Trump to inherit more than 100 court vacancies, plans to reshape judiciary


Donald Trump is set to inherit an uncommon number of vacancies in the federal courts in addition to the open Supreme Court seat, giving the president-elect a monumental opportunity to reshape the judiciary after taking office.

The estimated 103 judicial vacancies that President Obama is expected to hand over to Trump in the Jan. 20 transition of power is nearly double the 54 openings Obama found eight years ago following George W. Bush’s presidency…

…Trump’s older sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, is a senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. First appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, Barry was later elevated to the circuit court by President Bill Clinton and is known for her relative moderation. She has spoken out against women’s claims of sexual harassment yet also struck down a New Jersey law banning late-term abortions as unconstitutional…

…Despite Obama’s difficulty winning confirmation for his nominees, the Senate has confirmed more of his nominees during his eight years as president, 329, than it did Bush’s during his eight years in office, 326…

…Obama has used his nominations to systematically diversify the federal courts to look more like the fast-changing country. He appointed far more female and minority judges than any other president in history, and he has paid particular attention to sexual orientation. When Obama took office, there was only one openly gay or lesbian judge, and he appointed 11 more.

“The president, my predecessors and I spent a significant amount of time looking for all different kinds of diversity — racial, sexual orientation, gender and professional background,” Eggleston said.



Good. The left has long used the judiciary to advance their ideology. With over 100 vacancies, the time is right to block one of their main points of access.


Since Obama approved over 300 positions, it’s red herring to focus on this starting number. All each president can do is affect the tilt a bit. Plaintiffs still have many liberal courts that will hear their cases to seek changing precedents.


Trump has vowed to choose ideologues in the mold of the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon — a prospect that has activists on the right giddy.

Something to note here. Both Scalia and Trump seem to favor the 10th Amendment, which means having to dismiss cases that rightfully belong in state courts. Are all those who call themselves conservative activists willing to abide by this? I’m not too sure.


Most certainly!

One of the most shameless things liberal activists do is circumvent the process by getting the courts to invent constitutional rights that are not found in the US Constitution. Conservatives by a large reject that methodology.


It would be great, for once, if we could get some judges who understand the Constitution isn’t full of made-up rights and who are pro-life.


That’s probably the best bet. Even Ted Cruz thinks along these lines. The obvious exception may be abortion.

Aside from that, there are good arguments that the federal government should not be legislating morality. It just doesn’t work, certainly not in this culture.


:thumbsup: Abortion is not a constitutional right.


Yet they have no problem if SCOTUS decides state elections such as in 2000, among other rulings. That is why I have doubts, especially if they call themselves “activists.”


Yet the supposedly conservative court of 1973 ruled otherwise.


The problem arises because you are relying upon falsehoods to form your opinions. SCOTUS did not decide the election in 2000. That you believe this lie shows the problem with your doubts.


They overrode the Florida Supreme Court ruling. That is a fact and more to the point.


Yes, because the Florida Supreme Court was ignoring Florida state law. Blatantly. All in an attempt to manufacture enough votes to change the legal outcome.

The USSC decided that the Florida SC must follow Florida state law and cannot change election law by judicial fiat.

The USSC did NOT decide the election. Stating such is a falsehood.


What, by having difficulty determining the intentions of the ambiguous votes? The US Constitution already provides a remedy in case neither candidate reaches 270 electoral votes.


Well, Reid and the dems getting rid of the filibuster for lower court appointments certainly sped up the process for getting the lower court nominees through the system. Which means Trumps choices should flow through similarly to Obama’s.


I do not assume that the GOP will follow along en mass. Some interesting partnerships are very possible, IMHO.


Please expand on this comment, perhaps an example where conservatives don’t want states to retain their constitutional control.


State law was clear about how any recounts or issues should be handled. Democrats in various counties were changing how they were counting votes by the hour, and the FLSC was allowing recounts only in heavily democratic counties. These are all blatant violations of state election law.

Florida had a fair, free election, with a very close result. But one candidate did win, legally. And as such he won the electors for the state. The US constitutional provisions for neither candidate reaching 270 were never in play, as one candidate did reach 270.

It is a falsehood to keep claiming that the USSC decided the 2000 election.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit