................................................................................... 71 INTRODUCTION Conclusion : Where does this leave us? ....................................................................... 73 L’ÉLECTORAT LATINO-AMÉRICAIN AU-DELÀ DU « GÉANT DORMANT » : DÉCONSTRUIRE LE MYTHE DU GROUPE UNI-IDENTITAIRE ET À un an des élections américaines de 2020, cette étude bilingue APOLITIQUE ................................................................................................................... 75 et interdisciplinaire a pour vocation d’apporter un éclairage sur Andréanne Bissonnette l’impact de trois années de présidence Trump sur les détermi- Résumé ............................................................................................................................. 75 nants intérieurs de la puissance américaine. Si le président Trump Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 75 ne cite guère Abraham Lincoln, le portrait que dressait ce der- Un électorat latino-américain ? Le mythe du bloc uni et démocrate ...................... 77 nier de l’Amérique peu avant son élection dans son célèbre dis- Entraves au droit de vote et facteurs de mobilisation politique .............................. 83 cours au Congrès sur « la Maison divisée1 » résonne aujourd’hui Vers 2020, les défis des partis et les obstacles qui persistent .................................... 89 comme une mise en garde aux responsables politiques améri- LE POPULISME RELIGIEUX DE L’ADMINISTRATION TRUMP ......................... 95 cains de 2019, déjà dans la course aux élections de 2020. Marie Gayte En 2016, Donald Trump a gagné l’élection présidentielle en Résumé ............................................................................................................................. 95 exploitant notamment la colère des électeurs et en exacerbant
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Conservative Pipeline to the Supreme Court
    The Conservative Pipeline to the Supreme Court April 17, 2017 By Jeffrey Toobin they once did. We have the tools now to do all the research. With the Federalist Society, Leonard Leo has reared a We know everything they’ve written. We know what they’ve generation of originalist élites. The selection of Neil Gorsuch is said. There are no surprises.” Gorsuch had committed no real just his latest achievement. gaffes, caused no blowups, and barely made any news— which was just how Leo had hoped the hearings would unfold. Leo has for many years been the executive vice-president of the Federalist Society, a nationwide organization of conservative lawyers, based in Washington. Leo served, in effect, as Trump’s subcontractor on the selection of Gorsuch, who was confirmed by a vote of 54–45, last week, after Republicans changed the Senate rules to forbid the use of filibusters. Leo’s role in the nomination capped a period of extraordinary influence for him and for the Federalist Society. During the Administration of George W. Bush, Leo also played a crucial part in the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Now that Gorsuch has been confirmed, Leo is responsible, to a considerable extent, for a third of the Supreme Court. Leo, who is fifty-one, has neither held government office nor taught in a law school. He has written little and has given few speeches. He is not, technically speaking, even a lobbyist. Leo is, rather, a convener and a networker, and he has met and cultivated almost every important Republican lawyer in more than a generation.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Amendment, the Public-Private Distinction, and Nongovernmental Suppression of Wartime Political Debate Gregory P
    Working Paper Series Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Year 2004 The First Amendment, The Public-Private Distinction, and Nongovernmental Suppression of Wartime Political Debate Gregory P. Magarian Villanova University School of Law, [email protected] This paper is posted at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/wps/art6 THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE PUBLIC -PRIVA TE DISTINCTION, AND NONGOVERNMENTAL SUPPRESSION OF WARTIME POLITICAL DEBATE 1 BY GREGORY P. MAGARIAN DRAFT 5-12-04 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 I. CONFRONTING NONGOVERNMENTAL CENSORSHIP OF POLITICAL DEBATE IN WARTIME .................. 5 A. The Value and Vulnerability of Wartime Political Debate ........................................................................... 5 1. The Historical Vulnerability of Wartime Political Debate to Nongovernmental Suppression ....................................................................... 5 2. The Public Rights Theory of Expressive Freedom and the Necessity of Robust Political Debate for Democratic Self -Government........................ 11 B. Nongovernmental Censorship of Political Speech During the “War on Terrorism” ............................................... 18 1. Misinformation and Suppression of Information by News Media ............................................ 19 2. Exclusions of Political Speakers from Privately Owned Public Spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Annual Report 2006
    � C�� ��� �� S� �� � �� � � � � � � � U I � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� F � �� �� R������ United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Annual Report 2006 Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom May 2006 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom 800 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 790 Washington, DC 20002 202-523-3240 202-523-5020 (fax) www.uscirf.gov United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Commissioners Michael Cromartie Chair Felice D. Gaer Nina Shea Vice Chairs Dr. Khaled M. Abou El Fadl Preeta D. Bansal Archbishop Charles J. Chaput Dr. Richard D. Land Dr. Elizabeth H. Prodromou Bishop Ricardo Ramirez John V. Hanford, III, ex officio Joseph R. Crapa Executive Director United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Staff Tad Stahnke, Deputy Director for Policy David Dettoni, Deputy Director for Outreach Christy Klaassen, Director of Government Affairs Anne Johnson, Director of Communications Mark Hetfield, Director of International Refugee Issues Carmelita Hines, Director of Administration Patricia Carley, Associate Director for Policy Angela Stephens, Assistant Communications Director Dwight N. Bashir, Senior Policy Analyst Robert Blitt, International Law Specialist Catherine Cosman, Senior Policy Analyst Deborah DuCre, Receptionist Scott Flipse, Senior Policy Analyst Mindy Larmore, East Asia Researcher Tiffany Lynch, Assistant to the Deputy Director for Policy Jacqueline A. Mitchell, Executive Assistant Tina Ramirez, Human Rights Researcher Allison Salyer, Legislative Assistant Stephen R. Snow, Senior Policy Analyst � C�� ��� �� S� �� � �� � � � � � � � U I � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� F � �� �� R������ United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Washington, DC, May 1, 2006 The President The White House Dear Mr. President: On behalf of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, I am transmitting to you the annual report, prepared in compliance with section 202(a)(2) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern
    ARIZONA SUPREME COURT BRUSH & NIB STUDIO, LC, et al., Supreme Court No. CV-18-0176-PR Plaintiffs/Appellants/ Cross-Appellees, Court of Appeals v. No. 1 CA-CV 16-0602 CITY OF PHOENIX, Maricopa County Superior Court Defendant/Appellee/ No. CV2016-052251 Cross-Appellant. All Parties Consent to Filing this Amicus Brief. AMENDED BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ETHICS & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY COMMISSION OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION, JEWISH COALITION FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, ARIZONA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE, ASSOCIATION FOR BIBLICAL HIGHER EDUCATION, ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS INTERNATIONAL, NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, CHRIST’S COMMUNITY CHURCH OF EL MIRAGE, COMPASSIONATE COUNSELORS, INC., AND CALVARY CHAPEL FARMINGTON IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS Of Counsel: Joshua Carden, SBN 021698 Michael K. Whitehead Joshua Carden Law Firm, P.C. Whitehead Law Firm LLC 16427 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 410 229 SE Douglas St. #210 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Lee’s Summit, MO 64063 (480) 454-1100 (816) 398-8967 [email protected] [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... ii IDENTITY AND INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT......................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................... 4 I. Business owners or workers who affirm man-woman marriage must
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Penal Reform, the Carceral State, and American Politics*
    Bring It On: The Future of Penal Reform, the Carceral State, and American Politics* Marie Gottschalk** Fifteen years ago, mass imprisonment was largely an invisible issue in the United States. Since then, criticism of the country’s extraordinary incarceration rate has become widespread across the political spectrum. The huge prison buildup of the past four decades has few ardent defenders at present. But reforms to reduce the number of people in jail and prison have been remarkably modest so far. Meanwhile, a tenacious carceral state has sprouted in the shadows of mass imprisonment and has been extending its reach far beyond the prison gate. It includes not only the country’s vast archipelago of jails and prisons, but also the far-reaching and growing range of penal punishments and controls that lie in the never-never land between the prison gate and full citizenship. As it sunders families and communities, and radically reworks conceptions of democracy, rights, and citizenship, the carceral state poses a formidable political and social challenge. The reach of the carceral state today is truly breathtaking. It extends well beyond the estimated 2.2 million people sitting in jail or prison today in the United States.1 It encompasses the more than 8 million people—or 1 in 23 adults―who are under some form of state control: including jail, prison, probation, parole, community sanctions, drug courts, immigrant detention, and other forms of government supervision.2 It also includes the millions of people who are booked into jail each year— nearly twelve million—and the estimated 7.5 percent of all adults who are felons or ex-felons.3 * This article is based on a revised and updated version of the concluding chapter of Marie Gottschalk, Caught: The Prison State and the Lockdown of American Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory to the Richard Land Papers AR
    1 Inventory to the Richard Land Papers AR 933 Dr. Richard Land commencing his work at the SBC Christian Life Commission, 1988 Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives November, 2014 2 Inventory to the Richard Land Papers AR 933 Summary Main Entry: Richard D. Land Papers Date Span: 1953 – 2014 Abstract: Materials documenting the work and ministry of Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, 1988-2013. Includes administrative files, correspondence, news stories (including blog archives, Commission press releases, Land interviews, and news clippings), photographs, subject files, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) files, writings and addresses, and recordings. Size: 104 linear ft. (208 document boxes) Collection #: AR 933 Biographical Sketch A sixth-generation Texan, Richard Dale Land was born November 6, 1946 in Houston, Texas. He spent his childhood and teenage years in Houston and was baptized in 1953 at South Park Baptist Church and was licensed to preach (1965) and later ordained (1969) at Townwood Baptist Church, both in Houston. Land graduated from Princeton University (A.B., 1969), New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (Th.M., 1972), and Oxford University (D.Phil., 1980). Upon completing his doctoral studies Land served as vice president for academic affairs at Criswell College in Dallas (1980-1988) and as administrative assistant to Governor Bill Clements of Texas (1987-1988). He served as president of the SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission from 1988 to 2013. Dr. Land moved the Commission to more conservative positions on social issues such as sanctity of life and homosexuality.
    [Show full text]
  • INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Southern Baptist Convention Makes Historic Move
    TM August 2012 Newsjournal of the Baptist Convention of Maryland/Delaware • www.baptistlifeonline.org INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Southern Baptist Convention makes historic move ...............8 SPECIAL SECTION: U.S. Elections ................................11-14 Dixon (above) reflects on NAAF leadership ........................15 Lessons Learned: Taking Gospel to schools IS legal ..........16 Christian Jail Ministry sets hearts free .........................18-19 PERSPECTIVE BY DAVID LEE Let’s make a difference s followers of Christ we Pray for them. Help meet financial needs. Loan them some of are taught to respond your leaders and members for a while to help them return to to the hurting people the critical mass necessary to revitalize their ministries. Share Aaround us. Our Lord possessed facilities with them. Encourage the pastor and his family. that kind of heart. Despite Partner with them in a Vacation Bible School, an outreach distractions and barriers, he ministry effort, a mission trip. continued to connect with To be successful the relationship must be mutual. Avoid those who needed him. paternalism. Journey together. Pray for one another. Serve one I want to challenge another. Give God the glory for the results. churches to expand their As we move forward in Great Commission effort, we are sensitivity to include hurting going to need each other more than ever before. The stronger of churches around them. Daily us should join hands with those who need help. Jesus reminded David Lee I see churches struggle. With all faithful stewards, “To whom much is given, much is BCM/D Executive someone to come alongside required!” Director them, many of these could start Interested? Want to share your blessings with another the journey back to health and church? Are you struggling and open to receiving help from impact.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sbjtforum: Retrospect and Prospect
    The SBJT Forum: Retrospect and Prospect Editor’s Note: Readers should be aware of the forum’s format. D. A. Carson, Paige Patterson, Mark Coppenger, Jerry A. Johnson, and Richard Land have been asked specifi c questions to which they have provided written responses. These writers are not responding to one another. The journal’s goal for the Forum is to provide signifi cant thinkers’ views on topics of interest without requiring lengthy articles from these heavily-committed individuals. Their answers are presented in an order that hopefully makes the forum read as much like a unifi ed presentation as possible. SBJT: As an outside observer, what com- denigrate the conservative resurgence in ments would you make on the conserva- the SBC. It is merely a way of reminding tive resurgence in the SBC during the ourselves that the preservation of the gos- last quarter-century? pel and the purifying of a denomination D. A. Carson: Doubtless I am an “outside are not unique phenomena: God’s grace observer” in the sense that I am not myself has been poured out in similar ways in the a member of a church belonging to the past, and will doubtless be poured out in SBC. On the other hand, I am an ordained similar ways in the future. Baptist minister, and have followed the (2) The lines that were drawn were resurgence reasonably closely, both in muddied from the start. On the conser- person and by scanning the histories that vative side, the most far-sighted leaders both sides have produced. The observa- understood that the fundamental issue tions that seem most pertinent include was the truthfulness and authority of the following: Scripture, but some voices tried to make (1) This resurgence is not unique.
    [Show full text]
  • June 4, 2018 the Honorable Mitch Mcconnell the Honorable Charles
    June 4, 2018 The Honorable Mitch McConnell The Honorable Charles Schumer United States Senate United States Senate S230 US Capitol S221 US Capitol Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Charles Grassley The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Senate Committee on the Judiciary Senate Committee on the Judiciary 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 152 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510 Dear Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Chairman Grassley, and Ranking Member Feinstein: The National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) writes to express its strong opposition to the nomination of Ryan Bounds to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Bounds lacks the necessary judgement to be a fair and effective judge. He failed to disclose his controversial writings to the Oregon bipartisan judicial selection committee authored during his time at Stanford University, which express hostility toward multiculturalism and diversity. Bounds’s articles often used derogatory language, advocated against academic sanctions for sexual assault perpetrators, and compared student protests against unfair business practices to an assault on the business. When asked by Senator Durbin during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing if he thought his writings from Stanford “express insensitive, intolerant, and disdaining views toward racial and ethnic minorities, campus sexual assault victims, and the LGBTQ community,” Bounds replied, ‘I do not believe so.” These writings and Bounds’s ideological views reveal strong biases that call into question his ability to judge issues and fairly apply the law. In addition to Bounds’s troubling omissions and hostile ideologies, moving forward with this nomination demonstrates a continued disregard for Senate traditions that exist to safeguard an independent judiciary.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Emily Jo Wharry HIST 490 Dec. 10, 2019 Student Club to Supreme Court: the Federalist Society's Origins on Law School Campuses
    1 Emily Jo Wharry HIST 490 Dec. 10, 2019 Student Club to Supreme Court: The Federalist Society's Origins on Law School Campuses Following the election of President George W. Bush in January 2000, a 35-year-old Brett M. Kavanaugh joined the new White House legal team, taking a position as an associate counsel to the president.1 A couple of months into the job, Kavanaugh came across a news article about his past that frustrated him. The article described him as still being an active member of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, a national organization of lawyers, judges, law school students, and professors who advocate for conservative legal doctrine and originalist interpretations of the United States Constitution. Worrying over this misreported detail, Kavanaugh wrote an email to his White House colleagues in which he assured them of the article's inaccuracy: "this may seem technical, but most of us resigned from the Federalist Society before starting work here and are not now members of the Federalist Society." Kavanaugh continued, "the reason I (and others) resigned from Fed society was precisely because I did not want anyone to be able to say that I had an ongoing relationship with any group that has a strong interest in the work of this office."2 Nineteen years later, in November 2019, the Federalist Society hosted its sold-out annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. Kavanaugh, no 1 Scott Shane et al., “Influential Judge, Loyal Friend, Conservative Warrior — and D.C. Insider,” The New York Times, July 14, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/us/politics/judge-brett-kavanaugh.html.
    [Show full text]
  • 13 Troubling Judicial Nominees You Missed This Year by Tony Hanna and Abbey Meller December 20, 2018
    13 Troubling Judicial Nominees You Missed This Year By Tony Hanna and Abbey Meller December 20, 2018 The bitter nomination process involving now-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which culminated in a contested confirmation vote on October 6, brought the importance of the federal judiciary to the forefront of American politi- cal consciousness. Around the country, tens of thousands of people rallied to protest the influence and effects of the judicial system on issues affecting everyone: health care reproductive rights, civil rights, disability justice, gun violence prevention, and more.1 Although Senate Republican leaders worked hard to shield Kavanaugh’s record from public oversight, hundreds of brave people risked arrest to protest both outside and inside Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing and, later, at the sham hear- ing2 to investigate the legitimate claim of sexual assault made against Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford. Yet, while concerned citizens were rightfully paying attention to the important debate taking place over the future of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump administration and its allies in the Senate were also busy reshaping the lower federal courts. This year, the Senate confirmed a record 65 lower court judges3 to lifetime seats on the federal judiciary. An additional 67 judicial nominees are currently pending Senate action;4 the Senate could still vote on these nominations before the end of the year. In short, the Trump administration and its allies in the Senate are working at a breakneck pace to turn the federal courts into a hyper-conservative body that will implement a partisan political agenda from the bench.
    [Show full text]
  • ISSUE BRIEF No
    ISSUE BRIEF No. 4858 | MAY 24, 2018 Blue Slips for Judicial Nominations: Veto vs. Input Thomas Jipping our nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals have then-Senator Joseph Biden (D–DE; 1987–1994). He Fbecome controversial because of an important, will hold a hearing for nominees if the White House but often misunderstood, feature of the judicial con- has adequately consulted with home-state Senators. firmation process. That feature, called the “blue-slip” courtesy, highlights the views of Senators from a state The Nominees in which a judicial nominee would serve. A dispute has Four of President Donald Trump’s nominees to arisen regarding whether the views of those home-state the U.S. Court of Appeals have become controversial Senators should dictate, or merely influence, whether because one or both of their home-state Senators have the Senate considers these nominees. More specifi- declined to return a blue slip.2 Chairman Grassley cally, the question is whether a negative or withheld decided to hold a hearing for each of them after being blue slip should be treated as a veto or as input. Any satisfied that those Senators had been adequately means of highlighting the views of home-state Senators consulted, and three have so far been confirmed. about judicial nominees is a courtesy and not required David Stras (Eighth Circuit). President Trump by any Senate rule. Each Judiciary Committee chair- first nominated Stras to the Eighth Circuit on May man, therefore, is free to decide whether, and how, to 8, 2017. Stras had served on the Minnesota Supreme incorporate those views into the confirmation process.
    [Show full text]